battering ram

Homosexual ‘Equality’ is Just Repackaged Tyranny

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

Transcendent truth, which is God’s law, does not change and will never change. It is revealed by God in the Bible and is written on the hearts of men. We call it “conscience.” People can bury this fundamental knowledge of right and wrong and the awareness through observing creation that God exists, but at some deep level they still know it. So it is with homosexual behavior. God has called it an abomination, a sin. Men have called it the infamous crime against nature. People are naturally, inherently repulsed by it. These timeless truths are not limited to a time in history. They are not outdated, as members of the radical homosexual movement would have you believe when they declare that support for homosexual “rights” equates to moving into the 21st century.

Those of us who are willing to speak out against the demonic homosexual movement have been warning you for many years that the God-given rights of those opposed to the mainstreaming of homosexuality cannot coexist with this movement. The fraud of homosexual “rights” and the genuine rights of Christians and others opposed to homosexuality are mutually exclusive, and one must give way to the other, period.

I have also warned you that at its core, this hellish movement is not about homosexuals simply wanting the “right” to “marry” or any of the other fallacious claims to unattainable “equality” they demand for their perverse sexual behavior. No. At its heart, this movement, born of Hell, is about Satan’s tyrannical desire to crush Christianity. Even though it is playing out in the physical realm, this is a spiritual battle between satanic forces and the forces of Jesus, Who is the only Way to God the Father, and He is deeply hated by Satan. This is why I keep saying that the militant homosexual movement’s chief targets are Christianity and the rights of the followers of Christ, whether the human pawns of the movement realize it or not.

This is a fascistic movement, meaning that its adherents employ authoritarian, militaristic tactics to push their radical agenda, which is just a “new” version of age-old tyranny. They use lying propaganda, intimidation and threats of targeting, boycotts and lawsuits to persuade people or to cow them into silence. Homosexual activists have been very successful in gaining the submission of leaders in corporate America, and they are even succeeding in swaying some churches to sign on in support of special “rights” for sodomites. The fact that far too many Christian pastors have remained silent in the face of this quickly spreading movement does not bode well for churches in America. Silence in the face of evil allows evil to easily flourish, and if Christians are afraid to speak out against the radical homosexual movement, then who will stand against it?

For an answer to what lies in store for America if Christians and church leaders don’t push back strongly against the militant sodomite activists, we can look to Denmark. On June 7th, the U.K. Telegraph reported:

The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

Denmark’s church minister, Manu Sareen, called the vote “historic”.

“I think it’s very important to give all members of the church the possibility to get married. Today, it’s only heterosexual couples.”

Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.

The far-Right Danish People’s Party mounted a strong campaign against the new law, which nonetheless passed with the support of 85 of the country’s 111 MPs.

For those who say that could never happen in the United States, I say don’t fool yourself. If homosexual “marriage” becomes the bad law of the land, it is only a matter of time before all religious exemptions in participation will be eliminated under the guise of “non-discrimination” laws, and principled churches will not be spared. Don’t doubt it for a minute. This is their goal, and they will not stop until they succeed or are stopped.

Mission America’s Linda Harvey agrees. In her June 10th column, “More ‘Gay Pride’ Means Less Freedom,” she writes:

Those with discernment can clearly see what is happening as homosexuals keep pushing the boundaries and “parade their sin like Sodom” (Isaiah 3:9). Their alleged freedom means loss of liberty for you and me.

You’d think they could share the love, but no. Homosexual leaders now declare they will not support religious exemptions in “non-discrimination” bills, like the federal ENDA that would equate homosexuals with bona fide protected classes for the purposes of employment, housing and public accommodations. Recall the Human Rights Campaign’s reaction to religious freedom bills in Arizona and elsewhere: Such bills are a “license to discriminate.” The fact that Americans have had religious freedom since 1791 or so makes no difference to HRC, apparently.

… Consider the entire Isaiah 3:9 passage: “The look on their faces testifies against them; they parade their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it. Woe to them! They have brought disaster upon themselves.” If we wanted to truly help these people, we would prevent them from wallowing in this lifestyle.

At the same time, this movement is causing collateral damage in America. Are we willing to open our eyes and see where this is going? More pride means less freedom for Christians. That means loss of virtue and a farewell to America’s soul.

Isn’t it time for America to stop the parade?

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

  • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

    So, seriously, what are you going to do about it?

    • L1011

      I have a hunch that there is a grand plan in the works. I think the Christofascists are going to start putting out more and more of these kinds of articles, and as more states adopt gay marriage, their language will get more and more extreme. And the gay rights battle is just one battle in a much larger culture war. I can see conservatives electing people to public office that quite literally want the bible to be law – including stoning and public hanging and flogging; and these nuts are going to pull the GOP even farther right, thus making sane centrists look like liberal extremists. And I think the day is approaching when someone (most likely a conservative in a militia) will misinterpret some radical news article about the left (like the Cliven Bundy fiasco), and will fire the first shots thus starting what many on the right have been calling for – a modern revolution. They will say “We didn’t want it to come to this, but you forced us. And if we win this war, the bible WILL be the law, The Christian god will be the only god worshipped in America, and Christianity will be Americas official religion – and the Constitution will be amended as such.” It’s just uncertain how many of these people there are, and then from that group, how many would get involved in a shooting war knowing the government would lower the boom on them. I do think most people with this kind of mindset tend to be much older, less educated, and more rural. If Operation American Spring, Truckers for America, and May Day 2010 is any kind of indication, then we have nothing to much to worry about other than some possible small religiously motivated acts of terror, i.e. maybe a few gay bar bombings, a mass shooting at a gay wedding, etc. But these acts of terror wouldn’t necessarily spark a civil war, especially if the government response was swift and brutal. For now, I don’t think we have to worry about these people yet. They aren’t calling for our executions or for a bloody overthrow of the government yet – at least not with the manpower to back it up.

      • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

        You could definitely use some paragraph breaks! I disagree that there’s a “grand plan” in the works. I do feel that this website in particular is whipping its followers into such a frenzy that some kind of disaster seems inevitable. The rhetoric is so extreme!

        • Steven Schwartz

          Welcome to stochastic terrorism.

          • MDB

            …the new “Violence for Christ” campaign.

          • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

            Right!

        • L1011

          I took care of it.

          • http://sparklepony.blogspot.com peteykins

            It really does help!

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        The book’s already been written. Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale, I believe. Utter drivel, but you’d enjoy it.

        • L1011

          Yes, I’m aware of it, it could turn out to be as prophetic, if not more so, than your bible.

      • vorpal

        This is what I actually fear will likely happen as well, and why the only American state I will even consider living in is Hawaii.

  • thisoldspouse

    Gina, you’ve really stirred up a hornet’s nest with this one, because it contains much truth.

    Get ready for a steady stream of filth and personal attacks from people who refuse to address the ideas in your piece.

    • Gareth Willis

      What ideas were those exactly? Gina’s argument is predicated entirely on the premise that the Christian God is real and the Bible is the only authority we should accept. I don’t accept that as a valid argument because it’s unprovable. So what ‘ideas’ does she have left for justifying her dislike of homosexuals?

      • MDB

        She backs up her ideas and arguments with tripe from Linda Harvey. Laughable, just laughable.

        • Cheyenne W.

          Yes, because every “good” article always cites Harvey and Fischer, et al.

        • vorpal

          I can generally muster up something good to say about almost anyone, even Bryan Fischer; however, Linda Harvey is, in my mind, one of the most despicable and truly evil people alive today, and deserves nothing but the utmost contempt for her attempts to cause the maximal harm that she can manage to gay male youths.

    • Cheyenne W.

      Morning Spouser, how is everything today? In case you wondered, the gay agenda today involves going to get 150 bales of hay since the weather here is not going to allow me to cut any… And the horses have to eat. Just don’t ask how I got roped into that…

      • MDB

        My ‘big evil gay agenda’ for today is getting the car serviced and doing laundry. I feel so “spayshull”

        • Cheyenne W.

          Better watch out lest you cause some hellfire and brimstone to fall with that one. I’ll check the weather forecast again.

          • MDB

            Well, we have had 15 tornadoes in NM over the past week, only one caused some real damage. Whomever we put in charge of tornadoes has terrible aim.

          • vorpal

            When Canada finally legalized SSM, I wondered if I should invest in some brimstone-proof-certified plate mail to go about my daily duties.

      • garybryson

        Hay has become a bad word in Texas. Getting hard to get due to drought. Dontcha love throwin bales? LOL!

        • Cheyenne W.

          I despise it…

      • vorpal

        My big gay agenda of the weekend is getting my new Chilean house ready for the arrival of hubby and our other three cats (from Canada) next weekend, and to otherwise laze about with our one kitty (from Hawaii – the one in my avatar) that’s already here with me, eating good food and playing video games.

    • WXRGina

      Right, Spouse. Raw Truth rubs Truth-haters raw.

      • vorpal

        Find some truth, and let’s see if I’m a truth-hater!

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          HAVE YOU NOTICED THEY SELDOM DO THINGS LIKE THAT?

          FYI, IN 1964., I GOT A NICK NAME DUE MY ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH

    • vorpal

      Oh, spouse, you never fail to amuse! You wouldn’t know truth if it came and bit you on the keester.

  • Gareth Willis

    Without appealing to whatever some fictional, tribal deity of bronze age mythology might or might not have said, can somebody please tell me why I, or anyone else, should care what consenting adults get up to in their own bedrooms, or give a **** if they want to marry each other?

    • vorpal

      There’s no need to exaggerate and be nasty: Christianity is an iron age mythology, I believe.

  • L1011

    Can any of these Christofascists present concrete and conclusive evidence for (1) a god, (2) god is the Christian god, (3) and that god is anti-homosexuality if he can be proven to exist? My guess is no. But you know what does exist? Gay people…they are real, living here on this planet. Nobody says everyone has to agree with the gay lifestyle, but everyone doesn’t have to agree with the Christian lifestyle either. And until humanity receives undeniable and verifiable proof that a god exists, and he is anti-gay, then gay people have as much right to live their lives, with equal rights, as the rest of America.

    • Cheyenne W.

      Rational evidence is not their strong point. I am pretty sure you know this by now though. We have the Constitution and rational evidence, they have, wait for it, circular arguments that are 2,000+ years old. If it were up to these people, gays would get stoned, blacks would still be in slavery, and husbands would legally own their wives. Two of the previous three have changed and yet the world still spins. They cannot grasp that SSM will be legal within 2 years nationwide and that the sky won’t fall…

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        Actually, Christianity is thoroughly evidential. it’s based on a real-time miraculous event, the resurrection of Jesus, that is attested to by hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Jesus. Would you be interested in looking at the evidence that God exists, and communicated to us through the Bible?

        Regarding your other points, Christianity has never embraced the stoning of homosexuals, shellfish bans, and so forth, because we believe Jesus fulfilled those laws on the cross. I guess I’ll have to write an article explaining the difference between the moral, civll and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. Christianity never condoned slavery, and Christians in England and America are responsible for eradicating the slave trade and freeing the slaves (led by William Wilberforce — see the movie Amazing Grace — and the church-based abolition movement, which created a political party, the GOP, to eliminate slavery. And Christianity was a great liberator of women from the pagan days when they really were the property of their husbands, a sorry state of affairs still prevalent under Islam.

        • marlene

          thanks you, mr. fitzpatrick. absolutely true and well written. i notice that most, if not all, snide comments challenging christianity come from the ignorance of those who have not read the bible and from those who have but were not given God’s ability to discern because He knows their heart.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks, Marlene. I know that God will rescue some of these people. Please pray for them.

        • Steven Schwartz

          that is attested to by hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Jesus

          We’ve had this discussion. We don’t have hundreds of attestations. We have a few people claiming that they have hundreds of attestations, who then refer back to each other for validation.

          Anyone who’s studied the development of myths and urban legends could tell you how much weight we can place on the kind of testimony we have; and the answer is, it’s not great; certainly not enough to believe a unique historical event happened.

          . I guess I’ll have to write an article explaining the difference between the moral, civil and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament.

          Please do; I have never seen an explication of this distinction that had any more solid basis than “We think these laws should still apply, while these laws shouldn’t.”

          For example, the Levitical explications against same-sex behavior are in the same textual chunks as the ritual purity laws; and I have never seen a Christian mikva.

          Christianity never condoned slavery

          Then why did slavery continue under Christian rulers? Abstracting away some notional “Christianity” away from actual Christians practicing their faith is a fine way of rendering your faith both immune to criticism and irrelevant; I don’t *care* what some notional theoretical “Christianity” teaches if those teachings are so dependent on what people *do*.

          If you’d asked many Southern Christians before the civil war, they would have argued, just as many Southern Christians argue now, that X was biblically justified — all that has changed is that X used to be “slavery”, and now it is “anti-gay laws”. So — why should we believe Christians now, when you disavow what previous Christians said?

          The Bible commands husbands to love their wives, not to lord it over them.

          And in the text it commands them to submit to their husbands. Also, it *removed* divorce rights women held under Judaic practice, so calling it a “liberator” is rather ludicrous.

          • MDB

            Oh Steven you have unleashed the monster. Now we will get 15 page-long commentaries and arguments about how wonderful everything is, and True Christians @…….I think he has these saved in macros somewhere.

          • Steven Schwartz

            He and I have gone back and forth on this already. We can continue. I view theology as a contact sport.

          • MDB

            I completely understand. But I won’t play with him anymore, because the rules he wants to use for the game are tainted.
            (make sure you stay hydrated)

          • Steven Schwartz

            I was raised in a school of rhetoric that values winning by your opponent’s rules; because if *they* state the axioms and still lose, they cannot then deny their defeat.

            Failing that, I wish to drill down to the axioms; that way, people can look at them and draw their own judgments.

          • MDB

            I know.,.I have followed some of your other debates. I appreciate your diligence and patience, as I have little of either lately. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -ACD

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev 20: 15, 16.

          • vorpal

            Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1 (道德經,第一章)

            The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao
            The name that can be named is not the eternal name
            The nameless is the origin of heaven and earth
            The named is the origin of ten thousand things
            When desireless, one can see the mystery
            With desire, one can see the manifestations.
            These two arise from the same source, but differ in name.
            This appears as darkness: darkness within darkness.
            The gate to all mystery.

          • vorpal

            (I should point out that as a four year highly motivated student of Mandarin and traditional Chinese characters – who has been lax in the last year, unfortunately, and some of my Chinese has slipped as a result – and a novice student of classical Chinese, these translations are largely from the Jane English and 馮家福 translations with my own translational details thrown in for good measure. As a student of both philosophical Taoism and classical Chinese, my goal is to be able to fully read 道德經 without a companion translation, which is going surprisingly quickly!)

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I view theology as a window into the infinite, endlessly fascinating and satisfying.

          • Steven Schwartz

            The two are not mutually exclusive. ;)

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            True. Football can be fascinating and satisfying as well.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            And still wrong, mind you.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks, MDB, you’ve put a smile on my face. I haven’t been called a “monster” since I played the “monster’ linebacker in our 5-2 Monster defense in high school. Also, the macros are a good idea.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. 1 Timothy 1:9,10.

          • MDB

            Good grief Ray…just STFU already.

          • L1011

            Ray, you’re not really contributing man, just spewing random bible verses at people.

          • vorpal

            Tao Te Ching, Chapter 2 (道德經,第二章)

            Under heaven, all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
            Under heaven, all can know good as good only because there is evil.

            Therefore having and not having arise together;
            Difficult and easy complement each other;
            Long and short define each other:
            High and low rest upon each other;
            Front and back follow one another.

            Thus the sage acts without doing anything,
            And teaches without saying anything.
            Things arise, and he lets them come,
            And disappear, and he lets them go.
            He has, but doesn’t possess.
            He acts, but doesn’t expect.
            Work is done, then forgotten:

            Therefore it lasts forever.

            道德經, 第二章 (Original text)

            天下皆知美之為美,斯惡矣。皆知善之為善,斯不善矣。
            有無相生,難易相成,長短相形,高下相傾,音聲相和,前後相隨。
            是以聖人處無為之事,行不言之教。
            萬物作焉而不為始,生而不有,為而不恃,功成而不居。
            夫唯不居,是以不去。

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Yes, we’ve had this discussion, so I’m a bit surprised that you’re raising this objection. Only half a dozen or so eyewitnesses that we know of wrote down their experience. Other accounts may have existed and been lost to history. But it’s a safe bet that hundreds of people were attesting to what they personally witnessed during the first century, or Paul wouldn’t have confidently invited his readers to confirm his testimony by checking with those of the 500 eyewitnesses still living.

            Regarding slavery, I have been a Southern Christian for 27 years now, and I have never heard any Christian attempt to justify slavery on Biblical grounds, or any other grounds, for that matter. The Biblical arguments used in the 1700s and 1800s were exceedingly weak, mere Scripture twisting intended to justify the era’s sinful social and economic practice. Not unlike Matthew Vines today.

            Slavery has prevailed throughout human history. The Hebrew Bible records the practice of slavery and attempts to regulate it in one or two places, and the New Testament gave one or two principles for how to live under it at a time when half the people in the Roman Empire were slaves. Only under the direct influence of Christianity has the practice of slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade been extinguished. Still, the purpose of Christianity is not to perfect human society, but to provide a way for people to be forgiven for their sins.

            Regarding women, you’ll notice I specified “pagan” societies. Only a tiny fraction of human beings are Jews. Also, Christianity explicitly teaches that women should be valued and respected, and right from the beginning, afforded women a much greater leadership role in the church than they ever enjoyed in ancient Israel. Jesus chose to make his first post-resurrection appearance to women.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Only half a dozen or so eyewitnesses that we know of wrote down their experience. Other accounts may have existed and been lost to history.

            Or they may not have. And there is *dispute* about those eyewitness accounts.

            So we *may* have had hundreds of eyewitnesses. Or we may have *no* eyewitness testimony.

            or Paul wouldn’t have confidently invited his readers to confirm his testimony by checking with those of the 500 eyewitnesses still living.

            You clearly have *not* studied how urban legends and myths build and spread. It is not uncommon for people to claim to have seen, or know someone who has seen, or know many people who…

            And remember — Paul had every reason to exaggerate to strengthen his rhetorical position.

            The Biblical arguments used in the 1700s and 1800s were exceedingly weak, mere Scripture twisting intended to justify the era’s sinful social and economic practice.

            And how can we know that Christians in the 2100s won’t be saying “Oh, the arguments used in the 2000s against gay marriage were exceedingly weak, mere Scripture twisting…”

            The answer is, we don’t. What is “true Christian belief” has been edited so many times throughout the years that to anyone looking at it from the outside, any claim to credibility and consistency is long shot.

            Only under the direct influence of Christianity has the practice of slavery and the trans-Atlantic slave trade been extinguished.

            Actually, Christianity supported serfdom for a very long time — and “slavery” per se did not exist in several other parts of the world.

            You are once again committing the fallacy of attributing everything good in European culture to Christianity, while denying that it had any part in the bad. To an outside observer, the Renaissance and Enlightenment, both movements that the existing Church heirarchies and structures *opposed* in not insignificant ways, were much more important in the development of some of the views you now try and claim for “Christian”.

            Regarding women, you’ll notice I specified “pagan” societies.

            I did. And I pointed out that Christian women took several steps *backwards* from their rights under Judaism. Claiming that Christianity did so much better than the pagans — (let us compare the position of women under the Celts and under the Christian Britons) — and spread that freedom is a sign that Christians had more military power, not some blessed and wonderful moral authority.

            Until you come to realize that it is not historically reasonable to assert “All the good stuff came from Christianity, all the bad stuff from somewhere else, therefore Christianity is good”, your historical analysis will be flawed.

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          REALLY? YOU WERE THERE AND SAW IT?

          DID YOU SEE THE ONES WHERE OTHER “SAVORS” WERE KILLED AND RESURRECTED THREE DAYS LATER?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            HEY BRIAN, TOTAL BS

            WHILE THERE ARE ACCOUNTS WRITTEN BY THOSE LIVING IN THE AREA AND AT THE TIME OF THIS SUPPOSED “MIRACLE” THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE SECULAR ACTUAL WITNESS WHO WAS SUPPOSEDLY A WITNESS AND THEN WROTE AN ACCOUNT OF IT!

            THERE IS NO SECULAR PROOF IT EVER HAPPENED OR THAT JC WAS A REAL ACTUAL PERSON!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Do any of those accounts boast of numerous eyewitnesses writing twenty years or less after the event?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            FIRST IT IS NOT THE POINT, THE POINT BEING SUCH THINGS WERE BELIEVED BY THOSE IN RELIGIONS WHICH EXISTED BEFORE THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
            THINGS LIKE THAT AND VIRGIN BIRTHS WERE COMMON

            SECOND, WHAT “REPORTER” WHO WAS THERE AND WITNESSES IT WROTE ABOUT JC?

            NONE IS THE ANWER

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Let’s see — after his resurrection Jesus made about 40 appearances to a total of at least 500 people. Matthew and John, both eyewitnesses, recorded what they saw in their gospels. We don’t know whether Mark was an eyewitness, but he wrote under the direction of Peter, who certainly was an eyewitness. Luke was probably not an eyewitness, but he interviewed eyewitnesses, and wrote under the direction of Paul, who was an eyewitness. Luke’s gospel must have been written within twenty or thirty years of Jesus’s crucifixion, because it is referred to by Peter as Scripture, and Peter died approximately thirty years after Jesus.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU ARE QUOTING BIBLE CHARACTERS AS PROOF?

            THAT WOULD BE LIKE, DURING THE COLD WAR, BELIEVING WHAT PRAVDA SAID THE USSR WAS DOING!

            GIVE ME A BREAK!

            THEY ARE NOT UNBIASED SECULAR OBSERVERS AND DO NOT COUNT!

            AGAIN NO PERSON LIVING AT THE TIME WHO WAS KNOWN FOR REPORTING ON THE NEWS OF THE DAY EVER RECORDED ONE WORD ABOUT IT.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You’re simply wrong on both factual and logical grounds. Factually, because there were contemporary accounts of by eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus, as I listed above; and logically, because it makes no sense to reject people’s testimonies just because they believed what they were writing about. Aren’t those the type of people whose accounts you ought to accept?

            Think about it this way. You’re demanding an account of the resurrected Jesus from an eyewitness who did not believe Jesus was resurrected. That’s logically impossible. Anybody who witnessed the resurrected Jesus would be a believer in the resurrection by definition.

            One more historical fact: something amazing must have happened in 34 AD, because something transformed a handful of defeated Galilean fishermen into an indomitable crew that took their message throughout the known world, and almost to a man, died for preaching that message. They said it was because they saw Jesus of Nazareth raised from the dead. Do you have a better explanation?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU SAY e contemporary accounts of by eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus,

            ONLY PROGRAMED CHRISTIANS, AND PERHAPS SOME OTHERS WHO MUST BE BOTH LOGICALLY FACTUALLY CHALLENGED WOULD BELIEVE THE ACCOUNTS YOU REFERENCE.

            NOT ONLY DO SOME TO MANY OF THE CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS KNOW THEIR TESTIMONY IS NOT PROOF, SO DO MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS

            AS FAR AS WHAT HAPPENED IN A TIME OF NO RADIOS, NO TV AND NO NEWSPAPERS THIRTY FOUR YEARS AFTER J.C.’S SUPPOSED DEATH AND RESURRECTION ARE OF NO INTEREST ME. I DO NOT CARE WHAT HAPPENED OR WHY IT HAPPENED.

            WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT IS THE ACTIONS OF THE CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST, BEATING, TORTURING AND KILLING ATHEISTS FOR OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Do you accept responsibility for the murders of millions of Christians by atheistic regimes since 1917?

            But that’s a side issue. I think you should engage with the evidence about the resurrection yourself, rather than hide behind the skirts of people who say what you already agree with.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            DO YOU ACCEPT THE FACT IT WAS CHRISTIANS WHO TORTURED AND MURDERED MOSTLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN DURING THE INQUISITION?

            OR FOR AROUND A HUNDRED YEARS YOU CHRISTIANS KILLED EACH OTHER BY THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS? IN FACT THE ODDS ARE YOU MAY HAVE BEEN KILLING THOSE IN YOUR OWN FAMILY HAD YOU B BEEN ALIVE THEN

            YOU ACCEPT THE FACT HITLER WAS A CATHOLIC, WAS SUPPORTED BY CATHOLICS AND WAS NEVER EXCOMMUNICATE BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THAN NEARLY ALL OF THOSE IN THE GERMAN AND ITALIAN MILITARY WERE CATHOLICS OR LUTHERANS?

            DO YOU ACCEPT THE FACT IT WAS CHRISTIANS WHO HELD WITCH TRIALS WHICH KILLED ALL KINDS OF INNOCENT WOMEN AND GIRLS?

            DO YOU ACCEPT THE FACT IT WAS CHRISTIANS WHO ATTEMPTED TO “WITCH TRIAL” AN ATHEIST FAMILY IN OKA. IN 2006 WITH PERJURED TESTIMONY?

            DO YOU ACCEPT IT WAS A CHRISTIAN WHO BOMBED THE FED. BUILDING IN OK. CITY?

            AND ANOTHER CHRISTIAN WHO BOMBED THE OLYMPICS IN ATLANTA, GA?

            LAST AND AGAIN

            A “SAVIOR” BEING KILLED & THEN RESURRECTED WAS A COMMON THEME IN MANY RELIGIONS.

            AND YOU HAVE NO, ZERO SECULAR PROOF THE DEATH OF JC AND HIS RESURRECTION EVER HAPPENED!

            THUS I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE ANY MORE TIME ARGUING WITH A PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOT LIKE YOU ABOUT IT!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Hitler was born a Catholic, but he repudiated the faith as totally as I did, as did the rest of the Nazi leadership. They promoted ancient Germanic war god mythology, which no genuine Christian would do, but in private they were socialists and atheists.

            I’ve provided evidence of eyewitness accounts of the resurrection, but you deny them because they were written by believers. It’s pretty difficult to witness the resurrected Jesus and not believe, as I pointed out.

            You proceed with a list of horrors perpetrated supposedly by Christians, presumably to make yourself feel better about rejecting Christianity, but you ignore the fact that your fellow atheists have committed atrocities hundreds and thousands of times more horrible.

            What is it about atheism that makes people disrespect human life, and murder human beings as if they were swatting mosquitoes?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            NO, HITLER DID NOT., HE DIED A CATHOLIC!
            YOU NEED TO STUDY HISTORY!

            YOU CAN PROVIDE NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS MADE BY THOSE WHO WERE KNOWN FOR REPORTING THE NEWS OF THE DAY AS THEY DO NOT EXIST.

            ATHEISTS DO NOT HAVE A BOOK WHICH TELLS THEM
            TO “NOT KILL” TWO TIMES AND “TO KILL” TWENTY EIGHT TIMES!!!

            THE FACTS ARE WHILE OPEN ATHEISTS MAKE UP AROUND FIVE PERCENT OF THE US POPULATION, THEY ARE ONLY .07 PERCENT OF THOSE IN US PRISONS.

            THE OTHER 99.93 PERCENT OF THOSE IN US PRISONS ARE “GOD BELIEVERS”

            AND SOME 75 PERCENT OF THEM ARE CHRISTIANS!

            IT IS NOT ATHEISTS WHO GO AROUND THE US BEATING AND KILLING HOMOSEXUALS AND ATHEISTS, IT WAS NOT ATHEISTS WHO BLEW UP GAY BARS, HEALTH CLINICS & THE OLYMPICS!

            NOPE IT IS CHRISTIANS WHO DO THOSE THINGS

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Come on, Neil. Ever heard of the Soviet Union? Red China? Nazi Germany, which specifically repudiated Christianity? Cambodia under Pol Pot? Romania under Ceaucescu? North Korea? Vietnam? All atheistic, and collectively responsible for at least a hundred million murders, probably many more.

            Face the facts: in the past 200 years, atheists have killed multiplied millions more people than all of the world’s religions combined. Even the Muslims are put to shame.

            By the way, where did your prison statistics come from?

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          HEY BRIAN.

          AT LEAST ONE OF THE MORE INTELLIGENT. RATIONAL AND LOGICAL CHRISTIANS I MET SELF IDENTIFIED AS AS AN AGNOSTIC CHRISTIAN,

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Unfortunately it doesn’t sound like he’s a “believing” Christian, in that he’s trusting Jesus’ work on the cross rather than his own good works to get into heaven. Pretty much everybody accepts the Christian moral code, which is the same as the moral teachings of most other religions.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            NO, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN

            HE WAS INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRUE KNOWLEDGE AND MERE BELIEF.

            WHILE HE “BELIEVED” THE CHRISTIAN GOD AND IN THE BIBLE, HE DID NOT POSITIVELY “KNOW” IF THERE WAS ACTUALLY A GOD.

        • NEIL C. REINHARDT

          SPOKEN LIKE THE RELIGIOUS ROBOT YOU ARE.

    • A. Christian

      To answer (1) and (2) “Mere Christianity” by former-atheist-turned-Christian C.S. Lewis, “The Case for Christ” by former-atheist-turned Christian Lee Strobel, and anything by former-atheist-turned-Christian Professor Ravi Zacharias.

      Bible Verses against homosexuality: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11,1 Timothy 1:8-10, Jude 7

      • L1011

        C. S. Lewis, Lee Strobel, and Ravi Zacharias came to their own personal conclusions, and in the end, their strongest case for evidence is the feelings in their heart that god loves them. In my opinion, that is nothing more than a chronic case of the vapors.

        • A. Christian

          The cosmological, teleological, archeological, and manuscript evidence for the existence of God and the veracity of Scripture is convincing, even by objective standards. Harvard Law Professor Simon Greenleaf, for example, determined that the testimonies of the apostles concerning the resurrection would qualify under the rules of evidence in a court of law.

          • L1011

            There are historians that can’t even agree if Paul was alive during Jesus’ life, or if he lived after Jesus was crucified or ever met Jesus.

          • A. Christian

            Yet we know for a historical fact (outside the Bible) that (1) Pontius Pilot governed Judea in the early 1st century,(2) the Apostle Paul existed and grew the early Christian church exponentially in the 1st century, (3) that Jesus (the man) actually existed, walked the Earth, and had followers, and (4) in the early 1st century Jesus was crucified. The only question is, was Jesus resurrected as his followers publically and repeatedly claimed? If yes, then Christianity is true. If not true, where’s his body?

          • L1011

            “If Jesus was NOT resurrected, then where is the body?” Well, where is Jimmy Hoffa’s body?

          • penguin_boy

            Actually there is no evidence for 3 & 4

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AND WE KNOW FOR HISTORICAL FACT NOT ONE PERSON WHO WAS LIVING IN THE AREA, AT THE TIME AND WHO REPORTING ON THE HAPPENINGS OF THE TIME SAID ONE WORD ABOUT “J.C.” OR ANY THING CONNECTED TO HIM!

          • L1011

            And if Noah’s flood actually happened when most young earth creationists say it did, then someone had better tell the Egyptians, cause they weren’t aware of it.

          • MDB

            Well, rats. ! Now I guess I have to shelve all of my radio carbon-dating arguments, too. Except that the dinosaurs including the ancient mastodon just discovered here in NM last week had to also be on the ark, or….oh never mind.

          • Steven Schwartz

            determined that the testimonies of the apostles concerning the resurrection would qualify under the rules of evidence in a court of law.

            I have not read Greenleaf. I will note, however, that that just means they could get *into* Court — not that they would be persuasive enough to win.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            REALLY? WHY ARE NOT SOME BIBLE SCHOLARS AND MULTI.-MILLIONS CONVINCED BY ALL YOUR SO-CALLED EVIDENCE?

        • vorpal

          You are seriously very rapidly becoming one of my favourite people online. I tried to read Lewis a decade or so ago, but after several chapters, the logical fallacies that he erected to base his future arguments on were just so glaringly obvious and irreconcilable that I lost interest.

          More recently, a married (heterosexual) couple who are good friends of mine and both extremely intelligent people went from being agnostic atheists to Christians after the wife read Strobel, which I found utterly incomprehensible based on our several years of earlier conversations.

          I still suspect her husband simply “came along for the ride”, as she is one of those extremely intense people who never does anything with any level of moderation. (She went from never having knit in her life to knitting six hours a day and making sweaters and even her own wool within two weeks, for example.) I frequently got the sense that she was always pulling him along in whatever direction she decided to go, literally and figuratively; thus, if he didn’t join her, it would likely have challenged or stressed their marriage.

          Indeed, she went from deciding to change her PhD program from philosophy to religious studies within a week after this transformation, and in less than a month, upped the whole family (twin babies) and moved to attend a different university six hours away, and had to essentially begin from scratch.

          (LOL: I guess I shouldn’t criticize: I also switched my PhD from abstract algebra to combinatorics and uprooted my husband and did a nearly exact geographical reverse of the move that they did, essentially.)

          I decided to try to listen to Strobel in audio form while jogging to see just what she had apparently found so convincing as to restructure their lives entirely; however, his “genuine attempts” to criticize Christianity and subsequent “process” of reconciling those criticisms by talking to experts were just so poor and read (listened?) like someone who was simply looking to abolish superficial Christian doubt and ultimately feed confirmation bias.

          I’ve never looked at Zacharias, but after Lewis and Strobel, I’ve come to the conclusion that these apologetics are largely there to simply feed the faith of the existing flock.

      • MDB

        Now that you got your “clobber-verse quoting”, quota in for the day…….feel any better ???? Do you people think that we don’t know every single word of, incl. the chapters and verses continually used to malign, denigrate, persecute, discriminate and exact violence against the LGBT community around the world ? We have hear these quoted
        ad nauseam either in the name of the ‘church, or the Bible, or God, or whatever; or because of the influence that same extremist religious dogma has had on social western constructs for centuries, You can quote Scripture all day long . But the more verses you cut and paste and quote; the more inefficacious your extremist lines in the sand become, and the more strident your words.
        Now, I feel better.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          So what happened to Jesus’ body, MDB?

          • MDB

            I’ll reply this time out of courtesy…next time reply to the correct person.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You are the person I meant to reply to, MDB. What did become of that crucified body that wasn’t there when the stone was rolled away? Oh, wait, I know. It kept reappearing to its disciples, teaching them, encouraging them, and even allowing them to put their fingers into the spear wound.

          • vorpal

            So said books written 60+ years after the fact, written by non-eye witnesses. Not very convincing.

            Also, how do you explain Matt 27:50-53 and the fact that there is NO record of this in not only the other gospels, but historically? It seems that this would be something that – if it truly happened – could not have escaped finding significant note in the independent historical records of the time.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            To begin, the Gospels, with the possible exception of John, were not written 60+ years after the resurrection, which was in 34 AD, to the best of our reckoning. Matthew and John were both eyewitnesses. Mark and Luke were associated with Peter and Paul, respectively, who were both eyewitnesses. We don’t know whether Mark was an eyewitness, but he surely wrote under the guidance of Peter. Luke, being a Greek physician, probably was not, but he was a careful historian who interviewed eyewitnesses.

            The Gospels were written for different audiences, so Matthew, Mark, Luke and John chose to emphasize different aspects of Jesus’s story. Most of the material in the gospels is repeated in other gospels, but each gospel has its own unique content as well. Matthew’s was likely the first gospel written, probably at a time when the nascent church was still centered in Jerusalem, and Matthew was clearly writing for a Jewish audience. Presumably he included the material about the temple and the resurrected dead in Jerusalem because these were topics of particular interest to his audience.

            Why weren’t these events mentioned by secular historians? I can only speculate. Because these were miraculous events, many historians not on the scene probably dismissed them out of hand, as miracles are dismissed or ignored today. As for the people who witnessed the miracles directly, either they became Christians themselves, or they chose to ignore them because they didn’t want to become Christians. Possibly the writers among them were intimidated by the powers that be, the Romans and the Sanhedrin, both of which were hostile to Christianity. Don’t underestimate the power of the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, perhaps better described as reigning orthodoxy. Many humans are herd animals, and they don’t want to culled from the herd, like today’s academic community, which enforces orthodoxy on issues like global warming and irreducible complexity. Then there’s partisanship — some refuse to report information that is damaging to their “side,” like today’s major newspapers, which have been loath to report on Obama administration scandals. For example, just yesterday the news broke — in England — that the IRS claims it lost all of Lois Lerner’s emails for two years in a computer crash. This is every bit as big as the missing 18 minutes on the Watergate tapes. Almost nothing in the American media. Here’s a link, in case you’re interested:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2657545/IRS-claims-LOST-two-years-worth-email-embattled-former-official-Lois-Lerner-tea-party-targeting-scandal-heats-again.html

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Eaten by rats?
            Consumed by fire?
            Thrown on the dump?
            Sent to the school cafeteria?

            The possibilities are myriad…

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            No, we know it was placed in the tomb, with a huge stone rolled in front of the entrance. Further, a Roman seal was placed on the tomb, and Roman soldiers were detailed to guard it to prevent the disciples stealing the body. Something remarkable must happened to make the Roman guard desert its post. Maybe Monty Python’s killer rabbit?

      • marlene

        spot on!

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        THE ODDS CS LEWIS WAS RAISED AS AN ATHEIST ARE LOW!

        AND ANYONE NOT RAISED AS AN ATHEISTS WHO SAID THEY WERE AN ATHEIST, AND BECAME RELIGIOUS AGING DO NOT COUNT AS THEY WERE NEVER REALLY DE-PROGRAMMED.

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      Yes, absolutely. The question is whether you’re serious about engaging with the evidence. If you are, I’d be happy to point you toward evidence that God exists, and communicated to us through the Bible.

      • L1011

        The bible cannot be used to verify the veracity of the bible.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          If I were saying “Jesus is God” because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God’s word because Jesus says so, then you’d have a point about circular reasoning, which is what I think you’re implying. But the argument is far more sophisticated than that. For one thing, the Bible is not one book, it’s a collection of 66 books written over thousands fo years. The Bible contains knowledge that cannot have been written by men unless they had guidance from a supernatural actor, in particular the Old Testament prophecies whose fulfillment is recorded in secular history as well as in the New Testament. The prophecies were written hundreds of years before the fulfillments took place and were recorded, so the circular reasoning argument cannot stand.

          • L1011

            There are many prophecies in the old testament that didn’t come to pass, such as Ezekiel 29:10-11. Never has Egypt been uninhabited for 40 years.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Didn’t, or haven’t? Nobody can say when a specific prophecy is going to be fulfilled. You’d be better off focusing on the prophecies that already have been fulfilled. Here are three prominent ones: Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, both of whose fulfillments are recorded in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s crucifixion, and Ezekiel 26′s prediction of God’s judgment on Tyre, whose fulfillment is recorded in secular history. Here’s a good article about Tyre: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

          • Steven Schwartz

            Didn’t, or haven’t? Nobody can say when a specific prophecy is going to be fulfilled.

            Brian, if someone brought you a book of psychic predictions from 1920, that said the Yankees would win the World Series, as would the Red Sox, the Phillies, and the Cubs, would you consider that proof that they were psychic?

            The Cubs haven’t won the world series since 1920 — and sure, someday, in the future, they might — but they haven’t.

            What you’re saying with the “Nobody can say” is divide prophecies into two categories: Those you claim have been fulfilled, and those that haven’t, yet. Don’t you see that this makes prophecy *useless*, since we can’t test it?

            What would it take, Brian, for you to admit a prophecy was *wrong*? Or is that not possible to you, because the Bible has to be correct, in which case, yes, you *are* effectively arguing “Jesus is God because the Bible says so, and the Bible is God’s word because Jesus says so,” — as you are granting the text the presumption of truth.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            If somebody writing in 1920 said “the Yankees are going to win the Series in 1956,” and they did, then I know where I’d put my money if he made a similar prediction for 2014. That’s the specific kind of prophecy you find repeatedly in the Bible.

            Certainly I believe a prophecy can be wrong, but it’s also illogical to claim a prophecy is false because it is not yet fulfilled. I do not claim to know for sure that every word in the Bible is inspired by God. All I know is that the evidence is clear that a supernatural actor has communicated to us through the Bible, the supernatural actor claims to be the Creator God, and he’s squarely behind Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be God in the flesh.

          • Steven Schwartz

            f somebody writing in 1920 said “the Yankees are going to win the Series in 1956,” and they did, then I know where I’d put my money if he made a similar prediction for 2014.

            Yet your Tyre prophecy gets the date, and the layer-low of Tyre *wrong*.

            What you get in the Bible, by your own admission, are some prophecies that people can make supposedly fit, and some prophecies that are vague enough that they haven’t been fulfilled *yet*.

            Certainly I believe a prophecy can be wrong, but it’s also illogical to claim a prophecy is false because it is not yet fulfilled.

            Then under what context can a prophecy be viewed as wrong? Is there a time limit?

            All I know is that the evidence is clear that a supernatural actor has communicated to us through the Bible, the supernatural actor claims to be the Creator God, and he’s squarely behind Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be God in the flesh.

            Your standards of evidence on this matter are considerably lower than the standards you require for other people for much less outlandish questions like “Is there a biological component to same-sex attraction?”

            I have looked at the book you referred me to — and, again, I found it *utterly* unconvincing, nor can I see how it would be to someone who did not want to be convinced.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You’ve barely had time to scratch the surface of McDowell’s book, Steven, and besides, the issue is the evidence, not the author. What do you make of Isaiah 53′s combination of predicting specific aspects of the crucifixion mixed in with a summary of substitutionary atonement? Don’t forget, Jesus pointed directly to Isaiah 53 while he was on the cross, so Jesus considered it a prophecy of the crucifixion, even if you don’t.

          • Steven Schwartz

            You’ve barely had time to scratch the surface of McDowell’s book, Steven, and besides, the issue is the evidence, not the author.

            I can read quite quickly, and the “evidence” provided by the author is, as I said, unconvincing. I do not need to track down every quote to see that his quotes do not prove what he claims them to prove, nor that they serve much evidential value, for example. I also do not need to read another detailed disquistion on Lewis’ failed trilemma to know it is not a valid argument.

            What do you make of Isaiah 53′s combination of predicting specific aspects of the crucifixion mixed in with a summary of substitutionary atonement?

            I make of it that it can be read that way. Of course, in its full context, it also makes complete sense as a metaphorical text for Israel, the nation. And saying someone will be “pierced” and “crushed” (NIV — I have not a Strong’s to hand) is hardly a detailed and specific description of crucifixion.

            I can also completely see someone believing it applied to them — without it being true. History is littered with false messiahs, of many different faiths, more than a few of whom appear to have been sincere. Again, you are building up a very circumstantial case for a very unlikely proposition.

            And, again, predicting “Oh, look, a rampaging king will attack you, and then eventually some one else will conquer you” is hardly a particuarly *precise* or *useful* prediction. How you can fail to see this I do not understand.

            (This is even granting the claim that switching from “He” to “they” is a reference to later attackers, rather than Nebuchandnezzar’s soldiers.)

            If you look for fulfilled prophecy, you will find it; if you look for unfulfilled prophecy, you will find it. But the *claim* is that the fulfilled prophecy makes the text special; and places the burden of proof of importance and reliability firmly on the shoulders who claim it is special.

            Like I said, “Sometime in the next 100 years the Yankees will win the World Series” in 1920 is no proof of being a prophent. “The Cubs will not win a world series for 100 years” would be much closer.

            Your Tyre prophecy is much more like the Yankees, save that it doesn’t even have an *end date*.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Let’s see. The city will be destroyed and its stones, timbers, and rubble will thrown into the water, leaving a bare rock. And many other details, fulfilled to the letter. The Tyre prophecy really can’t be dismissed so blithely, and it’s nothing like saying the Yankees will win the Series sometime in the next hundred years. It’s statistically likely the Yankees will win 3 or 4 Series in the course of a hundred years. The city’s fabric thrown into the water was a unique event in human history, to the best of your and my knowledge.

            Thanks, though, for reading McDowell. Have you gotten to his discussion of the many fulfilled prophecies?

          • Red Mann

            What evidence, not anecdotes and not apologia, do you have to support this claim?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Apologetics is the presentation of evidence, so the two cannot be divorced. If you rule out both personal experiences with God (anecdotes) and evidence, you leave no avenue for discussion.

            Why are you ruling out apologia?

          • Red Mann

            Because apologia does not prove anything, it is twisting logic around to reach a preconceived conclusion. It is used to give committed believers something to support their belief with, but it will not convince a skeptic unless that skeptic already wants to believe at some level. All apologia seems quite silly and weak to me.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            That’s a very curious theory. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying a skeptic is impervious to evidence unless he wants to be persuaded. Everybody has to overcome emotional resistance to new information if the information contradicts his presuppositions, but human beings do have the ability to reason, and evidence will win out in the end unless a person disconnects his rational processes and functions solely on emotion. I was persuaded by Christian apologetics after a couple of months of study, but it took me six months more to overcome my cognitive dissonance.

          • Red Mann

            No, what I’m saying is that there has to be convincing evidence. Evidence that can be tested, that has some physical component that can be clearly tied to your god. Claims of feelings that are interpreted as spiritual or religious are untestable since they are purely subjective. There was actually a controlled experiment do on the efficaciousness of prayer, none was found, and those that knew they were being prayed for, got worse.
            If you were so easily persuaded, you were obviously willing to be persuaded, perhaps desirous.
            I have not seen any apologia that even intimates that any god, say nothing of your God, actually exists.
            The cognitive dissonance comes about when you try to hold two, or more, opposing ideas at the same time. Science removes the need for any god to explain anything, indeed, it shows many religious beliefs to be impossible, so how you manage that is beyond me.
            I was once religious, but as I matured I found that those ideas were at best disingenuous and at worst foolish.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Unfortunately, you’re running into the shortcomings of the scientific method. It’s great at measuring things and taking a snapshot of a moment in time, but it’s out of its depth in matters of a historical or metaphysical nature. The clearest evidence I know of God’s existence is the fulfilled detailed prophecies in Scripture, but after that the direct evidence is inferential, such as the fact that we exist, and the evidence of design in biology, our planet and the solar system. If the evidence of design and consequent impossibility of evolution intrigues you, you might investigate the Discovery Institute.

            Not sure where you heard about studies saying prayer is ineffectual or detrimental. I’ve heard exactly the opposite.

            What is your religious background?

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deuteronomy 22:5.

          • Steven Schwartz

            OK. This is at least *new* spam, if not at all relevant to the post you’re following up to.

          • vorpal

            Could you perhaps consider posting something of actual value that’s pertinent to the conversation for once, Ray? Copying and pasting bible quotes really doesn’t help your case, no matter how much you think it might.

          • Jasper Taylor

            Does this mean no unisex t-shirts?

          • Red Mann

            And what?

          • L1011

            Ezekiel 29:8-12: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste; and they shall know that I am the LORD: because he hath said, The river is mine, and I have made it. Behold, therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries.

            Ezekiel 30:10-11 Continues: This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will put and end to the hordes of Egypt by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. He and his army – the most ruthless of nations – will be brought in to destroy the land. They will draw their swords against Egypt and fill all the land with the slain.

            So…not only has Egypt never been uninhabited for 40 years, the Egyptians have never been scattered, her cities never laid to waste, but Nebuchadnezzar was defeated in his only attempt to invade Egypt.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Very good, you have found a prophecy that appears to be in error, though I suspect Biblical scholars may view it very differently. How much damage did Nebuchadnezzar do in Egypt before being defeated? I’ll have to do some research about it.

            Now what do you make of the prophecy that the stones, timber and rubble of Tyre would be thrown into the sea, which was fulfilled to the letter? Also, Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, which were fulfilled in detail? Isaiah 53 not only predicts specific details about the crucifixion, it summarizes the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the whole point of Christ dying on the cross.

          • L1011

            I would say that considering Tyre was a very rich city with a highly developed sea port and warehouses in a highly desirable location of the Mediterranean, it was bound to happen, and did happen 8 times before the life of Christ, and then still happened an additional 4 times after Christ.
            Also, the life of Christ is an amalgamation of pagan gods such as Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, and several others.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            It was “bound to happen” that the fabric of the entire city would be physically thrown into the sea? How can you possibly say that? Can you name one example of a city besides Tyre that was leveled in this way?

            Obviously it’s impossible that Tyre could be thrown into the sea a dozen times, as you suggest. Where did you come up with that?

          • L1011

            The city of Tyre has been besieged many times throughout history.
            - In 724-720 BC by the Assyrians under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II
            - In 701 BC by the Assyrians under Seacherib
            - In 671 BC by the Assyrians under Esarhaddon
            - In 663 BC by the Assyrians under Ashurbanipal
            - In 586-573 BC by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II
            - In 332 BC by the Macedonians under Alexander the Great
            - In 315-314 BC by the Macedonians under Antigonus Monophthalmus
            - In 1111-1112 by the Crusaders under Baldwin I of Jerusalem
            - In 996-998 by the Fatimids
            - In 1124 by the Venetians
            - In 1187 by the Ayyubids under Saladin
            The internet is amazing.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You’ve missed a few of the assaults, but the greater point is that “thrown into the sea” is not synonymous with “besieged many times.” All of the fabric — the stones, timber and rubble — of the city of Tyre,as it was constituted when Ezekiel wrote his prophecy, was physically thrown into the sea just as Ezekiel predicted, when Alexander the Great used it to build a causeway to the nearby island. Subsequently the city site was engulfed by the Mediterranean,as Ezekiel also predicted, so the same city could never be rebuilt again.

          • L1011

            Have you ever heard of Futility, also known as The Wreck of the Titan? It was a novella written in 1898 by Morgan Robertson about a ship the closely matched the dimensions, weight-class, passenger capacity, speed, technical specifications, and luxury of the Titanic (which sank in 1912) that also hit an iceberg in April, resulting in the ship sinking with over 2/3rds of the passengers perishing. Like the titanic, the Titan was also built to be “unsinkable,” and like the Titanic, Titan also carried far too few life-boats, and was also far away from any nearby ships that could offer assistance. Would you consider Morgan Robertson a profit? Probably not. But considering that ship-building, metal-works, and steam propulsion technology was advancing rapidly during the late 1800′s, and considering that laws governing safety practices and regulations were not advancing as fast as the size and capacity of these newer ships, Robertson speculated then wrote about a possible worse case scenario which unfortunately came true. And considering how many times Tyre had been sieged, it too was only a matter of time before the city was reduced to rubble.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You might argue that Tyre would eventually be reduced to rubble, but you might just as well say the same thing about Sidon, the other major city on the coastline. The Bible, however, predicts that Tyre would be destroyed and Sidon would remain, and that’s what has happened in history.

            Besides, the Tyre prophecy doesn’t say “reduced to rubble,” it says all of the city’s stone, timber and rubble would be thrown into the sea, something that had never happened before, to the best of my knowledge, and has never happened since. If the event was not unique, it was certainly exceedingly rare, yet it was predicted accurately centuries ahead of time for this particular city.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE LIFE OF A PERSON FOR WHICH THERE IS NO SECULAR PROOF?

          • L1011

            You know what else I never understood was the story of Job. Most people cling to their faith during times of turmoil and strife, but seem to forget god when things are good. It’s like that old saying “There are no atheists in foxholes” which isn’t quite true – but I digress. So god allows the devil to test Job’s faith, but would ruining his life, and taking everything from him weaken his faith? You would think the devil would deliver the world on a platter for Job. It never really made any sense to me.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 7

          • vorpal

            Cupcake, it’s spelled “Gomorrah”.

            From your friendly neighbourhood Gomorrahn.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Job is an interesting lesson about the need to submit to God’s authority and trust in his goodness no matter what. It also demonstrates God’s forgiveness and mercy. Job fell short, but in the end God restored his blessings. Bottom line: keep obeying and trusting in God, even if he doesn’t take away your homosexual desires. He gives us all a cross to bear.

          • vorpal

            Brian, I find it interesting (albeit not surprising, of course) how strongly you urge non-Christians to consider your faith. I ask out of curiosity: how many other faiths have you seriously investigated and considered?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I was raised a Catholic and became an atheist, then agnostic, then Bible believer. There are only three faiths I could seriously consider, because only the three make plausible claims to be revelation from God: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. After studying the evidence that God exists and communicated to us through the Bible, I accepted that God is communicating through the Bible, and I had to choose biblical Christianity. The evidence of the OT pointing to the NT,and to the person of Christ, was very strong, so I accepted the Christian perspective that Christianity is the fulfillment of God’s plan that Judaism was pointing to. Also, the NT makes it clear that there will be no more written revelation from God, so anything coming after the first century AD is immediately suspect. I did investigate Mormonism soon after I became a Christian, because I was working for a Mormon-dominated organization at the time, but the contention that Joseph Smith was a prophet doesn’t hold water. I’ve also read a bit about Islam, but the absence of corroborating evidence (miracles, accurate prophecies) from God in the Koran rules out any possibility that God is communicating through the Koran.

            I’ve read a bit about Eastern religions, but none of the major ones even claims to be revelation from the personal Creator God. They’re simply human philosophies, which you can take or leave. God’s revelation is compulsory.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SO YOU, AS I THOUGHT SIMPLY REVERTED TO YOUR CHILDHOOD PROGRAMMING. GEE, WHAT NOT A SURPRISE!

            YOU WERE NEVER REALLY ACTUALLY AN ATHEIST AS YOU HAD NEVER FULLY DE-PROGRAMMED YOURSELF,
            HAD YOU DONE SO THE ODDS OF YOUR REVERTING WOULD BE VERY LOW!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Hardly. I was raised a Catholic, which for most followers has little in common with biblical Christianity.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            FIRST, SO YOU ARE SAYING CATHOLICS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GOD OF THE CHRISTIANS AND IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE?

            JEEZE, TRY GETTING A CLUE!

            SECOND, AS YOU WERE PROGRAMMED TO ACCEPT THE BIBLE AS BEING TRUE. TO NOT USE LOGIC, TO NOT USE COMMON SENSE ACCEPT ON AUTHORITY, TO NOT QUESTION ETC, ETC, IT’S NO WONDER RELIGIOUS PEOPLE CAN GO FROM ONE RELIGION TO ANOTHER.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            In the cases of the vast majority of Catholics I have known, including the members of my own family, they have little in common with biblical, born-again Christians. If you knew anything about the day to day practices of typical Catholics, you would know that they are not programmed to accept the Bible as true, they are trained to believe the church when it conflicts with the Bible. They believe God exists, and some even believe Jesus is God in the flesh, but they are not taught to believe IN God, in the sense that they must trust his work on the cross to go to heaven.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I WILL BET MOST, IF NOT ALL CATHOLICS WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOU.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Perhaps. I’m just calling ‘em as I see ‘em. Most Catholics I’ve known believe they will go to heaven because they were baptized as infants, and they maintain their salvation by participating in the sacraments. Precious few believe Jesus has already done all the work on the cross.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS FAR AS I, AND I AM SURE NEARLY ALL, IF NOT ALL, AMERICAN ATHEISTS AGREE WITH IS, WE CONSIDER ALL CHRISTIANS TO BE ABOUT THE SAME AS ALL OTHER CHRISTIANS.

            THIS IS WE THINK YOU CHRISTIANS ARE SELFISH AND INCONSIDERATE ABOUT THE FEELING AND RIGHTS OF THE EIGHTY MILLION OF THOSE OF OTHER RELIGIONS AND THE ESTIMATED THIRTY MILLION ATHEISTS!

            AND FYI, THE NUMBERS OF WE ATHEISTS AND OF ATHEIST GROUPS ARE GROWING AT EXPONENTIAL RATES

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Yes, atheists are renowned for their sweeping generalizations and pure bigotry against religious believers, which you’ve amply illustrated in this post. Not that this is news — I used to attend the meetings of the Ventura County Freethinkers, and the leader began each meeting with a report about the most recent alleged stupidity and immorality of the Religious Right. Factual accuracy was not at a premium. For example, one week she claimed that Dr. James Dobson’s two sons were maladjusted ne’er-do-wells. Ironically, Dobson’s daughter (in fact, he has one son and one daughter) had just published her first book, at age 26.

            Why do you think atheists find it necessary to insist they are intellectually superior, and further, to disparage the intelligence and morality of people who disagree with them?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS IS SEEMS YOU ARE MENTALLY INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THE FOLLOWING SIMPLE FACT, I SHALL AGAIN REPEAT IT!

            NOW PAY ATTENTION!

            MOST OF AMERICA;S MULTI MILLIONS OF ATHEISTS ARE FORMER CHRISTIANS!

            DID YOU GET THIS FACT THIS TIME?

            I STRONGLY DOUBT YOU CAN PROVE ATHEISTS MAKE ANY MORE SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANS THAN CHRISTIANS DO ABOUT ATHEISTS

            AND THIS IS POINT IS ONE WHICH YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN WITH YOUR SWEEPING GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT ATHEISTS HERE. MAKES YOU SOUND LIKE A HYPOCRITE TO ME.

            AS CHRISTIANS FREQUENTLY LIE ABOUT ATHEISTS

            YOU SHOULD GET OFF OF YOUR HIGH HORSE

            LAST, ARE YOU SO THICK IN THE HEAD THAT YOU CONSIDER THE THINGS ATHEISTS MAY SAY ABOUT YOUR CHILDISH RELIGION TO BE AS BAD AS THE FACT CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN BEATING & KILLING ATHEISTS FOR OVER TWO THOUSAND YEARS?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Neil, your anger is coming through. I count at least five separate insults (some are compound insults, which I count as one) directed at me in just this short message. What are you so angry about? Please, don’t say it’s my thickheadedness. You frequently speak this way.

            Now to the substance — of course, most atheists are former Christians. Just about everybody in America is a cultural Christian, born into one Christian denomination or another. I’ll bet most of their congregations are filled with people who are unable to give a rational defense for their faith that would stand up for five minutes. It was the inability of my Catholic church to explain why the faith was true that led me into atheism at age 14 — and it was actually engaging the evidence for biblical inspiration that led me to become a Christian at 26.

            I doubt Christians make all that many sweeping generalizations about atheists because they don’t spend much time thinking about atheists. Atheists, in contrast, have God and religious believers on the mind all the time, in the same way that Rush Limbaugh, as he puts it, lives rent-free in Obama’s mind. I never saw a group of people more obsessed with God than the Ventura County Freethinkers.

            Thanks to the Soviet Union and Red China, modern atheists, ten thousand Christians have been killed by atheists for every atheist killed by Christians. Probably more like a hundred thousand, actually. Christians have never made a practice of killing atheists, or of killing anybody, for that matter, apart from religious heretics, and most of those were killed by medieval Catholics. The modern atheists have killed at least a hundred million people, many of them for their religious faith. Another interesting factoid: more Catholic clergy — just clergy, not counting all the other victims — were killed by the atheistic communists during the two years they ran Spain, than the Spanish Inquisition killed in total over the course of 350 years.

            You still haven’t explained why you think atheists have such a great need to define themselves as intellectually superior, to the extreme that recently there was a movement among atheists to call themselves “brights.” Is that movement still ongoing?

          • vorpal

            The “no atheists in foxholes” is moronic. I have a serious health condition that had me sick and largely bed-ridden for a good chunk of four years and in extreme pain, and ultimately almost killed me, and it’s the predominant factor that made me go from being a Christian to an atheist.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THIS AGNOSTIC ATHEIST ACTIVIST HAS NEARLY BEEN KILLED QUICKLY MANY TIMES AND CAME VERY CLOSE TO DYING SLOWLY AT LEAST THREE TIMES. AS WELL AS BEING A PARATROOPER IN THE 101ST AIRBORNE. AND I HAVE NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT ASKING ANY GOD FOR HELP, MUCH LESS ACTUALLY DOING SO.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU SHOULD BE DOING WHAT I HAVE FOR OVER SIXTEEN YEARS. IT IS DRINKING NONI JUICE DAILY! AND I HAVE USED IT TOPICALLY MANY TIMES AS WELL.

            AS I AM AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST ACTIVIST, IT IS A JUNIOR “MIRACLE” WHEN I CALL ANY THING A “MIRACLE” AND YET I NOW FROM MY USE AND STUDY, NONI JUICE IS A NATURAL HEALING MIRACLE!!

            IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION ON IT, GOOGLE
            “DR. NEIL SOLOMON AND NONI JUICE” THERE CAN SEE AT LEAST THREE GREAT VIDEOS ON IT.

            FOR INFO ABOUT ALL THE REALLY GREAT THINGS NONI JUICE HAS DONE FOR ME, JUST ASK.

          • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

            “Didn’t, or haven’t? Nobody can say when a specific prophecy is going to be fulfilled.”

            —And here’s yet another example of the endless, trite flexibility of prophetic ‘fulfillment’.

          • Don Hignite

            Oh are we at the end of the age yet? I know that Obama is no longer allowed to sit foot in Egypt due to his war crimes..

          • marlene

            thanks again. i can use your words to witness.

          • Demmi Greene

            Excellent post.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks, Demmi. Welcome to the party.

          • Azima Khan

            I’d like to hear what sort of evidence you propose for a personal god; ie. one that cares about what people do and wants them to be happy.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            My personal experiences of God’s presence have been absolutely dazzling, but they can only be definitive proof of his existence for me personally. The strongest universally accessible evidence I know of God’s existence is the prophecies in the Bible, as outlined above.

            As I understand him, God cares very much about what people do, and he wants us to be happy, to treat each other well, and to have a healthy relationship with God himself through Jesus Christ. Ultimately he wants us to spend eternity with him in heaven, and he paid a great price to make it possible for us to be with him.

            The God we meet in the Bible is personal, powerful, compassionate, loving and merciful. Probably the best place to get to know Him is in the Gospel of John, which tells us everything we need to know about Jesus — who he is, why he came to earth, what he accomplished while he was here, and what he wants us to do and believe so we can be with him in heaven.

          • vorpal

            I just wanted to chime in and say that even though I disagree with your faith (as someone who has managed to step outside it after largely believing in Christianity for 22 years and who subsequently began to see things I considered too illogical and fantastic to reconcile with the reality we live in), I still very much appreciate these posts of yours and truly enjoy reading them, and do try to read every one. Your calmness, your warmth, and your ability to represent your points in a clear and well-stated manner are a refreshing change on these boards, and unlike many of the posters here who seem angry, hostile, and afraid, you are someone who I can truly say strikes me as genuinely interested in striving to be Christ-like.

            It is always a pleasure to meet such people, even if we disagree on virtually everything! (Indeed, that makes it far more interesting!)

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks, Vorpal, that’s kind of you to say. You can read the post above and see why it’s important to me to invite others to investigate Christianity. My experience with God has been utterly sublime, and I’d like everybody to share in it. God’s love is infinite, so there’s plenty to go around.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU WERE RAISED AS AN ATHEIST AND BECAME RELIGIOUS? I DOUBT IT!

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE CARGO CULT AND YOU BELIEVED A C-47 WAS YOUR GOD AND YOU BELIEVED IT ENOUGH, YOU WOULD BE CREDITING YOUR DAZZLING EXPERIENCES TO A-C-47!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Fortunately, I have good reason to believe in Jesus of Nazareth. It’ll be interesting to see what you’ll say after you wrestle with some of the evidence for God and the Bible.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE CARGO CULT PEOPLE HAD MORE REAL..LIFE EXPERIENCE IN SEEING THEIR GOD THAN YOU HAVE,

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Not true. Take a look at my article, “Did My Brother Die for Nothing?”

          • Red Mann

            Brian, we have been down this road before and there is still no corroborative evidence to support the Bible stories, there is no evidence of any supernatural being and there is no sensible criteria to decide which of the tens of thousands of religious beliefs are true or false. You believe because you have been conditioned to believe, not by rationality or evidence.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Actually, I was an atheist until I read a bit of logic in college, and discovered that it is logically impossible to prove a negative, for example “God does not exist.” So I became an agnostic. Several years later somebody invited me to assess the evidence that God exists, and communicated to us through the Bible. She gave me a copy of Josh McDowell’s book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, and after eight months of investigation, I had to face the facts and become a Christian. Have you investigated this evidence? Which Christian apologists have you read? Don’t tell me you were raised in a Christian home — that’s how I became an atheist in the first place.

          • Red Mann

            Sorry, don’t buy the “I was an atheist”. I hear it too much and I interpret that the meaning is “I was not an active believer”.
            That you cannot logically prove a negative is irrelevant, atheists cannot see any evidence that any god exists and there is no evidence of any god that should be there if such a thing did exist. You cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, nor can you disprove Russell’s teapot. The burden of proof for god claims lie with the claimer.
            I don’t know what you consider evidence of the existence of a god, but I’m pretty certain there is no material or natural evidence.
            You seem to have been convinced by McDowell’s collection of believer’s anecdotes of why they believe, not by hard evidence, if this convinced you, you already really wanted to be convinced.
            I told you before the apologists I’m familiar with and they all start with a presumption that god exists and then construct fanciful and twisted logic to support the claim.
            Apologia doesn’t exist to convince skeptics, but to mollify believers, since it is totally unconvincing to a skeptic.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Sorry, Red, I don’t recall what you’ve written before, but if you think McDowell compiled nothing but a collection of believers’ anecdotes, you aren’t familiar with McDowell at all. McDowell is chock full of logical, factual, historical, archaeological, and textual evidence, including the fulfilled prophecies.

            Regarding my atheism, I was every bit as skeptical and hostile to religion as any commenter on BarbWire. I was even creative about it, doing my best to humiliate the believers in college who tried to share the gospel with me. As I studied the evidence that God exists and communicated to us through the Bible, I gradually realized that my atheism was not based on a factual foundation. Its root was an emotional rejection of God.

          • Red Mann

            Just because you put so much faith in McDowell, I’ve started reviewing some critical analysis of his work. From what I’ve seen so far, he has nothing to offer and his evidence is unconvincing, unless of course you were actually looking to be convinced. Logic and faith cannot be logically connected, faith is free-floating belief without any real evidence. In my view faith is a corrosive force, requiring the acceptance of magical thinking, the denial of evidence and the subjugation of critical thinking.
            As an aside, I’ve noticed that these sweeping proofs of religion by the likes of McDowell and Craig have to be paid for. You would think that this important work be freely available.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks for beginning to look into it! I’d recommend you read McDowell for yourself, however, rather than read critics who set out to discredit McDowell, and fail to treat the evidence fairly. I’ve seen others use their faulty conclusions as an excuse for avoiding engagement with McDowell’s evidence.

            Two or three people on BarbWire have referred me to what they consider the most effective refutation of McDowell, by a man named Lowder. Of course I checked Lowder out. To me, the most powerful evidence of supernatural authorship of Scripture is the fulfilled prophecies,and my personal favorite prophecy is Isaiah 53, so I decided to see how Lowder handled it. In addition to predicting several details about Jesus’s crucifixion, Isaiah summarizes the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement via human sacrifice, a doctrine that would have been quite abhorrent to orthodox Jews seven centuries BC. A competent refutation of Isaiah 53 would include some explanation of how the details of the crucifixion found their way into a book written seven centuries earlier, and how substitutionary atonement found its way into the book as well. But I was shocked to discover that Lowder’s refutation never addresses a single word of the prophecy, much less the two principal reasons for believing it’s an accurate prophecy in the first place. Pathetic.

          • Red Mann

            I just read Isaiah 52 – 54 and while I can see that those who want to believe can see this as referring to Jesus, there is nothing in the writing that is specific enough. Many prophecies. like horoscopes are ambiguous enough to be stretched over future events. Of course, one has to accept that the God of the OT existed and talked to his prophets and that the prophets weren’t just making stuff up to gain influence. Very little external history of the time corroborates the Bible stories and most are reminiscent of many ancient myths.

            There is some thought that this chapter refers to Israel itself, just returned from captivity or perhaps King Uzziah.

            Since the original sources of the NT aren’t available, we can’t tell how much of the Jesus story may have been written to make it look like to older prophecy came true.

            Don’t forget that messiahs were a dime a dozen at the time and all were rejected by the Jews. There may well have been someone called Jesus who lived at the time and he may have been killed by the Romans at the behest of the Jews, but that does not validate said Jesus’ divinity, indeed that divinity was developed by later Christians.

            Still see no reason to believe any of it.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Do you have a good study Bible available? If you’ll read the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, you’ll see many specific details of the crucifixion were predicted in both Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, so the “horoscope” objection doesn’t hold water.

            We do have the original sources of the New Testament. They’re called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude. All were either eyewitnesses of the crucifixion and/or resurrected Jesus, or wrote after interviewing eyewitnesses. The internal evidence of the documents points to nobody but the so-called “traditional” authors, and makes it clear the NT books were written during the first century, mostly within 30 years of Jesus’s resurrection. For example, Paul, who died in about 64 AD, referred to Luke’s gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 ), so we know Luke was written by 64 AD, and Luke is usually considered the latest of the synoptic gospels.

            It also doesn’t make sense to argue that subsequent Christian writers revised the gospel texts to fit the prophecies. Very early on, the gospels were seen as Scripture, and therefore inviolate. The manuscripts were disseminated throughout the church, and their contents were well known. Any effort to rewrite the manuscripts so extensively would have been rejected. Jesus spoke several times from the cross referring back to OT prophecies. When the NT documents were written, there were plenty of eyewitnesses around who could verify what he said on the cross, or tell a redactor, “He never said that!”

            Your observation that “the original sources of the NT are not available” does raise a second interesting point. Higher critical theory remains just that, a theory based on scholastic interpretations of the text, but unsupported by physical evidence. We have fragments of NT manuscripts dating to the second century, but no fragments of any “Q” document, or any significantly different version of any of the NT books. The debate about the veracity of the NT books reminds me of the debate about global warming: one side points to computer models, and the other to actual temperature measurements.

            Regarding Isaiah 53, in addition to the crucifixion predictions, there is the presence of the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement, which cannot have been added by Christian redactors. It must have gotten there somehow.

          • Red Mann

            As far as actual Bible scholars can tell, the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, in fact no one actually knows who wrote these books. It still remains that there is a paucity of any corroborative evidence. This is pretty damning when detailed records were being kept by various groups at the time.

            It is still very similar to the ambiguousness of horoscopes, psychics and those like Nostradamus. It is easy to find that the details fit after the predicted event has already occurred.

            Paul claimed his knowledge of Christ came from revelation.

            You are going to believe what you want and no amount of contradictory evidence will sway you and you will see the evidence you desire to see.
            It’s nice chatting with you but I fear that neither one of us will be swayed by the others arguments.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Thanks, I’m enjoying the discussion as well. It’s always useful to test our presuppositions with people who disagree.

            By “Bible scholars,” do you mean people like the Jesus Seminar, the folks who used to vote on whether Jesus said things attributed to him using colored beads? I think it was Crossan who acknowledged that the seminar was not dispassionately seeking truth about Jesus, they were trying to sell the public a revised version of Jesus that would promote their political and theological agenda. Here’s an article about the seminar and it’s founder, Robert Funk: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/

            I’d have to rethink my position if the liberal “higher criticism” scholars could produce any evidence supporting their theories about the Scriptural texts, but I haven’t seen any. Liberal theories contradict the internal evidence from the texts themselves, for starters. Liberals also base their analysis of the synoptic gospels on the theorized “Q” document, but again, nobody has ever produced a manuscript or even a fragment of “Q.” Maybe you’re aware of some.

            It’s possible, though unlikely, that the gospels were written to incorporate the details from the Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 prophecies. There were plenty of eyewitnesses around when the gospels were written, and if they contained inaccurate information about what Jesus said on the cross, the eyewitnesses would have said “He never said that!,” and they would not have been accepted as Scripture in the first place. Still, there are Biblical prophecies whose fulfillment was recorded by history, not by the New Testament, for example Ezekiel’s prophecy about God’s judgment on the city of Tyre. Here’s an article about the Tyre prophecy: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

          • Red Mann

            The first one that comes to mind is Bart Ehrman. I read vociferously so that exact sources are hard to reconstruct, but I have happened across many refutations of the Bible. My reading of the Bible coupled with the volumes of what I have read has thoroughly convinced me that that the Bible is simply a collection of myths, mystical writings and an apologia for the Jews to explain why the god’s chosen were so poorly treated as well as provide a backstory for the Jews after their Babylonian captivity. I don’t believe, and my reading supports this, that any of the Promised Land stories are true. If they are true you are worshiping a genocidal monster that directed a heartless slaughter of men, women, children and livestock, razing cities to the ground. A god that glories in the smell of burning flesh, that threw temper tantrums and slaughtered his own people in a rage. I see nothing indemnifying in the OT. While the words ascribed to Jesus in the NT contains some fine ideas, none of which were new, there is a lot a negatives as well especially the concept of Hell and eternal damnation. You have invested your ego and your entire view of life in believing the Bible and your theology and it certainly colors your view of reality.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I could just as easily say that your ego is fully invested in atheism, and you’ve accumulated evidence that supports your presupposition.

            I’ve read Ehrman, of course, and I find him unconvincing. Ehrman got panicky when he discovered the text of Scripture is imperfect, and he jumped to the conclusion that nothing in Scripture is trustworthy. I came at it from the opposite direction, skeptical about the Bible’s trustworthiness, and I was surprised to find that it is highly likely that a supernatural author is communicating to us through the Scripture. I don’t claim that every word in Scripture is specifically dictated by God, and therefore inerrant. In fact, I’m sure there are mistakes in Scripture, and passages that don’t belong, the end of Mark being the best example. But I’m equally certain, based on the evidence, that some supernatural author did dictate certain verses, and gave the human writers information they could not have known themselves, information that is crucial to people’s lives now and in the hereafter. Ehrman’s problem is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

            While you’re reading, why don’t you take a look at Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict?

          • Red Mann

            Why do you think relying on observations and physical data and using a standard method to uncover reality is some kind of presupposition? The only supposition, sort of, is that the physical behavior of the universe through time and space is consistent. Introducing a supernatural force leads to inconsistency, since that force could change anything at anytime. In this case no science would be worthwhile, but we know that science works and gets actual results.
            So you don’t wish to believe anyone that challenges your beliefs? That’s OK, it’s your beliefs, but I prefer some real evidence, not the twisted logic of apologia to enlighten my world, especially since the method I chose produces actual, tangible results over and over again. Supernatural == superstitious.
            I am not going to pay money to read something I have every reason to believe is not true, I have read the refutations and they are convincing. If McDowell has all this wonderful information that proves his, and your, beliefs, why is he charging for it? If it is so wonderful and life changing, why doesn’t he give it away?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Where we differ about presuppositions is the assumption that a creator exists or does not exist. If one does not exist, then miracles are impossible, and records of miracles must be discounted.

            Introducing a supernatural element might potentially lead to “inconsistency,” but philosophical inconvenience does not constitute evidence for assuming the supernatural out of existence. The fact that science “works” does not necessarily disprove the supernatural, as it’s equally plausible that the supernatural is not in the habit of changing the laws of physics. If he did change the rules of physics all the time, then his occasional miracles would lose their distinctive impact, wouldn’t they? Nothing special any more about walking on water, or raising the dead. And, of course, if he changed the laws of physics all the time, human life could not survive. He created us for a reason, and set up the scientific laws to give us an environment in which to thrive. I know you’ve been trained to believe supernatural equals superstitious. I used to think the same way, though not as graciously as you do, but the evidence persuaded me that supernatural equals reality.

            It’s a pity you won’t read McDowell. More than a Carpenter is not expensive. Still, there’s all kinds of free Christian apologetic material on the internet. Here’s an article from an online ministry that discussed messianic prophecies: http://carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus

            Did you read Lowder’s “refutation” of the Isaiah 53 prophecy of the crucifixion? Was it as inadequate as I said?

          • Red Mann

            No, I don’t presuppose that any creator doesn’t exist. I just fail to see any reasonable reasons to believe it does. You are asserting the existence of a creator. This is an extraordinary claim and, as such, requires extraordinary evidence. Words written down over thousands of years are not much in the way of evidence. There are plenty of myths written down, does that make them true as well?

            The introduction of the supernatural is irrational and makes consistency, and indeed the concept of science itself, impossible.

            “as it’s equally plausible that the supernatural is not in the habit of changing the laws of physics”
            Then there is no need for anything supernatural, no any possible evidence for it.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Introducing the supernatural is not irrelevant if the evidence points you that way.

            Of course there is a need for something supernatural. Logic requires that matter must have come from somewhere, and it couldn’t have created itself. The existence of the universe is extraordinary evidence of the existence of a creator. And, for something more specific, you could study how the solar system apparently was designed to support human life. Here’s an article:

            http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

            Does this article make sense to you?

          • Red Mann

            Since the supernatural is, by definition, above natural then such a force could arbitrarily change physical outcomes willy-nilly and no scientific results could be trusted.
            There is absolutely no reason to introduce the supernatural, that is actually illogical. There is absolutely no need of a creator to explain the existence of the universe, we have plenty of good. logical theories of how it may have come about and none involve any gods.
            The arguments about how anything was designed by a sentient being just for us has been debunked over and over by science. Check out some of Victor Stenger’s books.
            You are still using magical thinking.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            It’s possible that a supernatural actor could change the laws of physics at will, so scientific outcomes could never be trusted. It doesn’t logically follow, then, that you dismiss the possibility that the supernatural exists.

            Fortunately, we have a record of instances where the supernatural actor has chosen to step into our natural realm, and it turns out he does so only to make the point about His existence, power and authority. Jesus kept a following for three years because he was able to overturn the laws of physics at will, so his disciples witnessed a series of miracles.

            Here is a source discussing contemporary records of Jesus working miracles, including the extrabiblical Josephus and the Talmud. Note that Jewish sources do not dispute that Jesus worked miracles; instead, they ascribed his miracles to working in league with the devil

            http://www.christianorigins.com/miracles.html

          • Red Mann

            Still just words, uncorroborated words. What is the difference between the Bible and any of the other myths in the world? You don’t have any reliable physical evidence, just words.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You asked previously for extrabibilical references to Jesus working miracles. I gave you two, so you move the goalposts by demanding physical evidence, when you know perfectly well that only historical evidence can speak to the issue.

            The difference between the Bible’s accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection, and “other myths,” is that the Bible presents eyewitness testimony and bases the Christian faith on the reality of the resurrection. You can accept or reject the evidence as you please, as you can accept or reject Jesus’s claim to be God and his offer to be your savior, but you can’t reduce the Bible to the level of the Iliad.

          • Red Mann

            Two or three passing references that there were Christians around and the doubtful Josephus passage. All the rest are from the Bible or modern day apologists, still unconvincing, and anyway, the stories themselves are to fantastic to be taken seriously, wildly impossible miracles etc. Nothing will can produce will change my mind because it’s all just rehashes of the same weak stories over and over.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            That’s okay, just so long as you are aware the evidence exists.

          • Red Mann

            I guess it passes as evidence for you, but not for me.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            In an earlier post, you requested corroboration that Jesus worked miracles from extrabiblical sources. I gave you two. In response, you moved the goalposts by demanding physical evidence, when we’ve already established that only historical evidence can address the question.

            The difference between the Bible and “other myths” is the Bible claims to present eyewitness testimony to miraculous events, and asserts that all of Christianity hangs on the physical reality of the resurrection. You can accept or reject the evidence as you please, just as you can accept or reject Jesus’s claim to be God and his offer to be your savior, but you can’t reduce the Bible to the level of Aesop’s Fables.

          • Red Mann

            And those two do not indicate that the Jesus they mention was indeed the divine son of god you claim. They mention that Christians existed, which is true and they mention a crucifixion, which were very common. They fail to give any real evidence that your Jesus was what you claim, and certainly give no evidence at all that your god exists. Strangely no outside source refers to the earthquakes and walking dead at the time of the crucifixion not any other of the events in the Bible version.
            I’m sorry, but these arguments are only convincing to those who already believe or are looking for a reason to believe. For many others, like myself, they are far too weak to be considered seriously.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            WHILE TALKING TO HIM IS MOST PROBABLY TO TOTAL WASTE OF TIME, WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAN SOME THING DONE AND/OR OR SOME THING WHICH WAS SAID, IS WHAT STARTED THE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS ON THEIR ROAD TO FREEDOM.

            AFTER ALL, SOME ONE OR SOMETHING CAUSED SUPER CHRISTIANS DAN BARKER AND JOHN LOFTUS TO STOP BEING CHRISTIAN MINISTERS AND BECOME OUTSPOKEN ATHEISTS.

          • Red Mann

            I realize that for lost causes no argument will have any effect although I don’t think Brian is a totally lost cause he seems to be quite intelligent, just misguided. As for the truly lost causes, I think it is useful to respond for the lurkers some of who may be convinced by good arguments.
            I have to say that your all caps is somewhat disconcerting since all caps is traditionally used by the crazies and it makes you look a little off. Maybe you can just adjust the size of you text. I keep mine at 150% most of the time.

        • marlene

          try the prophecy of currrent events written thousands of years ago. or is that too far back for you to consider. try yesterday – pope ready to sign peace treaty with israel. oh that’s right, you haven’t got a clue. but you do have a philosophy about a book you’ve never read. tsk tsk

          • L1011

            I did read the bible, I had to in order to get confirmed. I searched for the Pope signing a peace treaty, but the only thing that came up was from 4 days ago where it discussed the prayer gathering and the planting of an olive tree.

          • vorpal

            Oh, dear… you had to read the entire bible to be confirmed? I suspect that that’s an exercise that would drive many people right out of the desire for confirmation.

            My church – quite liberal – actually made us study other religions (albeit fairly superficially) before being allowed to… err… confirm that we wanted to be confirmed.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            INFORMED ATHEISTS ACTUALLY WANT, URGE, AND BEG ALL CHRISTIANS TO PLEASE, PLEASE READ THEIR BIBLES FROM COVER TO COVER AND TAKE NOTES!

            WHY WOULD WE ATHEIST DO THIS?

            BECAUSE WE KNOW SO DOING HAS STARTED MANY CHRISTIANS ON THEIR ROAD TO JOINING THE MILLIONS OF OTHER FORMER CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOW AMERICAN ATHEISTS!!

            AND FYI, ATHEISTS ARE THE LEADERS AND/OR AMONG THE LEADERS IN EVERY POSITIVE FIELD!

            PROOF? SIMPLE! GOOGLE “FAMOUS ATHEISTS” AND READ THE NAMES.

            MORE PROOF? THE ONLY 3 PEOPLE IN HISTORY WHO HAVE BEEN AWARDED TWO NOBLE PRIZES EACH AND ALL THREE OF THEM WERE ATHEISTS!

          • MDB

            A list of said prophecies and their corresponding “fulfilled” current event listing applicable to each one, would be appropriate right about now.
            (The Pope did NOT sign any peace treaty, it was a multi-faith prayer event. Perhaps you have an ear with the personal papal secretary that no one else is privy too, that you’d now like to share with the group?…geeesshh)

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Corinthians 6: 9.

          • MDB

            Ray…care to share with the rest of the group the long list of sins you have confessed and conquered ( since you’re so da*n perfect)

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Isaiah 5:20
            Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;
            that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
            that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

          • vorpal

            Ray, are you a real person, or a computer script who randomly posts completely irrelevant bible verses at random intervals in response to other comments?

            As a programmer, I could write a program in a couple of hours that would be pretty much impossible to differentiate from you.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          Another rider on the Fool’s Wheel. The circular reasoning argument doesn’t work regarding the prophecies because the Bible is 66 books, not one, written over a period of millennia. A prophecy written in 700 BC in one book, and fulfilled in 34 AD as recorded by several books, is immune to the circular reasoning argument.

          • Steven Schwartz

            A prophecy written in 700 BC in one book, and fulfilled in 34 AD as recorded by several books, is immune to the circular reasoning argument.

            Actually, no — since a *third* source, outside those, chose which texts to include and which not.

            You also omit from this the fact that people in later books claim to find prophecies in earlier books that the people who wrote and interpreted them did not consider prophecy — at which point, there is zer opredictive value, since the bullseye can be easily drawn around the bullet hole.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            That’s an absurd argument. The existence of a council determining canonicity during the fourth century AD has no bearing on the veracity of a prophecy written in the seventh century BC and recorded as fulfilled in the first century AD.

          • Steven Schwartz

            It’s not at all absurd when you consider that the argument you make is, in effect, one of probability: “How likely is it that all these prophecies would be fulfilled?”

            The editors in the 4th century had ample opportunity to adjust those percentages, by omission and editing.

            Now, when you add in the fact that many o those “fulfilled by…” prophecies either were not originally considered prophetic statements, or were not fulfilled in the manner expected by those closer to them, the editing becomes even more important.

            When one person gets to pick what is and isn’t prophecy, and decide whether or not it’s fulfilled, from someone else’s work, why should we be at all surprised that the percentage of “fulfilled” prophecy is high? It would be more surprising were it otherwise.

            In your defense of the Tyre prophecy, you make a great deal out of the specific wording about things being tossed into the sea — yet elsewhere, you speak to the prophecy that Nebuchanezzar would destroy Egypt by asking “how many did he kill” — in effect, arguing that *one* part of one prophecy must be taken literally, so as to make it seem less likely (and thus more impressive), while arguing that another part of the *same prophet*’s prophecy must be read metaphorically, so it is fulfilled.

            That is an inconsistent methodology of interpretation, and casts any of your conclusions into great doubt.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Not at all. I’m trying to get you to focus on two or three prophecies, and see whether you can provide some rational explanation how Ezekiel could have foreseen so many details of the destruction of Tyre, and Isaiah the crucifixion and substitutionary atonement, absent supernatural guidance.

            Not so. There is no evidence that the canonical books were edited at the end of the fourth century. Nobody has produced a “pre-edited” manuscript of any of the canonical books, for one thing. Also, how could a fourth century scribe omit and edit the fact that Tyre’s stones had been thrown into the sea hundreds of years earlier, as Ezekiel predicted?

            Such editing would have been impossible, anyway. By the time the Councils of Hippo and Carthage defined the canon, the texts of all the canonical books were already well known throughout the church, as early as the first century, and they were considered to be Scripture, God’s word, and therefore inviolable. Peter calls Paul’s writings Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), and Paul quotes Luke as part of Scripture. 1 Timothy 5:18: For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” The ox is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the laborer is from Luke 10:7. So we know Luke was considered part of Scripture at least by 64 AD or so, when Paul died, and Luke’s account of the crucifixion refers repeatedly to Psalm 22, along with Isaiah 53, Psalm 38, Psalm 69, Hosea 10, and Amos 8.

            Any efforts to rewrite the books already seen as canonical would have been rejected. Any effort by the church hierarchy to impose adulterated versions of Scripture onto the church would have provoked a schism.

            Regarding my speculations about the Nebuchadnezzar-Egypt prophecy and my allegedly inconsistent methodology, I think you’re misinterpreting what I wrote, but it really doesn’t matter. I am not the issue, the Scripture and related evidence is the issue. I could poke holes in your methodology as well, and challenge your motives to boot, but that would be beside the point, because you are not the issue either.

            I think I’ve told you that my position is not that that I know for sure that every word in the Bible is direct from God. I can’t prove that. My position is that God is communicating to us through the Bible, as evidenced by fulfilled prophecies such as Ezekiel 26, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Therefore, we ought to take the Bible’s message seriously.

          • Steven Schwartz

            I can’t prove that. My position is that God is communicating to us through the Bible, as evidenced by fulfilled prophecies such as Ezekiel 26, Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Therefore, we ought to take the Bible’s message seriously.

            And my point is, and shall remain, that prophecies that are interpreted sometimes one way, and sometimes another, according to the needs of the person trying to prove something, aren’t useful evidence. And give us no reason to take the Biblical message seriously, especially when it contradicts scientific evidence and human rights.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            LOOK OUT BRIAN,

            YOU ARE USING LOGIC ON THOSE WHO DO NOT. KIND OF A WASTE OF TIME! :-)

        • http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/ JBenning

          We can use science but you would piss on that as well. Your whole point of all this is what…………..exactly?

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        THE BIBLE AS PROOF? DAMN ARE YOU PROGRAMMED!

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          Sure, the Bible as proof. Have you read any Christian apologetics?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE BIBLE IS AS BOOK!

            IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANY THING!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Could you please rewrite this comment? The first sentence is incomprehensible, and you don’t respond to the direct question I asked.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I AM SORRY!! I APOLOGIZE FOR MY ERROR! I SHOULD HAVE SAID:

            “THE BIBLE IS JUST A BOOK AND IT IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING”

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You aren’t letting Barker do your thinking for you, are you, Neil?

            I know a handful of people who have fallen away from “fundamentalist” Christian faith. Not one has rejected the faith because they discovered it was factually untrue. Invariably the problem is emotional, and centers around disappointment with God. Perhaps God did not take away a sin problem as they prayed, or did not fulfill their ambitions for careers or marriage. Perhaps they encountered too many difficulties in life. The bottom line is they fall for Satan’s original lie, which was to mislead Adam and Eve about God’s character.

            Reading apologetics is helpful because you’ll benefit from a knowledgeable person helping you to understand the contents of the Bible. You might be interested in reading Josh McDowell’s book, More than a Carpenter, which lays out the evidence that God exists and communicated to us through the Bible in a readable format. “Carpenter” is a condensation of McDowell’s more formal apologetic, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, which might interest you as well.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            GO ARGUE WITH DAN BAKER OF JOHN LOFTUS,

            I AM NOT INTERESTED PURSING THIS FURTHER.THAT IS OTHER THAN HAVING THE CHANCE TO EDUCATE ANY OF THE MORE LOGICAL AND RATIONAL WHO MAY READ OUR COMMENTS.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I’m happy to do that, Neil. Why don’t you start by adducing evidence to prove that God does not exist? If you can’t do that, then you should admit that your “faith” is irrational at its root.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            FIRST, ANY TRULY INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL & RATIONAL
            KNOWS IT IS NO ONES RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE/

            YET SINCE YOU THINK IT IS, PROVE THE THOUSANDS OF HINDU GODS DO NOT EXIST! OR THAT HINDUS ARE RIGHT AND ALL THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN A SINGLE GOD ARE WRONG!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Very good. It’s impossible to prove a negative. That’s why atheism must always be irrational at its root, and why no “intelligent, logical and rational” person should call himself an atheist. After discovering the impossibility of proving a negative, at age 20 or so, I realized my own atheism was not provable, so I could never know for certain that my “faith” was true. I could no longer call myself an atheist with integrity, so I became an agnostic.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            LOOK YOU IGNORANT CLOSE MINDED PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS ROBOT,
            ONLY THREE PEOPLE IN HISTORY HAVE EACH BEEN AWARDED TWO NOBEL PRIZES AND ALL THREE OF THEM WERE ATHEISTS!

            SO YOU TOTAL RETARD, YOU ARE SAYING MARIE CURIE., BURTRAND RUSSELL AND LINUS PAULING WERE NOT INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL AND RATIONAL?

            MARK TWAIN AS NOT? CARL SAGAN WAS NOT?
            WC CLARK WAS NOT? SIR RICHARD BRANSON IS NOT?

            SANGER, BARTON. NIGHTENGALE, JODIE FOSTER, KATE HEPBURN AND ANGELLIA JOLE ARE, OR WERE NOT INTELLIGENT LOGICAL AND RATIONAL?

            YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

            GATES, BUFFET AND WALT DISNEY ARE OR WERE NOT INTELLIGENT LOGICAL AND RATIONAL?

            LOOK STUPID

            THE PROOF THAT ATHEISTS ARE EITHER THE LEADERS OR AMONG THE LEADERS IN EVERY POSITIVE FIELD IS EASY TO GET BY SIMPLY GOOGLEING “FAMOUS ATHEISTS AND READING THE NAMES!

            WHILE YOUR COMMENTS HAVE PROVEN YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Do you have anything more compelling than appeals to authority? You haven’t provided a single piece of evidence to support your position.

            Plenty of intelligent people are atheists. That isn’t surprising, because atheism is not an intellectual problem, it’s an character problem.

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR GOD WHICH NEARLY ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE NOT ALREADY BELIEVERS WOULD ACCEPT AS BEING VALID!

        YOUR GOD IS NO MORE REAL THAN ARE THE MANY GODS OF THE ROMANS, OR THE GREEKS OR THE HINDUS!

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          You’re starting to sound like a two year old shrieking NO!!!

          Why don’t you pick up a copy of McDowell’s More than a Carpenter, and try interacting with some evidence you’re not familiar with. Then we might have a more fruitful conversation.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU JUST DON’T GET IT, DO YOU?

            MY KNOWING OF THE MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS WHO WERE AS CONVINCED AS YOU ARE, AS WELL AS HUNDREDS OF FORMER CHRISTIAN MINISTERS WHO, AT ONE TIME, MAY HAVE BEEN EVEN MORE CONVINCED YOUR GOD WAS REAL THAN Y0U ARE,

            HAVE ALL LEFT YOUR CHILDISH MYTHS ON THE TRASH PILE OF HISTORY.,

            SO I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE TIME READING YOUR CHRISTIAN PROPAGANDA!

    • marlene

      and my answer is yes – read the bible before pretending to know and judge christianity.

      • L1011

        I was raised a Christian.

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18: 22, 23.

          • penguin_boy

            There are 613 laws in the Old Testament, 247 of them come from Leviticus. Do you follow every single one as a commandment from God?

          • vorpal

            Tao Te Ching, Chapter 11 (道德經,第十一章)

            Thirty spokes share the wheel’s hub,
            but it is the center hole that makes it useful.
            Shape clay into a vessel,
            but it is the space within that makes it useful.
            Cut doors and windows for a room;
            It is the holes which make it useful.
            Therefore benefit comes from what is there;
            Usefulness from what is not there.

            道德經,第十一章 (Original text)

            三十輻共一轂,當其無,有車之用。
            埏埴以為器,當其無,有器之用。
            鑿戶牖以為室,當其無,有室之用。
            故有之以為利,無之以為用。

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            INTELLIGENT RATIONAL AND LOGICAL PEOPLE WOULD NEVER BELIEVE SUCH B.S. WRITTEN BY A BUNCH OF FAIRLY CLUELESS CAMEL HERDERS OVER 2,000 YEARS AGO,

            THOSE WHO WROTE IT, THOUGHT THE EARTH HAD FOUR CORNERS, THE SUN WENT AROUND IT AND THEY HAD NO CLUE ABOUT THERE BEING A PACIFIC OCEAN, OR A WESTERN HEMISPHERE.

            THUS, NO ALL KNOWING GOD HAD A THING TO DO WITH IT!

            DUH!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            You are a fool.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I AM NOT THE RETARD WHO BELIEVES IN IMPOSSIBLE THINGS WHICH BREAK THE LAWS OF PHYSICS LIKE YOU ARE. THUS, YOU POOR PROGRAMMED RELIGIOUS BOBOT, IT IS YOU WHO IS THE FOOL!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Psalm 14:1
            The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AND CHILD, THERE ARE MULTI MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS WHO AGREE WITH ME AS WELL AS OVER A BILLION OTHERS!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            “FORMER CHRISTIANS”

            No such thing……

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            “STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES”

            DENYING FACTS IS STUPID!

            SAYING THERE ARE NO FORMER CHRISTIANS IS ONE OF THE MOST TOTALLY STUPID THING ANY ONE HAS EVER SAID!

            AND AN INTERNET SEARCH WILL PROVE HOW WRONG YOUR ARE!

            NOT ONLY ARE THERE M ANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS THERE IS ONE GROUP OF HUNDREDS OF FORMER CHRISTIAN MINISTERS

            SO CHILD,

            IT IS YOU WHO KEEPS PROVING HOW STUPID YOU ARE

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Thou fool.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            ARE YOU SAYING THEY KNEW PACIFIC OCEAN WAS THERE AND THE EARTH IS NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?

            BS!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Not only are you a fool, you are stupid.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            CHILD THE ODDS OF YOU BEING AS INTELLIGENT AS I AM ARE LESS THAN ONE PERCENT!

            SO GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC!

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Please everyone, Neil is talking.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SO WHY DID YOU POST YOUR OWN PICTURE?

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        READ THE BIBLE? YES PLEASE DO, READ IT COVER TO COVER!

        NOT ONLY HAVE MILLIONS OF FORMER LAY CHRISTIANS READ THE BIBLE BEFORE BECOMING ATHEISTS SO HAVE MANY HUNDREDS OF FORMER CHRISTIAN MINISTERS WHO ARE NOW ATHEISTS.

        SO DID ATHEIST LEADER DAN BARKER (OF THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION) WHO WAS NOT ONLY A CHRISTIAN YOUTH LEADER AND WHO WROTE BEST SELLING CHRISTIAN SONGS, HE WAS A FUNDAMENTALIST MINISTER FOR SEVENTEEN YEARS!

        THE FACTS ARE MANY ATHEISTS KNOW WHAT IS IN THE BIBLE BETTER THAN DO MANY CHRISTIANS!

        • marlene

          Did you say something? Reading is not discerning. Should i put my reply in angry caps, since you don’t get it? God knew what was in their hearts when they pretended to be biblical christians and they fell away. you champion them? find out for yourself. “Read the bible”? Yes. until you understand it. then you can talk about it. in the meantime, you’re just looking for supporters of your apostasy. look further – there IS truth.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            1. I USE ALL CAPS AS I AM 79 AND I CAN READ WHAT I WROTE EASIER

            2. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO READ MY POSTS! DUH!

            3. SINCE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOES NOT GET IT, HERE ARE SOME FACTS FOR YOU

            READING TH BIBLE FROM COVER TO COVER IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS MANY CHRISTIANS HAVE FIRST BECOME FORMER CHRISTIANS, AND THEN, ATHEISTS!

            A FORMER SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER, WHO READ IT FROM COVER BECAME THE WORLD FAMOUS ATHEIST MADALYN MURRAY O’HAIR!

            4. FYI,MOST OF AMERICA’S MANY MILLIONS OF ATHEISTS ARE ALL FORMER CHRISTIANS!

            LAST, NO GOD KNOWS WHAT WAS IN ANY ONES HEARTS AS THE ONLY PLACE ANY GOD EXISTS ARE IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM!

          • marlene

            oh, i get atheism all right. YOU don’t get faith. and where do you get your statistics? from common core? haha – calm down old man. the path to destruction is wide, the path to eternal life is narrow. enjoy your wide berth. goodbye.

    • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

      Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Romans 1: 24, 25, 26, 27.

      • penguin_boy

        No matter where you, there you are. – Buckaroo Banzai

        • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

          Your post makes no sense.

          • L1011

            Neither does yours.

          • vorpal

            I think that that was the point, honey bunches.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            DOST THOU AGREE?

          • penguin_boy

            Neither does yours. At leasr mine casn be shown to be factual. If you go somewhere, at the end of that journey, there you are.

            You just posted gibberish because you can actually argue using logic or facts.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SOME OF THE FUNNIEST THINGS EVER IS RELIGIOUS PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT FACTS AND LOGIC WHEN THEY CONSTANTLY DEMONSTRATE THEY USE NEITHER.

  • Persephone Sixty-Six

    If your god’s moral code is written on my heart, why is he OK with slavery and I’m not? Why is it that I see nothing wrong with working one the Sabbath yet he wants people to get stoned to death for it? Why is it that I consider rape a crime and the Bible says it can be a marriage proposal?

    Isn’t time we stop taking advice from a book that includes a talking donkey?

    • Rory

      Don’t forget the talking bush fire thing

      • L1011

        Or marrying your rapist.

      • vorpal

        Talking snake. None of my five pet snakes ever uttered a word.

        • MDB

          or offered to bite you just to test your faith. One of
          Robin Williams top 10 reasons for being an Episcopalian:
          No Snakes.

          • vorpal

            Snakes are truly amazing pets, and as I was warned by other snake owners before I got my first one, more addictive than potato chips :-).

            I’ve been bitten plenty of times (small-to-large constrictors, which are non-venomous and have tiny, tiny teeth to the point they barely even break the skin, so really not a big deal), but I can’t say it was to directly test my faith ;-). My favourite was my 10 ft coastal carpet python gal, who I would wear outside during the summer.

          • L1011

            Yikes!

          • vorpal

            A lot of people say that, but as someone who owned snakes and who owns cats, snakes are far easier to care for, often far more attractive (a matter of taste, of course :D), and pose far less risk for harm. I’ve been scratched by my cats a few times, and every time it was by far worse than anything a snake ever did to me.

        • L1011

          vorpal…why do you have pet snakes? Aren’t you scared they might attack or bite you?

          • vorpal

            We don’t have them anymore :(. We had to get rid of four of them a few years back when we signed a lease for a place that ended up having really hokey heating in the winter, as snakes need very careful temperature balance. We got rid of the fifth one, finally, when we moved to Hawaii, because no snakes are allowed to be brought in.

            They are really lovely, easy to care for, fun pets. For example, our baby red tail boa constrictor (only maybe 18 in long) was incredibly social and loved to sit around our necks with her tail curled around our necklace for her safety while we did things around the house. Whenever we would try to put her back in her tank she would throw a little tantrum and thrash and try to stop us from putting the lid back on her enclosure.

            I got attacked once by my 8 – 9 foot coastal carpet python, who went into heat and some kind of feeding frenzy. Despite having fed her three massive rats, when I opened her feeding tank, she leapt out, wrapped around my arm, started constricting it tightly, and began chewing with determination on the skin between my thumb and first finger. It may sound scary, and it was a little bit given her incredible constriction strength, but given that I do my research, I knew that a tiny bit of rubbing alcohol on her head would solve the problem – and did it ever! She literally threw herself across the room and calmed down right away. As for me, I was fine: even though she had been chewing on me for a solid 30 seconds or so, she failed to even puncture the skin or draw blood.

            Oh, and although I adore cats the most, watching a cat eat is no comparison for the absolute coolness of watching a constrictor snake eat (pre-killed frozen / thawed rats for humaneness and the snake’s own safety, of course).

          • L1011

            That was very interesting vorpal, thanks for sharing.

  • Mawell

    Denmark has an official state-sanctioned religion. The U.S. does not. What this law out of Denmark is saying is that same-sex couples have the right to get married in an official state-sanctioned church because, as a citizen of the country, that is their right. Denmark also has privately held churches that are free to perform or not perform any ceremonies they want.

    • MDB

      Da*n you, trying to bring logic into the discussion.
      What were you thinking? ;)

      • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

        If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

        • penguin_boy

          What about the other sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4?

          • vorpal

            I have ALWAYS wondered how this is completely ignored by Christians.

          • jamieson Hall

            They were fallen angels, Next question.

          • Rick L.

            Where does it say that… or are you interpreting?

          • jamieson Hall

            If you are planning on commenting that “evolution has been proven” and “there is no possibility that there can be a Creator” please do not do so until you can bring some form of documentation of proof, because otherwise it would just prove that it is just hearsay.

          • Rick L.

            I find it amusing when people (such as yourself) go totally off the rails commenting on some internal soliloquy rather than reality.

          • vorpal

            You can never fully prove a scientific model; you just continue to find evidence that overwhelmingly supports it, as is the case with evolution.

            If you are going to insist that there is a creator, please do not do so until you can bring some form of evidence. A 2000 year old collection of 66 books written by humans does not even constitute basic evidence.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE PROOF EVOLUTION IS TRUE IS IN YOUR BODY!

            WE HAVE CANINE TEETH WE DO HAVE A USE FOR!

            AND WE HAVE WISDOM TEETH, A THIRD EYE LID, A TAIL BONE, TONSILS AND AN APPENDIX WE REALLY DO NOT NEED!

            DUH!!!!!

          • jamieson Hall

            In the early 90′s it took nearly a week to download 13 hrs. of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos still have on my hard drive, sorry It’s not how I meant to come across in my post, Of course I believe in evolution I also know the laws of thermodynamics and how we Humans are a unprecedented species on this planet we are the the universe conscious life at the most unique level we can observe. Commonsense that we will continue to exist after our biological form reaches entropy. Even after a star dies it’s constitute atoms are part of the whole. I love science, am educated in both biological as well as chemical disciplines, and I have found much more evidence weighing toward a Creator. Evolution isn’t even on the radar any longer. It’s sad how fear makes billions of humans wrapped up in earth bound made religion.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I have found much more evidence weighing toward a Creator.

            REALLY? PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD CONVINCE A JURY MAD UP OF OPEN & FAIR MINDED, HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, INFORMED, SECULAR AND LOGICAL TRUTHFUL PEOPLE IT IS VALID,

          • Russell Sayce

            Secular people have no use for God, because they believe themselves to be God….

            Also, prove to me that there is truthful secular humanist, since they lie to children about secularism, I doubt you can…..

          • jamieson Hall

            In the early 90′s it took nearly a week to download 13 hrs. of Carl
            Sagan’s Cosmos still have on my hard drive, sorry It’s not how I meant
            to come across in my post, Of course I believe in evolution I also know
            the laws of thermodynamics and how we Humans are a unprecedented
            species on this planet we are the the universe conscious life at the
            most unique level we can observe. Commonsense that we will continue to
            exist after our biological form reaches entropy. Even after a star dies
            it’s constitute atoms are part of the whole. I love science, am educated
            in both biological as well as chemical disciplines, and I have found
            much more evidence weighing toward a Creator. Evolution isn’t even on
            the radar any longer. It’s sad how fear makes billions of humans wrapped
            up in earth bound made religions. It isn’t important how we evolved or came to be but the purpose to even exist.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            FOUND IT! SORRY!

            I’LL BET YOU WERE AS A BABY, CHILD AND TEENAGER, RAISED (PROGRAMMED) TO BELIEVE IN A CREATOR.

            AND YOUR BELIEF IS SO STRONG THAT YOU ACCEPT THINGS AS BEING EVIDENCE A CREATOR EXISTS.

            YET THE THINGS WHICH YOU BELIEVE ARE EVIDENCE ARE ALSO THINGS WHICH VERY, VERY FEW, IF ANY, OF THOSE NOT SO PROGRAMMED, WOULD ACCEPT AS BEING VALID EVIDENCE OF A CREATOR.

            SOME DAY, YOU MAY REALIZE WHAT MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS, HAVE. AND IT IS, THEY WERE CONNED

          • jamieson Hall

            Pretty sad how you only see yourself as a parasite resource user. i will think of you the next time I step on a ant. No you’re wrong again. I wasn’t exposed to religion in any sense of the word. Never went to church and or taught anything relating to the bible in the least bit at all. You and I are that evidence Mr. Neil and perhaps if this knowledge of who we truly are were told truthfully some kid wouldn’t see life as so cheap to want to kill themselves and bring others with them across our country

          • jamieson Hall

            My talking with you has ended please do not reply any longer as you only desire to spread your useless religious minded nonsense. You are so full of yourself you can’t even see how religious you are.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            GEE, WHAT A SURPRISE! NOT.

            YOUR ACTION IS WHAT ALL DO WHO ARE UNABLE TO PROVE I AM EITHER FACTUALLY, OR LOGICALLY WRONG

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AND IF YOU HAVE ALL OF THIS SUPPOSED EVIDENCE A CREATOR EXISTS, WHY DO YOU NOT PRESENT IT??

          • Red Mann

            How do you manage to accept and understand science, then accept the notion of a supernatural creator? There is no evidence for the latter and volumes for the former.

          • Don Hignite

            Can you provide any observable evidence of any change of kinds in a species? Only one will prove your point; so give me and example of a change of kinds such as a monkey to a man, dog into a cat, etc..

          • penguin_boy

            Really? Because that’s not what the words in Hebrew mean. In Hebrew, angel is mal’āḵ. “Sons of God” is
            “bənê hāʼĕlōhîm” Completely different words with very different roots. Nowhere in Genesis are the sons of God described as fallen angels. Are you just making things up out of ignorance?

            Do you follow all 613 rules listed in Leviticus?

          • edav38

            PB< there are many ways to view the Elohim. It depends on the religion it is dealing with, like, in Hindu, Rama is an Elohim, Buddha could almost be considered Elohim based upon the beliefs of how he came into the world. The adherants of Lau Tzu would consider him Elohim, although from the way Lao wrote, he would be appalled to be considered so. In Greco-Roman mythology, Zeus and his brothers and sister (only those who were children of the Titans), could be referred to as Elohim.
            What I have said above is based upon the Jewish and other cultural Definitions of the word Elohim. Basically, being that are more advanced. Not necessarily the Fallen Angels that the Old Testament and other Jewish texts talk about,
            If you are going to get into the Fallen Angels, which Elohim can and are in many cases, part of, you have to bring up the Nephalim, who were the Offspring of the union between the Fallen Angels and the "Daughters of Man"
            The Bible DOES Confirm that creatures like Hercules and the Minator, and others like that, EXISTED, when it talks in Genesis 6:4
            The Nephilim were on the earth in those days–and also afterward–when
            the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by
            them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
            Hercules WOULD have been on of the "Men of Renown", or depending on how you look at Historical records (NOT INCLUDING how Hollywood loos at him), potentially a Hero of Old, as well. I could go on for a very long time, suffice to say, Tje Elohim ARE so-called "sons of God", though, when you look at that, understand, when the Bible talks about the Angels is says "sons" of God in Lower Case, and when it talks about Christ it says "SON" or "Son" of God, with the Upper case, it is making a distinction between the two, the Angels are "sons of God", and Christ is "the Son of God". There may not Look to be a difference, but Only One Angel is the #1 SON of God, and that is Christ, and uncreated being already existing At Creation, whereas the "sons of God", the Angels were Created AFTER Creation, and part of these are who the "Fallen Angels" were, one place it says "one third of the multitude" who are Angels, Fell from the grace of God.
            When you look at some of the passages where it talks about raping and pillaging, This IS what War was in the past, up to and including as little as 200 or so years ago. War is Much Less brutal now than it was them, almost Infinitely Less brutal. But, the Bible Also states God as saying, "My ways are not your ways, and My understanding is Not Yours", ect.
            Trying to put God's Reasoning into the Finite of Man, is impossible. Partly because God Exists in ALL Times, Unchanged, from 100,000years ago to today, God is the Same. You and I cannot understand this, because We are not God, so to try to Judge what God's Word says, in the Old or New Testaments, or the Torah or the Talmud (the Jewish Texts), is trying to put a Square Peg into a round hole.

          • penguin_boy

            The Bible confirms nothing. That’s you biggest error. Do the Eddas confirm the existence of the Norse pantheons? Does the Koran confirm that Muhammad was carried by paradise by the hand of god? If not, why not?

            War was more brutal? Are you delusional? Prior to the 20th century wars avoided extensive civilian casualties and destruction as a rule as they were fought for territorial gains. It was the 20th Century that brought the concept of total war and mass destruction to the fore. In one raid on Tokyo in May, 1945, killed more people in one night than died in all the Crusades combined – the vast majority of them civilians.

            There is no logical basis for your claims.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THERE AIN’T NO ANGELS NOW, AND THERE AIN’T NEVER BEEN NO ANGELES! THEY ARE JUST MORE RELIGIOUS MYTHS! NO MORE REAL THAN THE GODS OF THE GREEKS, ROMANS NORSEMEN, INCA’S OR WHO HAVE YOU.

        • vorpal

          So, Ray, come down to visit me and put my husband and I to death. Your loving, noble lord hath commanded it. I’ll even provide you with the rock with which you can bash my head in.

          And then I can spend all of eternity in the flames of hell, which your loving and great god created for us humans because he just loves us so gosh-darn much!

          • Rory

            Wait doesn’t that contradict the commandment “Thou shall not kill”. Wow the Bible contradicts itself clearly but it seems Christians are obviously not intelligent enough to see that contradiction.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS FAR AS I KNOW THE BIBLE INSTRUCTS ITS READERS TO “NOTILL” TWICE

            AND “TO KILL” TWENTY EIGHT TIMES!

            YEA THAT IS A REAL “GOOD” BOOK. NOT!

            ACTUALLY, WE FORMER CHRISTIANS AND NOW ATHEISTS URGE ALL CHRISTIANS TO READ THE BIBLE AND PLEASE READ IT FROM COVER TO COVER.

            WHY WOULD WE ATHEISTS WANT THAT?

            AS SO DOING IS ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS SO MANY FORMER CHRISTIANS ARE NOW ATHEISTS!.

          • edav38

            Ray doesn’t Understand that as Christians we are No Longer Bound by the laws of the Old Testament in the same way as before.
            ALSO, Ray does not understand the reasons that those laws were written, but, then Ray is NOT interested in Truth, he is Only Interested in Justifying Murder

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            WHY ARE THEY NOT? AFTER ALL, IN THE N.T. JESUS
            SAID EVERYTHING IN THE O.T. WAS TRUE AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.

          • vorpal

            So do you eat pork or shrimp? Do you wear polyester or other mixed fabrics? Have you met your quota for stoning disobedient children this week?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YES, YES AND NO!

            AS I AM AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST ACTIVIST I HAVE NO DESIRE TO STONE CHILDREN OR TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE OTHER RETARD BIBLE INSTRUCTIONS.

          • vorpal

            I appreciate that – from what I can tell from your post – there is at least one more Christian here who isn’t a hypocrite and who actually seems more focused on Jesus than condemnation. It’s a rarity on BarbWire.

          • http://1389blog.com/ 1389AD

            The Bible is warning you that sodomy leads to death. This is borne out by the life expectancy stats for those who practice sodomy. Sins are called sins because they are inherently bad for those who commit them and for the human race as a whole.

          • vorpal

            1389CE, do you honestly think that I care what a 2000 year old collection of books says?

            Being in a committed monogamous relationship where my husband and I are both STI-free, my fear of my life expectancy being reduced by homosexuality in any meaningful way is 0. Furthermore, we don’t engage in anal lovemaking for a number of reasons regardless. I suggest you focus your attention on the heterosexual sodomites – or are they safe through the mere extension that they’re opposite sex couples?

            Talking about sin with an atheist is like talking about the tooth fairy with an adult: meaningless. Yes, I realize you love your silly anti-intellectual nonsense, and you’re entitled to it, but stop trying to push it on those of us who aren’t interested and know better.

          • edav38

            you should care what 2000yr old books say, even the 4000yr old ones incorporated, because many of them Completely Apply to what is going on today

          • edav38

            No, God never said Gays should be put to death, read it a bit closer, there is much more to it than that, and the man laying with a man as a woman, is referring to the pagan religious rituals, not the monogamous relationships. When you read Only One Verse, you miss the point of the WHOLE of what is being said, likewise, when you do not know the History of what was going on where the verses were written, then you Cannot know what is being talked about.
            People like Ray Miss Out on the Whole of the Word, by focusing on the narrow view, that they Use to Subjugate others

        • Rick L.

          So is I never lieth-ed with a woman…

          • jamieson Hall

            I find it amusing when people (such as yourself) categorically and emphatically say that God does not exist as though they’ve checked every corner of the universe of something. Agnosticism is a rational position to take in my view. So I’ll say I don’t know instead of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and pretending to have knowledge of something I do not possess

          • Rick L.

            I don’t know how you read that I don’t believe in God. I try to not address that issue since I do not believe in empirical proof of God’s existence. But FYI – I do believe.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AND I WILL BET YOU WERE AS A BABY CHILD ANDTEEN PROGRAMMED TO BELIEVE!

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SOMETHING YOU SAID CAUSED ME TO REPLY AS I DID AND THE FACT YOU SAID YOU “DO BELIEVE” PROVES I WAS CORRECT.

          • Rick L.

            The fact that you don’t seem to be able to follow a logical conversation as well as your use of all caps displays such a low level of maturity that its obvious further discussion would be wasteful of my time.

          • vorpal

            I actually largely agree with you here, as an agnostic atheist / philosophical Taoist.

            That being said, I think we can muster up enough evidence to claim that specific gods do not exist, and Yahweh is, in my opinion and according to my standards for evidence, absolutely amongst them.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            HI VORPAL, IF HE BANS ME FOR MY USING ALL CAPS, I HOPE SOME OF YOU FAIR MINDED PEOPLE USE ALL CAPS.

          • vorpal

            Ummm… just don’t use all caps?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I USE ALL CAPS BECAUSE I AM 79 AND I CAN READ WHAT I WRITE MUCH EASIER! AND FYI, OTHER OLD PEOPLE USE ALL CAPS.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            ANY RATIONAL AND INFORMED PERSON KNOWS THAT IN COURT OF LAW, NO ONE HAS TO PROVE NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED. THAT IN THE LABS OF SCIENCE NO PROOF NO ADVANCEMENTS WERE MADE.

            NOPE,IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE WHO SAY SOMETHING,IN NOT TRUE TO PROVE IT IS NOT TRUE.

            HUMANS HAVE INVENTED, NAMED & WORSHIPPED SOME 25.000 DIFFERENT GODS SO FAR AND NOT ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST! NOT THE GODS OF THE GREEKS OR ROMANS OR ANY OF THEM.

            NOW ALL OF THOSE GODS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MYTHS! AND AS THE EVER INCREASING NUMBERS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS PROVE, SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE, THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION WILL ADDED TO THE LIST OF MYTHS,

            IF RELIGIOUS BELIEF WAS NOT PROGRAMMED INTO BABIES, CHILDREN AND TEENS, THE NUMBERS OF RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD BE VERY SMALL!

            CHRISTIANS SHOULD REALIZE WHAT I AM SURE THAT MANY, TO MOST OF AMERICA;S FORMERLY RELIGIOUS HAVE. IT BEING THE ONLY REASON THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN A DIFFERENT RELIGION AND IN A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF GODS THAN THEY DO, IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WERE PROGRAMMED TO BE CHRISTIANS!

            LAST, MOST OF THE MANY, MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE ATHEISTS WERE ONCE ALL CHRISTIANS!

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AGNOSTICS SAY THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF THERE IS A GOD OR NOT ATHEISTS SAY THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN ANY GODS

            YOU EITHER BELIEVE IN ONE OR MORE GODS, OR YOU DO NOT

            IF YOU DO BELIEVE IN ONE OR MORE GODS, YOU ARE A THEIST

            IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN ONE OR MORE GODS, LIKE IT OR NOT, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST!

            PLEASE, TAKE CARE!!

            AGNOSTIC ATHEIST ACTIVIST

            AND “AIRBORNE”

            NEIL

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            JAMIESON, IN REGARDS TO THE MESSAGE I JUST GOT FROM YOU, I COULD NOT FIND IT HERE OR A PLACE TO REPLY TO YOU

          • jamieson Hall

            In the early 90′s it took nearly a week to download 13 hrs. of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos still have on my hard drive, sorry It’s not how I meant to come across in my post, Of course I believe in evolution I also know the laws of thermodynamics and how we Humans are a unprecedented species on this planet we are the the universe conscious life at the most unique level we can observe. Commonsense that we will continue to exist after our biological form reaches entropy. Even after a star dies it’s constitute atoms are part of the whole. I love science, am educated in both biological as well as chemical disciplines, and I have found much more evidence weighing toward a Creator. Evolution isn’t even on the radar any longer. It’s more rational to ask why for our purpose of existence than how.. Thinking how sad that fear makes billions of humans enslaved to earth bound made religion. We’re more than a couple chromosome strands away from being the local produce lol.

          • Red Mann

            I’m not sure what you are trying to say here or in your previous post. Are you saying there is some higher purpose for our existence?

          • Red Mann

            There is no evidence of the existence of such a being and you are making the claim of said existence so you must show the evidence. Can you prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster do not exist when I say they do? They are just as likely as your god,

          • vorpal

            LOL! Neither have I, so I guess we’re safe.
            The very idea of lieth-ing with a woman makes my genitalia retract with horror.

        • regexp

          There are 76 things that are banned in Leviticus. Of those things I bet you ignore about half of them. Why not ignore 20:13 as well? Or are you obsessed with man lying with man for any particular reason?

        • Red Mann

          Ray, your Bible only applies to those who believe it and believe your interpretation of it. It has nothing to do with the law or government. It is hubris to think that your god actually controls everything.

          • Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.

            Revelation
            1And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a greatchain in his hand. 2And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him athousand years, 3And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up , and set a seal upon him, that he shoulddeceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled : and after that he must beloosed a little season.
            4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw thesouls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which hadnot worshipped the beast, neither his image , neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, orin their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished . This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath nopower, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 7And when the thousand years are expired , Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 8And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog andMagog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about , andthe beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. 10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast andthe false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

            11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heavenfled away ; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened : andanother book was opened , which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead whichwere in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

          • edav38

            Ray, with your Judgment of others, I hope you are Prepared to Stand before God and Answer for doing that which God has told you NOT to do, that is to Judge.
            Yes, i know you think God is a God of Hate, which couldn’t be further from the Truth

            You really need to get further into what the concept of God’s Love for ALL His Children is, and His Children is EVERY HUMAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED…

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THERE IS NO GOD TO STAND BEFORE!

            ANY AND ALL GODS ONLY EXIST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM.

            YOU DO NOT BELIEVE YOU WILL BE JUDGED BY THE MANY GODS OF THE HINDUS WHOM YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN. SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

            WE ATHEISTS JUST DISBELIEVE IN ONE LESS GOD THAN DO ANY OF YOU GOD BELIEVERS!!.

          • edav38

            No, Actually RM, The Word of God has been proven over and over and over to be Fact, Ray is Very Misguided about it, and uses it to Strik Fear and Terror in everyone, which is NOT what God meant it to be used for, but then Ray has a history of supporting Terror, instead of the Love of God.

            John 3:16-18(NKJV)
            16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
            18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

            See, Ray’s Intent is to Push what he considers “Undesirable” Away from God, whereas God wants to Bring Everyone to Him

          • Red Mann

            Sorry, no, the “Word of God” has never been proved to be true by any reasonable evidence. You’re exhibiting wishful and magical thinking. The Bible can, and has been, easily be used to support violence and hatred, and peace and love depending on the desires of those interpreting it.
            Since there are tens of thousands of religions in the world, all claiming to be true and none of them have any actual evidence for their claims, how do you decide which is the true one?

          • edav38

            Actually, Yes, It Has

          • Red Mann

            Show me some actual testable, measurable evidence not emotional claims or anecdotes, real evidence that can be repeated and tested.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            NO, IT HAS NOT! IT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN TO THOSE WHO ARE NOT ALREADY BELIEVERS!

            AND MANY MULTI-MILLIONS OF FORMER BELIEVERS NOW REALIZE THEY WERE CONNED!

          • Don Hignite

            Do you need a new keyboard?

          • Don Hignite

            Yet the most known name in the World today is Jesus. There you go talking thousand of religions again. Name 22 of these imaginary thousands of religions. Do you even know or do you just simply pretend to what a religion is?

          • Red Mann

            Argumentum ad populum, logic fail. In the US, the non-believers make up over 16% while those identifying as Christian are just over 78%. Protestants are 51%, Catholics 23%, Mormons, JWs and others make up the rest. Of course many of those identifying as Christians aren’t active and are Christian by default. The number of non-believers is suppressed by the negative feelings against the non-religious in the US. In any event having numbers does not validate the truth of religion.
            There are an estimated 4,200 religions, but many are subdivided, like Christianity which is subdivided into something like 33,000 denominations, so yes, there are tens of thousands of different beliefs in the world claiming to be the true and proper belief.
            This information is just a few keystrokes away, if you were truly interested.

          • Don Hignite

            Typically the Evolutional types will interpret vast array of
            numbers in order to limit their exposure from being hideous, if not simple. Here
            we have one who makes up figures and expresses them with combining
            denominations to try and make up his thousands statements. My friend there is
            only 22 known religions in the world today, with evolution being included. Get off
            your duff and face it, you are either a perpetual liar or too lazy to research
            what you say, leaving you reaching for vanities that amount to nothing, but the
            absurd.

          • Red Mann

            I have provided you with research, which took mere seconds to find, the lazy one is you, and, of course, you just deny any evidence provided to you. You are too intellectually lazy to challenge your beliefs and investigate reality. Look at examiner dot com slash article/the-exact-number-of-religions-the-world-is-unknown.
            Step out of you cozy little cocoon, there’s a big wide world out there that is much more interesting than your sad little religion.

          • Don Hignite

            No MORE games ANSWER the QUESTION….If you do not you openly accept that yes you must have FAITH to BELIEVE in EVOLUTION…

          • Red Mann

            No, no scientists or educated layman has faith in any science. Science is based on facts, no silly belief needed. I have answered the question and pointed to the facts, you chose to ignore them. I am not about to give you a lesson in evolutionary theory since many, many others have already done it better than I. However, molecular biology, paleontology, genome studies and genetics all support the TOE. Darwin knew nothing of genetics and when Mendel discovered the concept it supported Darwin’s theory, as did the discovery of DNA and genome sequencing. Go read Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” and Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” for starters, they are meant for laymen. There are hundreds of books explaining the TOE, but you put your fingers in your ears and shout “LALALALALA I can’t hear you”. Your willful ignorance is pathetic, and sad. I am growing tired of wasting my time arguing with such determined ignorance as yours, so I will not respond to your insulting arrogance any longer.

          • Don Hignite

            Care to expand on that mythical logic? Socialism in this century alone, has murdered and killed more people than in all prior centuries combined and in the name of TOLERANCE..

          • Red Mann

            Wrong answer, socialism has done no such thing and you have a completely distorted notion of what tolerance is. States that have tried to use communism have turned into totalitarian states that killed in large numbers so that the leaderships could maintain power. Communism as applied, was more of a religion than a form of government. These systems did not murder in the name of socialism, which is not, as you have been led to believe, equivalent to communism. Hitler was an avowed Christian and his slaughter of the millions of Jews was simply an extension of the Christian anti-Semitism prevalent in Europe and encouraged by the Christian churches. Martin Luther was a vicious anti-Semite. In any event those deaths pale compared to what religions have done over the millennia and those murders were done in the name of their god, although there was a political element involved sine church and state were inextricably intertwined at the time.
            The best analysis of the Bible stories indicates that God killed 2,476,633 million and Satan killed just 10. Violence and murder are part and parcel of religion.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            ANYONE WHO THINKS CHRISTIANS ARE TOLLERENT IS NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK! THEY HAVE BATS IN THEIR BELFRY! WHILE THE LIGHTS MAY BE ON, NO ONE IS HOME. THEY ARE NOT THE SHARPEST KNIFE IN THE DRAWER. LAST, THEY ARE FACT DENIERS!

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            RED COME READ WHAT A CHRISTIAN SENT ME TO DAY

            I WILL NOT POST HERE ANS I HAVE ALREADY POSTED IT IN OTHER PLACES IN THIS THREAD

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            IF RAY EVER GETS HIS STUFF TOGETHER AND JOINS THE MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS, HE WILL FINALLY UNDERSTAND HOW HIS GOD ONLY EXISTS IN HIS MIND.

        • tatoo

          And if he eats pork. And if he eats shell fish. And if he sleeps on the top of a mountain. And if he touches a football. There won’t be anyone left if we all really followed the bible.

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        HEY ALL IF HE BANS ME FOR MY USING ALL CAPS, I HOPE SOME OF YOU FAIR MINDED PEOPLE USE ALL CAPS.

    • vorpal

      Too much logic and some heads here might explode. They aren’t used to it: they prefer 2000 year old authoritarianism.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      AND WHAT PERCENT OF THOSE IN DENMARK ARE RELIGIOUS? I WILL BET IT IS ONLY AROUND 30 PERCENT.

  • Cheyenne W.

    Since they are losing so badly, they are going to get more extreme. Sort of like a dying animal becoming more vicious. All we can do is sit back and watch the show, which should be good. Ms. Miller is one of the more unhinged of the group, although I think that she should have a daily newspaper column, in which case support for SSM would go from 55% to about 75% pretty rapidly. I have yet to see one article on here yet that gives a RATIONAL explanation against SSM. All they have are their catch words such as “sodomite” which no no one outside the little fundy love nest has used in NORMAL conversation since circa 1890. When SSM comes before the US Supreme Court, which will be quite soon, it will be as bad for them and their world-view as the Scopes Trial in 1925, in which case they can once again crawl under their rock and put on their tin foil hats and rant against the “communists” and “sodomites.”

    • vorpal

      …and like a dying animal that becomes progressively more and more vicious, people with any sense step back further and further from it.

    • vorpal

      Oh, and I’ve decided that since my hubby and I don’t do the deed that the people here consider sodomy that we’re not sodomites, but actually Gomorrahns. Poor Gomorrah never gets its due props in the OT anyway.

      • Cheyenne W.

        I do the deed that qualifies as sodomy at least twice a week. Maybe I should get a tee shirt that says “proud sodomite” on it.

        • vorpal

          We have nothing against the deed at all; it’s just that our pre-existing health conditions make it unwise, in our cases, so we find other ways to be dirty reprobates.

          Edit: also, we both have really low sex drives, so we’re well matched on that front. (I could, quite frankly, identify as an asexual-homosexual if I was single, and it would probably be quite close to accurate.)

          LOL I just googled, and the Landover Baptist CafePress store contains a wide line of sodomite-themed clothing. You can even get an outfit for your dog if you have one :-). I kind of want the Sodomite Apron now so when I grill, I can really fan the flames of not only the barbecue but my rampant, unrestrained, galloping faggotry!

          • Cheyenne W.

            Both of us have a really high sex drive, so even trying to keep it to 2x a week can be hard. I will have to investigate the sodomy shirts, but no, I don’t have a dog, just a really fat cat named Cartman (see Southpark). Ya’ll should come hang with us here in MKE sometime, as you sound really cool. Heck, I have even invited Spouser… I guess that our guest room is open to all, and there is always a keg of Pabst in the kegerator. I mean honestly, we’re like 2 frat boys with good taste who have sex with each other, in other words, quite boringly normal.

          • vorpal

            Hahaha! That’s awesome! We have a tubby tabby who is so grossly obese that despite the fact that he tries *so* hard to clean himself, his lower half is inaccessible to him and he needs as much help as my husband can sponge, brush, and clip. It’s hard to feel about his rampant obesity because we have four cats, and the other three are all sleek and extremely healthy and want food left out all the time so they can graze.

            We would absolutely love to meet you and your partner at some point if the opportunity and money ever present themselves! (Now that I’m in Chile and hubby is joining me next weekend, we will no longer have to pay income tax or Hawaiian prices, so I predict money will be much, much better.) You and L1011 are two of the people that I’ve been very thankful and lucky to meet online. What can I say? All the coolest homosexuals hang out on BarbWire.

            Also, if you two ever want to come to lovely La Serena, Chile, please do! We have ridiculous amounts of space in our new digs here. (The company I work for has provided us with an absurd four bedroom house for the two of us and we have no idea what to do with all this space.) Or alternatively, when we move back to Hawaii in =fingers crossed= two years, come visit us there.

          • Cheyenne W.

            I have never been to Hawaii or Chile, but those both sound like fun. I just got done running a beer bust fundraiser for the Red Cross here, and I am honestly worn out. I will ask my partner sometime, but I would be the would be up for it since he likes to travel more than I do.

        • vorpal

          How’s your hay-scapade end up going? Horses fed and happy?

          LOL and here when we run out of cat food I feel too lazy at times to make a trip to the store and just give him a mighty amount of roast chicken!

          • Cheyenne W.

            I ended up hauling 234 bales that the lady wanted to get rid of. I really need to cut hay this week, but the weather won’t permit. I had to load all the bales and unload them myself. It’s amazing how fast everyone disappears when hay has to be done. I am thinking of calling some of my former college students week after next to see if they want to make some money baling hay. On the fun side, the lady that owns the farm asked me what it would cost for me to be there full time as my only job. It’s probably a good thing that she owns oil wells in Oklahoma.

  • penguin_boy

    “but at some deep level they still know it.”

    Wrong. Madam, I am an atheist. I do not believe in any deities. Not yours, not theirs, not ancient ones, not modern ones. I live in a world free of myth and the threat of a vengeful god. Please keep us out of your delusional rantings.

    By the way, when did 1 Tim. 2:12-13 stop applying? If you are demanding strict adherence to Biblical law, then you should remain quiet and let men do the teaching, yes?

    Finally, this ruling applies only to the Church of Denmark, the official state church. Congratulations, ma’am, you just made an excellent argument for the complete separation of Church and State!

    • A. Christian

      >>> when did 1 Tim. 2 stop applying?<<< Once women started studying Scripture under the New Testament, something they were not allowed to do before Jesus: "Among these house-church pastors was Mary, the mother of John Mark, who later became a missionary with the apostles Paul and Barnabas. It was to her house church that Peter came in Acts 12:12 . . .

      Another house church leader was Chloe, according to I. Corinthians 1:11. In that passage, Paul relates that "some of Chloe's household " had reported that there was strife among the Corinthian Christians. Those Chloe sent with this message to Paul were probably Christians who were members of her house church. They may have been relatives or household servants, or they may have been Christians who lives in the area and gathered at her home for worship. These believers would have come under Chloe's spiritual guidance, care and protection. But Chloe's influence extended beyond her own flock. Evidently, she had sent a deputation from her house church to Paul, who knew her or knew of her, to inform him of the need for correction in the Corinthian church. She was a trusted leader and source of reliable information for the apostle Paul.

      Acts 16:14-15, 40 tells us about Lydia, Paul's first European convert to Jesus, who offered Paul hospitality in her home. Scripture relates that when Lydia was converted, her entire household was baptized and that her home became the first meeting place for European Christians. Lydia was a business woman who traded in valuable, dyed garments. The fact that Scripture mentions no husband or father indicates the high prominence of this woman. Since first-century Greek and Roman women were almost always under the legal guardianship of a husband or father, Lydia may well have been a wealthy widow or only daughter who inherited her parents' estate. Thus, she became the head of her own household. She either managed the family business or developed a business of her own after her husband's or father's death.

      Roman households were often large since almost all businesses were home-based before the industrial age. Those who worked for Lydia in her business, and possibly others engaging in the trade who belonged to the dye-makers guild, would have been among her converts. By virtue of her position as head of household, Lydia had the opportunity and responsibility to lead all of its members to Christ and then to establish and lead them in the faith. This put her in a similar position to the modern-day pastor. To fulfill part of this responsibility, Lydia invited Paul to come and preach in her home.

      Paul and Silas established their gospel mission headquarters in Lydia's house and no doubt preached there regularly. After their release from prison, Scripture tells us that they returned to Lydia's and, having met with the brethren, exhorted them. This may have been the first church planted on European soil, and its pastor was a woman.

      • penguin_boy

        So, Biblical law is only in force until you can find a verse or story that let’s you ignore that law? Interesting…

        • A. Christian

          >>> Biblical law <<< "Legalism" is not a Chrstian doctrine. Christians are saved by faith, not the law. (Book of Romans).

          • MDB

            Well, if you would read all of the denigrating articles of extremist ridicule, hyperbole, blame and condemnation
            leveled against the LGBT community (and the outrageous comments – just here on BW for starters))… one could easily come away thinking exactly the opposite.

          • Steven Schwartz

            Then what hermeneutic do you have for determining whether someone’s faith trumps the law?

          • A. Christian

            Mr. Schwartz – give an example of “the law” – keeping the Sabbath? Abstaining from pork? Aren’t there over 600 ordinances in the Old Testament.? Does not Jesus fulfill it ALL?

          • Steven Schwartz

            If he did, then why do you cite OT law in arguing about anything? And yet, I hear it again and again.

            The problem is that you pick and choose waht you want from there to suit your needs.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            IN THE N.T. J.C. SAID EVERYTHING IN THE O.T. WAS TRUE AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.

          • penguin_boy

            I don’t care. I’m asking how you reconcile the direct contradictions in the role of women in the church.

            Also, if the law doesn’t matter, then why care about gays getting married?

    • Norm

      Interesting sir. Quoting scripture as an atheist…As I stated before to others who use this ploy of extracting bits, you haven’t the right to quote or state scripture to enhance your viewpoint. Quote the hitchikers guide to the galaxy, it’s good fiction and closer to your stance, no?

      • penguin_boy

        Nice evasion. Bad news, I have every right to quote anything. It’s called freedom of speech. Also, I’m a historian. I’ve studied the Bible and early Christianity for years.

        Any reason you refuse to answer the question? If the Bible is the divinely-ordained word of God, then 1Tim is the law. So why do (mostly) American women evangelicals ignore it? If it isn’t the law, then what is?

        • Truth Offends

          As I understand 1 Tim 2:8-15, Paul is telling Timothy (and us) what he does, what he recommends. Paul is not telling Timothy (or us) what God commands.

          • penguin_boy

            Wait, so *nothing* in the epistles is the word of God?

          • Truth Offends

            That’s not what I said.

          • penguin_boy

            So we can ignore the epistles then?

          • Truth Offends

            Seems you have problems with reading comprehension.

          • penguin_boy

            No, I’m asking you a question: Are the epistles the divinely inspired word of God, or not? If they’re not, why quote any of them as authoritative writings? If they are, then shouldn’t they be followed to the letter?

          • Truth Offends

            wait

          • penguin_boy

            Wait? For what, exactly? It’s a simple question: Are the epistles the divinely-inspired word of God or not? Yes or no. You seem to have no trouble trying to split hairs above, why is a simple question so hard for you?

          • Truth Offends

            All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim 3:16)

          • penguin_boy

            Right, then the instruction in 1 Timothy that women are not to teach, and remain silent on church matters is divinely ordained. Gina Miller is in violation of God’s law as revealed in the Bible.

          • Truth Offends

            Evidently, you are unable to comprehend simple English.
            If you want to know about “God’s law,” I would suggest you humble yourself and ask God to show you the truth.

          • penguin_boy

            Then explain it to me. Are the various letters collected in the New Testament divinely inspired or not? Do they carry any weight determining what is approved of and forbidden?

            No, Paul is not a god. But according to the people who compiled the modern New Testament back in the 4th and 8th Century, All the books of the Bible were written under the influence of the holy spirit, and came directly from the divine. Paul’s letters included.

            Further revisions came, the big one being the first Council of Trent in the mid-16th Century. Humans have been tinkering with scripture since it was first collected.

            So I ask, yet again, a simple yes or no question: Are the epistles divinely inspired? Yes or no.

            By the way, I’ve read the NT in the original Greek. Have you? Very different book.

          • Truth Offends

            You came here on BarbWire and, evidently b/c GM wrote a column on matters that pertain to God, you falsely accused her of violating “God’s Law”–and wrongly stated that 1Tim instructs that “women are not to teach, and (are to) remain silent on church matters.”
            Those are NOT Paul’s instructions!
            (I hope you never have to be judged by a jury of your peers—peers who are as arrogant, ignorant, and quick to judge as you are.)

            BTW: Paul’s instructions are not “God’s Law”.
            Here is an example of God’s Law:

            ‘I am the LORD your God…You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination…If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.”
            (Lev 18:2, 22, 20:13)

          • penguin_boy

            Do you follow all 613 rules listed in the Old Testament?

            Here’s the relevant quotes:

            1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

            1 Corinthians 14:34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

            See? Right there it says it is the law.

          • Truth Offends

            (1) I disagree that the two verses you provide are the “relevant” verses. There are many more than only those two verses that are “relevant” to this discussion. Nevertheless, those two verses alone show that you were wrong to say that 1Timothy teaches that “women are not to teach, and (are to) remain silent on church matters.”
            (2) The Timothy verse you provide is “cherry picked” and taken out of context. Read further and you’d see that when taken in context of the entire epistle, that verse is in agreement with the Corinthians verse.
            (2) In the Corinthians verse, Paul says “law” but he does not say “God’s” law. I am not aware of any of God’s OT laws or Jesus’ NT laws saying that women were to be “silent” in church, or to “be in submission.” Are you?
            (3) Which “law” do you still think GM violated?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            HERE IS SOME REAL TRUTH FOR YOU., THOSE WHO HIDE LIKE COWARDS BEHIND SCREEN NAMES WOULD NOT KNOW THE TRUTH WERE IT A SHARP POINTED CACTUS THEY SAT ON WHILE NAKED!

        • L1011

          Well I’m kind of glad they ignore it, because Cindy Jacobs is so very entertaining. From her never ending spaghetti dinner and her shoes that never wore out, to thwarting terrorist plots with prayer and raising dead children, she never fails to leave me flabbergasted.

        • Norm

          what question sir.? You misunderstand my statement perhaps. It is heartening to see historians as you identify yourself, study scripture, wondering why it didn’t take hold of you somehow…
          But I digress…you cannot give the teachings of the Lord without the Lord of the teachings. If you don’t believe in His Lordship and majesty, then the quoting of scripture is just words. The meaning is in your heart as you read them and study them , certainly not quoting them to beat someone over the head and winning some sort of argument.

          • penguin_boy

            I disagree. You are trying to create a closed-circle argument, an echo chamber, if you will, where only those in agreement ever have a voice. That’s not how we advance knowledge.

            The reason the Bible didn’t “take hold” is that I learned it in context. The Great Flood story, along with much of Moses’ life, was taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is no historical evidence of a large bodies of Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Contracted workers build the pyramids, and we know how much they were paid and when they worked. The Gospels of Jesus bear a striking resemblance to many older myths, like Dionysus and Osiris. The stories are borrowed and altered.

            The Bible is a halfway decent source for information about the early civilizations of the Levant, and there are some very good moral lessons in the Gospels. But it’s all man-made!

            Here’s my favorite example. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, both cities were filled with horrific, drunken sinners. Lot even offers his daughters up for rape to protect his guests. Once destroyed, the only survivors, Lot and his daughters, escape to the mountains where Lot’s daughter get dad drunk and have sex with him. The offspring of these incestuous liaisons found the nations of the Moabites and Ammonites; two nations that just happened to be at near constant was with Judea.

            It’s a political hit piece! It’s the Israelites saying their enemies were descendants of the incestuous coupling of a city of sinners so bad God laid waste to them!

            Ever notice that there are two mutually incompatible creation stories in Genesis? Ever actually read the Bible critically?

      • vorpal

        If atheists haven’t the right to quote scripture to make a point, then your side hasn’t the right to talk about homosexuality to make a point.

      • pearl87

        The devil quotes scripture too.

  • docrt925

    two things:

    1. everyone is not required to follow the Bible, live by the doctrines of your chosen religious lifestyle, or “love” your Christian God. it is not a condition of citizenship or prerequisite for accessing civil and governmental rights and institutions. the arrogant belief that we all must operate under the teachings of your religious faith is more radical and unconstitutional than anything you hypocritically admonish your “opponents” for doing.

    2. the Danish law applies to the Danish state-run/funded church…other religious groups/denominations are exempt from the law.

  • Dave Derossett

    buy my book….!

    • MDB

      Does it come with big pictures and crayons??

      • Dave Derossett

        If need be they can be sent with each order

  • Alencon

    One more time. The law in Denmark applies to ONLY the state run Evangelical Lutheran church. All other churches are not affected.

    Here’s another example of how the separation of church and state protects the church from politics.

    If you’re going to write ignorant, hateful and bigoted pieces of trash at least try to get the basic facts close to accurate. Oh, that’s right, the facts always contradict your viewpoint that’s why you don’t bother to get them right.

    • A. Christian

      Hawaii state law is going to de facto (in reality) force churches to violate their Biblical beliefs though not stated explicitly in Abercrombie’s proposed legislation.

      • penguin_boy

        You are lying. Proud of yourself?

        From the Hawaiian government FAQ on the subject.

        Q: Are clergy required to marry couples of the same sex under the new law?

        A: No. The Hawaii Marriage Equality Act provides that any clergy,
        minister, priest, or rabbi may refuse to solemnize a marriage if it is
        against their religious beliefs, without any penalty or legal liability.

        Q: Will churches or other religious organizations have to
        rent or allow the use of their facilities for weddings or wedding
        celebrations for same-sex couples?

        A: No. The Hawaii Marriage Equality Act provides that a religious
        organization or a nonprofit organization operated, supervised or
        controlled by a religious organization shall not be required to provide goods, services, or its facilities or grounds for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage that is in violation of its religious belief or faith. If a religious organization or nonprofit operated, supervised or controlled by the religious organization meets those requirements, it does not have to offer the use of its facilities. This provision of the Marriage Equality Act creates an exception to Hawaii’s public accommodations law.

        Proud of yourself? But please, prove me wrong.. show me exact where in the actual law you find churches being forced to accomodate same-sex couples.

      • David Mora

        So, do you think God minds you violating one his commandments (the whole “Thous shalt not bear false witness” commandment), or is it okay to ignore his commandments so long as you do it to damage people you don’t like?

  • BillTheCat45

    WANT TO SEE WHAT LOSING SOUNDS LIKE? See above, lol.

  • L1011

    It’s like the game telephone, or real life office gossip.

  • Clint Batterton

    Well, there she goes again. This time, Gina is upset to learn that the official state church of Denmark will give same-sex couples the right to a church wedding if they want one, just as some mainstream protestant denominations are doing here.
    Of course, no one is compelled to belong to that church, and if a local pastor in the state church doesn’t want to officiate, another one will be appointed in his place. Apparently, this development in Denmark has driven Gina’s paranoid delusions into overdrive, triggering another predictable rant about how much she just hates and despises those “evil” gay people, whom she odiously refers to as fascists.
    Of course, we have no official state church, and under our First Amendment no church can be compelled by the government to perform wedding ceremonies of any kind. There are NO LGBT civil rights organizations demanding church weddings from denominations that refuse to hold them. Her assertion to the contrary, offered, as usual, without any evidence, is arrant nonsense.
    On gay issues, the actual German fascists shared Gina’s hatred of gay men, sending them to the camps where they died by the thousands. So it would seem that Gina is off in her own universe again. She is not a pastor in Denmark, so what, exactly, is the threat to her from “gay fascists”? While it is true that this kind of naked, hateful bigotry, which, like all bigotry, is irrational, is becoming socially unacceptable, as Rowan Williams of the Church of England observed, becoming unpopular is not the same thing as being persecuted. Today, everyone can see that LGBT Americans are normal, ordinary people.
    Give it a rest. An uhnealthy obsession with the fact that gay people do exist on this planet could be interfering with your ability to lead a normal life. You are not going to change the fact that gay people exist and are now going to have the same civil rights that you have, so you will just have to adjust. I am confident that you can do it, since Canada and Massachusetts have survived with ten years of marriage equality and (in the case of Canada) gays in the military for almost as long.

    • vorpal

      Oh, Gina-Gina Drama Queen-a. I find it hilarious that gay people formerly had the reputation of being drama queens, but that has shifted in recent times to the Christian right with their knee-jerk reactions and paranoid delusions of persecution.

  • Alencon

    “Gay Activists” don’t have any significant power. The reason Gays have been able to make the strides they’ve made is that they have amassed a powerful set of allies.

    According to Gallup, fully 55% of all Americans, and a whopping 78% of the all important 18-29 age group, now supports Gay Marriage. In the economically critical Northeast and West 67% and 58% respectively support Gay Marriage.

    That means the news media, television, Hollywood and financial sectors are Gay Rights supporters because that’s where the money is. This alliance wouldn’t hold together for measures that actually impact freedom of religion.

    The Hawaiian Law contains the same religious exemptions that all other Gay Marriage laws contain. If it didn’t, it would be an easy court case win.

    The Hawaii Free Press editorial seems to be concerned that the law specifically says it doesn’t exempt anyone from the Hawaii Public Accommodations Law. But off-hand I can’t think of any reason why it should.

    What do you mean by “close their doors to the community?” I don’t understand what your concern is there?

  • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

    —Miller’s diatribe is pure hate speech, and little more… though these statements did stand out:

    “People are naturally, inherently repulsed by it.”

    —I am a straight man who is not repulsed by LGBT people in the slightest; that doesn’t mean I understand what their sexed/gendered desires feel like, but I am in no way threatened by the presence of a wide natural range of orientational possibilities.

    “This is a fascistic movement, meaning that its adherents employ authoritarian, militaristic tactics to push their radical agenda, which is just a “new” version of age-old tyranny. They use lying propaganda, intimidation and threats of targeting, boycotts and lawsuits to persuade people or to cow them into silence.”

    —Psychological projection, meet Gina!

    • vorpal

      Indeed, as a gay man, I am not repulsed in the slightest by heterosexuals; what they do in the bedroom is rather repulsive to me as it feels completely unnatural from my perspective; however, I am genuinely thrilled when heterosexuals find loving, fulfilling, and meaningful relationships, and I simply don’t invest time disgusting myself by thinking about their sexual acts together.

  • vorpal

    Oh, Gina… watching your descent into full on blithering insanity has been both hilarious and truly disconcerting and sad. I don’t know whether to laugh or genuinely feel bad for you and wish that you would seek help for your rampant, uneducated, and near-constant cries of “wolf!” for a persecution of Christians that simply doesn’t exist.

    Keep going, though: you’re helping us gay people more than you think. The only ones, at this point, that still believe your lies and twisting of reality to suit your sick and disgusting hypoChristofascism are an ever-decreasing minority of people who already believed you in the first place. The credibility of the religious right has gone from widespread to fringe, and will continue to decline as these claims get more outlandish and absurd.

    You are a regular feature on the website RightWingWatch, and deservedly so, my dear. Despite your raving lunacy, I still love you as a fellow human being, Gina, and genuinely wish you and your husband a wonderful weekend.

  • Rory

    I love this article, its so funny looking at hypocrisy. For 2000 years Christians persecuted everyone but them because why not and now that everything is turning on them they feel the need to create absurd theories. Did the LGBT community ever do it to you… well no because they were probably burning at the stake…. or being stoned …. or being stabbed many times. Homosexuality exists in every species and homophobia exists in one. Grow up and please stop this pathetic attempt at an insult.

    • vorpal

      They seem to be more and more convinced that we (the LGBT community) are going to start tying them to stakes and stoning them or burning them to death. Even though of course that is unfounded nonsense, given the atrocities they’ve committed towards LGBT people throughout history (including the shaming and psychological abuse of the last century), their fear of retaliation is aptly deserved.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      SO TRUE RORY, SO TRUE!

  • Pingback: Homosexual “equality” is just repackaged tyranny | Truth2Freedom's Blog

  • Colton Taff

    If there is a god, and he is anything like the god of the bible, he is not worth worship. If there is a god, us free thinkers and other people of sound moral character will find him and kill him. Such bigotry must not be tolerated.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      SO TRUE COLTON, SO TRUE!

  • Jasper Taylor

    Yawn… more crazy people who have no nfluence or credibility trying to get a platform for more crazy “ideas”… tiresome

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      TO WHOM ARE YOU REFERRING?

      • jamieson Hall

        Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, consider that you can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 kilometres per second across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not “you”. The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato. The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don’t just look at a rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially considering that all the beautiful colours you see represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe in a creator and being you talk about facts so much then prove I’m wrong and show to me your truth you hold so dear

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    TRULY INTELLIGENT, LOGICAL RATIONAL AND KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPEL KNOW THERE IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE WHICH PROVE HOMONSEXUALS ARE BORN BEING HOMOSEXUAL!

    AND THE ONLY THING THEY WANT ARE THE SAME RIGHTS OTHERS (EXCEPT ATHEISTS) ALREADY HAVE.

    THUS, ANYONE AGAINST THEM GETTING THOSE RIGHTS IS A STUPID JERK AND A BIGOT!

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    I WILL BET NO ONE CAN PROVIDE A SINGLE INTELLIGENT, RATIONAL AND, LOGICAL REASON WHICH PROVES HOMOS BEING MARRIED ACTUALLY HURTS ANYONE ELSE’S MARRIAGE.

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      The “how does it hurt your marriage” line is a red herring. The real issue is whether embracing homosexuality is best for society as a whole. Can you prove how society will benefit from accepting homosexuality and the rest of the sexual deviations that will inevitably follow in train?

      Also, as the mod, I need to warn you not to use all caps. If I come across any more all caps from you, I will delete the posts, and if it continues to happen, I will remove you from the site.

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        IT IS A RED HERRING SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS?

        WELL I, AND I WILL BET MULTI -MILLIONS DO NOT CONSIDER IT TO BE A RED HERRING AT ALL.

        IS EMBRACING BLACKS OR WOMEN GOOD FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE? FOR YEARS MOST OF YOU CHRISTIANS DID NOT THINK IT WAS.

        THE RATIONAL, HIGHLY INTELLIGENT,LOGICAL AND WELL INFORMED PEOPLE KNOW HOMOSEXALS ARE BORN BEING
        HOMOSEXUALS!! AND ANY CHRISTIANS WHO ARE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS BEING GRANTED THE SAME RIGHTS WHICH CHRISTIANS HAVE ARE JUST PLAIN BIGOTS!

        .

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          Actually, it’s the self-serving and indoctrinated people who claim homosexuality is an inborn trait.

          Need I remind you that Christians were the creators of the abolition movement, and the conductors on the underground railroad?

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU ARE SIMPLY DENYING FACTS!

            THE FOLLOWING, OR THINGS LIKE IT HAVE HAPPENED MANY TIMES,

            I KNOW ONE CHILD BORN IN TO FAMILY WHICH HAD A TOTAL OF THREE CHILDREN, WHO CLEARLY SHOWED HIS HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES BEFORE AGE FIVE. ALL FO THESE CHILDREN WERE RAISED IN THE SAME ENVIORNMENT BY THE SAME COLLEGE EDUCATED PARTENTS.

            ANIOTHER CHILD “CAME OUT” IS PARENTS WHEN HE WAS EIGHTEEN. THEY SAID, FROM YOUR ACTIONS, WE HAVE KNOWN YOU WERE A HOMOMSEXUSL SINCE YOUI WERE FIVE YEARS OLD.

            ABOUT THE ONLY ONES WHO BELIEVE YOUR CHRISTIAN LIES ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS ARE
            OTHER CHRISTIANS.

            AND FYI, THERE ARE MANY CHRISTIANS WHO ARE RATIONAL, INTELLIGENT AND INFORMED ENOUGH TO KNOW HOMOMSEXAULS ARE BORN BEING HOMOSEXAL<

            ARE YOU REALLY SO TOTALLY ILLOGICAL AS TO THINK HOMOSEXUIALS WHO ARE TORTURED AND EXECUTED FOR SIMPLY BEING HOMOSEXUALS WOLD BE HOMOSEXUALS IF THEY HAD A CHOICE?

            IF SO, YOU ARE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONALLY STUPID!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Neil, your points are semi-informed at best. It’s ridiculous to suggest that one child’s homosexuality must be exclusively genetic because two of his siblings are not homosexuals. If you believe homosexuality is exclusively genetic in origin, you’ll need to explain why identical twins are usually not both homosexual. A few days ago I read about a study asserting that only 5 to 7 percent of identical twins of homosexuals are also homosexual. You’ll also need to explain why nobody even suggested homosexuals are born that way until 1860. Is it possible humanity simply overlooked the existence of 2 or 3 percent of the population for 5,000 years of recorded history?

            Finally, you ought to admit that whether or not one suffers from SSAD, it is always a voluntary action to have sex, except in cases of rape.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THE ODDS ARE YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO CHANGE YOUR MIND NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE AND/OR LOGIC IS PRESENTED TO YOU.

            THE FACTS ARE IF MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IF AN EVER SMALLER AND SMALLER PERCENT OF CHRISTIANS THINK WHATEVER NEGATIVE THING THEY WANT TO ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS, YOU HAVE LOST THE BATTLE!

            WHILE I WAS DRUGGED AND RAPED BY ONE AND I FIND HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT TO BE DISGUSTING, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. AND NO HAS OR EVER WILL BE ABLE TO PROVE HOW THEIR BEING MARRIED HURTS ANYONE ELSE.

            WHILE I RISKED PHYSICAL INJURY AND EVEN DEATH FOR BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS AND ASIDE FROM BEING A DUES PAYING CARD CARRYING MEMBER OF NOW

            I WAS MOSTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING A WOMAN PROMOTED IN TO A MANAGEMENT POSITION AT NCR, MY ONLY SUPPORT OF HOMOSEXUALS IS LIKE I AM DOING HERE.

            OF COURSE, I AM, AND HAVE BEEN FOR MANY YEARS, A VERY ACTIVE IN THE ATHEIST CAUSE AS WELL, IN FACT I AM ONE OF THOSE WHO FOUNDED THE LARGE ATHEISTS UNITED ORGANIZATION IN 1983.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I’m sorry to hear you were drugged and raped by a homosexual, Neil, and I’m glad you don’t hold it against all homosexuals.

            Regarding atheism, though, you have a great deal to answer for, a lifetime of outright rebellion against God, and you’re running out of time. You need to make your peace with God before it’s too late. As long as you’re still breathing, you can still accept Jesus’s lordship, provided you believe he was raised from the dead. But you never know when God will terminate your life, so I suggest you look into the matter now.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I SAY NO, YOU WERE NOT EVER MUCH OF AN ATHEIST AS YOU REALLY HAD NOT DE-PROGRAMMED YOURSELF TO A SUFFICIENT DEGREE.

            AND IF YOU WERE AN ATHEIST, SO WHAT??

            NOT I, OR ANY OTHER ATHEISTS CAN “REBELL” AGAINST ANY GOD AS NO GODS ARE REAL!!

            ANY AND ALL GODS ONLY EXIST IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM.;

            FACE IT. HAD YOU BEEN PROGRAMMED BY HINDUS RATHER THAN BY CHRISTIANS, YOU WOULD BE SWEARING ALL OF THEIR MANY GODS ARE REAL! AND YOU WOULD BE DOING SO WITH NO MORE ACTUAL PROOF THAN YOU HAVE FOR THE GOD OF THE CHRISTIANS!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Actually I rejected the faith of my parents, and really of nearly the whole state of Rhode Island, when I was 14.

            Face it, Neil, you’re talking with somebody who used to believe as you do, but did look at the evidence for biblical Christianity and found it compelling.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            WHY SHOULD I WHEN I AM POSITIVE YOU HAD NEVER FULLY DE-PROGRAMMED YOURSELF?

            WHY SHOULD I WHEN YOU FAIL TO FACT THE FACTS THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE FROM BEING RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS TO BEING ATHEISTS THAN THERE ARE THOSE RAISED AS ATHEISTS WHO KNOW PROFESS TO BE RELIGIOUS?

            YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WILL NOT FACE THE FACTS!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            People continue in the faith in which they were raised, or they don’t. What of it? What concerns us is which faith, or worldview, is supported by evidence. Atheism is not, and cannot be. Christianity is evidential. If the resurrection did not take place in real time, then Christianity is false. If it did — and we have eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Jesus — then you’d better pay attention to it.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS THE MANY MANY MANY MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY DEPROGRAMMED THEMSELVES, KNOW,

            CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE!

          • jamieson Hall

            AS THE MANY MANY MANY EVEN MORE MILLIONS OF FORMER ATHEISTS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BEEN BORN AGAIN ACCORDING TO JOHN 3:16 HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT ATHEISM IS FALSE!

  • Sanford Sklansky

    Ed Brayton says Wouldn’t it be great to be able to just conjure up this alternate
    reality at will? Or to live in a world where Christians actually were
    reticent to speak out against gay rights? The world the rest of us live
    in is chock full of Christians screaming at the top of their lungs about
    the evils of equality.

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    BRAIN,

    I USE ALL CAPS BECAUSE I AM 79 AND I CAN READ WHAT II WRIT MUCH EASIER!

    FOR OVER A HUNDRED YEARS, WERE ALL THOSE WHO RECEIVED TELEGRAMS AND OR TELEXES WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS ALL PUSHED OUT OF SHAPE? OF COURSE NOT!

    AS LOGICALLY AND FACTUALLY MY USING ALL CAPS IN NO WAY HURTS ANYONE, YOUR STATING YOU WOULD BAN ME FOR USING THEM IS CHILDISH!

    • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

      All-caps is considered “shouting” online, and it’s viewed as rude. It’s specifically ruled out by our commenting guidelines.

      However, because you’ve let me know you have limited vision, I’ll let it go. Other moderators might still delete you.

      • Truth Offends

        He could simply increase the size of his screen image. He doesn’t need to use all caps.

        • garybryson

          Quit whining

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        ALL CAPS IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE SHOUTING ONLY BECAUSE ONE PERSON DECIDED IT WAS!

        AND THEN, ALL OF THE SHEEP, WHO MUST WANT TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT, JUST FOLLOWED ALONG WAGGING THEIR LITTLE TAILS (LITTLE, JUST LIKE THEIR MINDS) BEHIND THEM, WAG WAG WAG.

        • pearl87

          You are rude whether you use all caps or not. But it IS shouting and that IS what it means to anyone with a brain, which clearly rules you out.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            FIRST, OH SO ILLOGICAL ONE

            NO ONE ASKS OR FORCES YOU TO READ MY POSTS

            DUH!

            SECOND, I DO NOT CARE THAT ONE PERSON DECIDED ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING AND THE SHEEP, LIKE YOU ARE, FOLLOWED ALONG WAGGING YOUR LITTLE TAILS

            AND PROVING YOUR MINDS ARE LITTLE AS WELL

            THIRD, I AM BLUNT, VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND VERY TRUTHFUL. SOME CAN HANDLE IT AND OTHERS CAN NOT.

            FORTH, THE ODDS OF YOU DOING AS MUCH GOOD FOR OTHERS AS I HAVE ARE VERY LOW.

            LAST, THE ODDS OF YOU BEING AS INTELLIGENT AS
            I AM ARE ONE PERCENT

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            If you are really so intellectually powerful you shouldn’t need to resort to ad hominem arguments. Try to play nice, Neil.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR?

            I DO NOT “HAVE” TO. I CHOOSE TO.

            WHY SHOULD PLAY NICE WITH THOSE WHO ATTACK ME,? AND THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT ME?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I’m not calling you a liar, Neil, but I do think you could be a bit more gentlemanly. My father is from your generation, and he would never conduct himself the way you do.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AS SAYING AND/OR EVEN INFERRING I LIE, IS AN INSULT!

            AN ACT WHICH IS AS RUDE AS ANY OF MY MY POSTS SO GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE.

            AS IT SEEMS YOU DO NOT GET IS AND WHAT OTHERS HAVE TOLD ME THEY LIKED MY BLUNT, LOGICAL, OPEN, KNOWLEDGEABLE AND AS TRUTHFUL AS I CAN POSSIBLY BE, METHOD OF COMMUNICATING.

            AGAIN, THEY LIKED IT!!

            AS I AM NOT THE COMMON MAN, I TELL THE TRUTH AS I KNOW IT TO BE. IN 1964 I EAS GIVEN THE NICK NAME OF “NASTY NEIL” FOR DOING WHAT, I WILL BET IS SOMETHING EVERYONE WISHES EVERYONE ELSE WOULD DO, WHICH IS ALWAYS TELLING THE
            TRUTH.

            I AM THE ONE IN EVERY FIFTH PERSON WHO ALWAYS RUNS TOWARD DANGER TO SEE IF WE CAN HELP IN ANY WAY. AND WE DO SO IN SPTE OF POSSIBLE DANGER.

            AS I HAVE ALSO RECEIVED UNSOLICITED PRAISE FROM OTHERS FOR MY USE LOGIC, KNOWLEDGE
            BASED ON ACTUAL EXPERIENCE & INTELLIGENCE.

            AND, AS MY MANY FRIENDS KNOW, I M VERY KIND, CARING JUST, COMPASSIONATE, FAIR AND BLUNT!

            SO SORRY, ONLY IF I REALLY CARED WHAT SOME ILLOGICAL IRRATIONAL UNINFORMED, AND IN MANY CASES, OF LOWER IQ ACTUALLY THINK OF ME THEN LOGICALLY, I WOULD NOT BE AS I AM.

            DUH!

            AND AS I KNOW I HAVE MORETHAN A FEW FRIENDS NOW AND MAKE MORE FRIENDS ON A CONTINUING BASIS, I COULD REALLY CARE LESS WHAT THOSE WHO ARE MY DETRACTORS THINK OF MY METHOD OF COMMUNICATING.

            AS OTHERS LIKE IT, I AM HAPPY.

            AND WERE I WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING, THEN JUST WHY HAS NO. ZERO PROOF BEEN PROVIDED
            MANY TO MOST OF THOSE WHO READ MY COMMENTS RATHER THAN EVEN CONSIDERING WHAT I HAVE SAID WAS VALID ARE SO ILLOGICAL AND ILLOGICAL THEY ATTACK THE WAY IT WAS SAID.

            STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!

            AND IT IS TOTALLY STUPID TO NOT GIVE WHAT WAS SAID, THE CONTENTS OF THE MESSAGE. MANY, MANY TIMES MORE ATTENTION THAN THE WAY IN WHICH IT WAS IT SAID!.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SHE ATTACKED ME FIRST AND I WAS REPLYING.

            SHE DID NOT HAVE TO BE NASTY AND YET SHE WAS.

            AND AS YOU HAVE NOT TOLD HER TO PLAY NICE, DO YOU HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            Neil, the outright majority of your posts I’ve read have called people stupid, or described them as less intelligent than you. You are routinely rude and obnoxious, and you shouldn’t whine when people respond in kind.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I NOT ONLY DO NOT ASK OTHERS TO DO, OR TO SAY STUPID THINGS OR TO DO THING WHICH TO ME SHOW THEY ARE NOT AS INTELLIGENT AS I AM. THEY MAKE THE CHOICE TO DO THEM AND I MAKE THE CHOICE TO
            SO INFORM THEM.

            AND I MAY TAKE THE TIME TO GO THOUGH ALL OF MY POST AND CHECK.THEM.

            IF I DO, I AM FAIRLY CONFIDENT I WILL FIND THAT YOU ARE, ONCE AGAIN, FACTUALLY WRONG.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          Whatever the genesis of all caps being considered rude, it is the rule on this site and most others. You should be grateful you’re being allowed to use all caps, rather than sneering insulting the world about it.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            YOU EXPECT ,ME TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND YET YOU DO NOT ANSWER MINE

            WHY HAVE YOU NOT ANSWERED ABOUT YOUR HAVING A DOUBLE STANDARD?

            AS FAR AS THIS ONE

            PERHAPS SO, ONLY MY USE OF THEM DOES NOT CALL FOR OTHERS TO ATTACK AND INSULT ME.

            AND FOR THE “MANYITH” TIME, NO ONE IS FORCED TO READ A SINGLE WORD I SAY

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            If I have a double standard, Neil, it’s in favor of you. Nobody is dishing out insults the way you are.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            LOOK AT MY REPLIES TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT ATTACKED ME OR SAID SOMETHING WHICH PROVES THEY HAVE FROM LITTLE TO NO CLUE ABOUT. AND I VERY SERIOUSLY DOUBT YOU WILL FIND SOMETHING M OST WOULD CONSIDER TO BE AN INSULT.

            ONE EXAMPLE.,

            IT IS NOT MY FAULT IF SOMEONE POSTS A COMMENT WHICH PROVES THEY EITHER DID NOT READ AND/OR DID NOT COMPREHEND WHAT WAS SAID. SO I WHEN I POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THEIR POOR READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS NEED IMPROVEMENT, IT SEEMS THEY, RATHER THAN TO ADMIT THEY WERE IN ERROR AND TAKING MORE CARE IN READING, THEY THINK THEY WERE INSTULTED!

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            You’re responsible for what you write, and it is your fault if you respond rudely by belittling people because you don’t think they understand what you’re saying. There simply is no call for you ever to direct the word “stupid” at other commenters, suggest their IQs are deficient, etc. I’d really like to see you refrain from doing so.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            AGAIN . I DO NOT ASK OR FORCE OR EVEN WANT OTHERS TO SAY OR DO STUPID THINGS. IT IS NOT MY FAULT WHEN THEY DO OR SAY THINGS WHICH ARE STUPID.

            I SIMPLY POINT OUT WHEN THEY DO.

            SEEMS YOU ARE ANOTHER ONE WHO CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

            AND WHY HAVE YOU NOT ASKED OTHERS TO REFRAIN
            FROM ATTACKING ME RATHER THAN THEIR EVEN ATTEMPTING TO FACTUALLY AND/OR LOGICALLY PROVE I AM IN ERROR????

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            SO YOU REMOVED HER POST WHERE SHE ATTACKED ME?

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            No, I did not remove anybody’s post. I rarely do. If I had, there would be a little silhouette and an announcement that the post has been deleted.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            THANK YOU!

            ONLY IT, MY REPLY, AND YOUR COMMENT ABOUT MY REPLY. ARE NOW ALL GONE.

          • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

            I’ve noticed the program sometimes deletes older comments on a string.

          • NEIL C. REINHARDT

            I DOUBT IT

      • pearl87

        You are being very kind and tolerant to Reinhardt at the expense of everyone else who is getting abused by him. He is breaking the rules and should be banned.

        • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

          I understand your point, Pearl, but we have adopted a policy of leniency in commenting at BarbWire. If you think we should change the policy, please email me at brianfitzpatrick@barbwire.com, and I’d be happy to discuss the issue with you in a more conducive setting.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      AS FAR AS MY USE OF ALL CAPS.

      STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!

      THINKING THAT WORDS ON A SCREEN, OR ON PAPER AS “SHOUTING” IS LOGICALLY STUPID!

      SUCH WORDS HAVE NO SOUND!

      IT IS LIKE YELLING IN A DEFT PERSONS EAR.

      WERE I TO SHOUT IN A HEARING PERSONS EAR, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE ANGRY AS THEY HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT HAPPENING,

      ON THE OTHER HAND, FOR ANYONE TO GET PISSED ABOUT SEEING A WORD, OR A WHOLE BOOK WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS, IS TOTALLY ILLOGICAL AND WRONG!

      IN FACT, IT IS, AS TALLYRAND ONCE TOLD NAPOLEON, “SIRE, IT IS NOT ONLY WRONG IT IS WORSE THAN WRONG, IT IS STUPID!”

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    PS IF HE BANS ME FOR MY USING ALL CAPS, I HOPE SOME OF YOU FAIR MINDED PEOPLE USE ALL CAPS.

    • jamieson Hall

      You stand on the back of so called giants. And of all the truth they and yourself claim to know no matter how high your IQ which mine is more than able to compete with you. Of all your knowledge you cannot produce one shred of evidence to categorically and emphatically say that God does not exist. Agnosticism is a rational position to take. So why don’t you instead say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and leave it at that and stop pretending to have knowledge of something you or any one else do not.

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    I’m not familiar with Ken Ham’s dichotomy, but it’s clear that empirical science has little to say about the great majority of specific events in human history. Such events, for example the resurrection of Christ, cannot be replicated. That doesn’t mean they didn’t happen. At some point you have to work with historical evidence such as eyewitness accounts.

    It’s simply false to say the Discovery Institute is unscientific. They are fully credentialed scientists applying standard methodology in their fields of expertise. The problem is they produce evidence that contradicts the reigning scientific orthodoxy, and in consequence they are persecuted, just like Galileo was. Another problem they have is they are not proposing a new theory of origins, they are just poking holes in evolution.

    Science typically moves not from error to truth, but from orthodoxy to orthodoxy. Scientists generally will not move from the old orthodoxy until they have a new theory to support. As evidence accumulates for a new orthodoxy, emotional objections are overcome and old orthodoxies eventually fall. The ongoing collapse of global warming is a good example, as more and more people are acknowledging that anthropogenic global warming is insupportable, and if anything solar activity is responsible for climate change, and we’re heading into global cooling.

    Evolution is different, however, because it’s more than a scientific consensus, it’s the creation myth of the religion of scientism. Scientism is the belief that science is all there ever was or ever will be, and that science will eventually answer all questions and solve all problems. That’s what I used to believe, anyway. Disproofs of evolution call into question scientism’s creation myth, and open the door to the existence of a creator, so they cannot be tolerated.

    Science is supposed to be about the falsification of regnant theories. If you want proof that evolution is treated differently from other branches of “science,” just ask any biology researcher about his ongoing efforts to falsify evolutionary theory. He’ll look at you like you have two heads. If the scientific community treated evolution like it treats most other topics, Darwin would have fallen long ago, when it became undeniable that the fossil record does not support the theory. Instead, the scientific world entertains seriously far-fetched nonsense like Schindewolf’s hopeful monsters or Eldredge’s punctuated equilibrium.

    Isn’t it silly to suggest a judge can destroy a scientific principle through a decision in a case? Irreducible complexity is still as valid as ever, even if a judge declares it cannot be taught in the schools. The fact remains, the human eye is composed of three separate organs that have no function without the presence of the other two, and therefore could not have developed through Darwinian evolution. I’ve read that Darwin himself acknowledged that if an explanation for the eye was not found, his theory must be discarded. The intervening years have only provided more examples of irreducible complexity.

    As a former Sunday school teacher, I’ve seen how difficult it can be for
    an unregenerate child of born-again parents to thrive in a church
    environment, especially as they approach the high school years.

    My own doubts about faith began not in science classes, but in English class in 7th grade, when we were writing about mythology. I saw no reason why believing in Jesus and Mary was any more valid than believing in Zeus and Aphrodite, so I started asking questions, and nobody had any answers. After my 8th grade CCD teacher said nobody goes to hell, I figured “why am I bothering to go to church at all?,” and I became an atheist.

    Muslim terrorists took down the Twin Towers because they, like all men, are willing to kill over what they consider to be most important. Sometimes that’s religion, sometimes it’s nationalism, sometimes it’s political ideology. Of these three motivations, only one, religion, or Christianity at least, also acts to temper the excesses of its adherents and drive them toward more humane behavior. Contrast the way Christian countries like the U.S. and England treated their POWs, compared to the way POWs were treated by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or North Vietnam.

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    SO WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE MANY POSTS WHICH PRECEDED THIS ONE ABOUT DENMARK??

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    HI RED

    YOUR COMMENTS ON SCIENCE REMINDED ME ABOUT HOW I DEFINE SCIENCE AND HOW IT IS ONE OF THE WAYS I LIVE MY LIFE.

    TO ME, “SCIENCE IS THE ON-GOING, EVER-EXPANDING, NEVER-ENDING AND SELF-CORRECTING SEARCH FOR TRUTH”

    AS I PRIDE MYSELF ON BEING AN VERY TRUTHFUL PERSON WHO WAS, IN 1964, GIVEN THE NICK NAME
    “NASTY NEIL” THE NICK NAME GIVER, SAID THE REASON HE CHOOSE IT WAS BECAUSE I WAS “ALWAYS TELLING THE TRUTH AND SOME PEOPLE CONSIDERED HEARING THE TRUTH WAS ‘NASTY’.” IT REALLY PISSES ME OFF WHEN SOME RETARD
    WHO HAS NOT A SINGLE LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE I HAVE LIED, CALLS ME A LIAR.

    I WISH IT WAS IN THE DAYS OF DUELING AS THEY WOULD CERTAINLY GET CHALLENGED TO ONE.

    • Red Mann

      To a degree they can’t help it, they were effectively brainwashed, or more correctly, brainsoaked. I was immersed in religion as a child although neither of my parents were anything like fundamentalists. My mother went to church because that’s what you were supposed to do and I think the old man was something of an agnostic. The thing is the church was the only thing to do I my little town. Somehow the programming eventually failed and I escaped the reason-sucking dogma, but it took years to completely banish the little gibbering imp that had been planted in my mind. I am now completely free of it and much happier. These people don’t realized the feeling of freedom and fulfilment that is found once you let go of the insidious dogma.

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        GOOD, YOU ESCAPED! WHILE I WAS MOST CERTAINLY
        NOT PROGRAMMED TO BELIEVE IN THE CHRISTISAN GOD AND THE BIBLE, I DID DO AS I DID NOT KNOW ANY WHO I KNEW DID NOT DO SO.

        AT AGE NINE I FIGURED IT WAS A CON, AND I STOPPED PRAYING AND BELIEVING.

        THE POOR RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT IT IS TO ENJOY THE TOTAL FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND ACTION WHICH NON-RELIGIOUS BELIEF BRINGS,

        WHILE MANY MANY MILLIONS OF FORMER CHRISTIANS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT AND BOTH THE RANKS OF ATHEISTS AND ATHEIST GROUPS ARE GROWING AT EVER FASTER RATES, WE STILL HAVE AN UP-HILL BATTLE.

        AS A GUY WHO HAS BEEN AN ATHEIST ACTIVIST FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS, IT IS INDEED A JOY TO SEE HOW MANY MORE HAVE FOUND THE TRUTH CAN SET THEM FREE IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS!

      • NEIL C. REINHARDT

        IN THE ABOVE WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE RELIGIOUS, IT WAS ABOUT THOSE WHO JUDGE OTHERS BASED ON THEIR OWN LOW MORAL STANDARDS. THEY MUST THINK ALL OTHERS ARE AS BIG OF LIARS AS THEY ARE,

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    Watch your language, please. I’ve edited a couple of your posts, but if you continue to swear I’ll start deleting them.

    • Don Hignite

      No worries and thank you..

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    Watch your language, Neil.

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      WHY ARE YOU NOT TELLING HIM, AND ALL THE OTHER NO MORALS LIARS TO STOP LYING ABOUT ME?

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    Of course the Gospels are eyewitness accounts. If you take the texts at face value, which is the normal and natural way to interpret any manuscript, they identify their authors, claim to be eyewitness accounts, and must have been written within 30 years of the resurrection. In fact, in 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and identifies it as Scripture alongside Deuteronomy 25:4! Higher criticism denies these facts, but I’m surprised to hear an evidentialist like yourself repeat such claims, given that higher criticism itself is bereft of supporting documentary evidence. It’s all just theories based on novel interpretations of the texts. Higher criticism of the synoptic gospels assumes the existence of a “Q” document, but no “Q” manuscript has ever been found by archaeology. We have hundreds of early NT manuscripts, and fragments dating back to the second century, but not even a shred of “Q.” If the Gospels were not eyewitness testimonies of miracles, their authorship would never even have been questioned.

    I agree with you that a lot of work has to be done with evolution, mostly along the lines of taking out the trash,which is hard to do when so many people are clinging to it. The fossil record alone is enough to disprove evolution. If Darwinism were true, the fossil record of any given species should look like a frame by frame movie reel, in which we can observe the steady evolution of the species from one form into another. Instead, what we find is sudden appearance of a species in the fossil record, minor adaptations like variations on a theme, and sudden disappearance. We find hardly any examples of what can arguably be a transitional form, when, according to Darwin, the fossil record should be chock full of them. In one sense, it should contain nothing but transitional forms, because there can be no “final” form of any species in Darwinism.

    But we see no evidence of traditional Darwinism in the bones, so believers generate theories like punctuated equilibriium to attempt to explain the lack of evidence. Unfortunately, punctuated equilibrium has never been observed in the fossil record either, so it is founded on no evidence. A theory based on the absence of evidence is not a theory, it’s conjecture, if not a whitewash.

    Christianity is far more plausible than any other faith. It is evidential from the get-go, founded on a miracle that occurred in real time, the resurrection of Jesus, and was documented by several eyewitnesses.

    • Red Mann

      I don’t take the texts at face value, the is no real
      evidence here, where is some corroboration of all this miraculous stuff? Why did no one else notice it? How much has been tweaked and/or rewritten along the
      way?

      You have a misunderstanding of the fossil record.
      Fossilization is fairly rare, most dead animals are destroyed before they can be fossilized, so we can’t have anything a frame by frame “movie”. However
      there are scads of transitional forms see here: (apparently, moderation here doesn’t allow any links, so you can use Google to get to this after removing the spaces and putting “.” in place of dot)”en.wikipedia dot org/ wiki/ List_of_transitional_fossils”. In any event, fossils are simply an adjunct that shows evolution. genome sequencing and molecular biology clearly show evolution. You are still clinging to the creationist strawman of evolution, be adventurous, go look at the
      evidence without the religious bias.

      You rely almost completely on the notion of eyewitness to support your belief, yet how do you know these eyewitness accounts are true? Anything can be written and claimed to be an eyewitness account, anything can be written down to make it look like the fulfillment of prophecy . You only have a single source with no corroboration to support it. just like all the other myths.

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    [ I don't take the texts at face value, ]

    Of course you don’t. I’m just pointing out that there is no evidence that either you or I would consider compelling — conflicting versions of manuscripts, for example — to call the text or authorship of the canonical books into question.

    [ You rely almost completely on the notion of eyewitness to support your
    belief, yet how do you know these eyewitness accounts are true? ]

    Focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection, there are four distinct contemporary accounts that agree completely on the essential details — Jesus lived, Jesus worked many miracles, Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh, Jesus was tried by the Jewish authorities, Jesus was condemned by the Roman authorities, Jesus was crucified, Jesus died, Jesus was resurrected, Jesus appeared repeatedly to his disciples over a period of 40 days — yet differ enough in minor details to demonstrate that the authors did not write in collusion. Again, if the resurrection were not a miracle, nobody would doubt that it actually took place, but many people are simply unwilling to accept the existence of miracles because they demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. Add to this the fact that many details of the crucifixion were prophesied centuries in advance, and you have a very reasonable case that a supernatural actor was at work here. Also, it’s clear that the supernatural actor was absolutely focused on Jesus, because there are literally hundreds of messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.

    [ You only have a single source with no corroboration to support it. ]

    This point is valid only if you consider the Bible to be a single book with a single author, but in fact it is a collection of 66 books written over a period of millennia. Four separate authors of four books corroborate each other’s accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection.

    [ anything can be written down to make it look like the fulfillment of prophecy . ]

    Theoretically true, but unlikely in the case of the gospels. When the accounts were written down, there were many eyewitnesses walking around who could and surely would have confronted the authors with inaccuracies, such as claiming Jesus said things on the cross that he didn’t actually say. Any accounts with such hamhanded, easily discovered manipulations would never have been accepted as Scripture in the first place.

    [ How much has been tweaked and/or rewritten along the
    way? ]

    The gospels were accepted as God’s word very early on, as we’ve established with the example of Paul acknowledging Luke as Scripture, so tampering with the text would not have been acceptable. The early disciples were Jewish, after all, and the lengths to which the ancient Jews went to preserve the text of Scripture unaltered were beyond obsessive. McDowell describes this well.

    Our modern Bible translations are based on the earliest available manuscripts in the original languages, so we don’t need to worry that we’re reading a manuscript that has been edited and retranslated over and over.

    • Red Mann

      http:// rationalwiki dot org/ wiki/ Authorship_of_the_New_Testament calls your self assurance into question and there are plenty of unbiased scholars who call your unquestioning faith into
      question.

      Your commentaries are all in the Bible, please provide some independent corroboration of the miracles and the
      resurrection. Just because the Bible claims that Jesus claimed to be God in the flesh doesn’t make it so. Once again, it is easy to imagine that a prophesy has been fulfilled if you want it to be so.

      The Bible is a single collection that was arbitrarily put together by humans with an agenda.

      You are taking the eyewitness claims on faith, faith that the claims in the Bible are true because they are in the Bible, not convincing.

      Not true, see the article referenced above.

      Your faith is quaint, but unconvincing, you are putting all your trust in human interpretations.

      • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

        [ http:// rationalwiki dot org/ wiki/ Authorship_of_the_New_Testament
        calls your self assurance into question and there are plenty of unbiased
        scholars who call your unquestioning faith into
        question. ]

        Rationalwiki only reinforces my confidence. I’ve just read the portion of the article addressing authorship of the gospels. The author parrots the opinion of liberal scholars, but beyond the appeal to authority fails to provide a shred of evidence that the authorship of the gospels should be questioned. In fact, the article makes a laughable error:

        “The Gospels as some finalized collection of the Story of Jesus aren’t mentioned in Paul’s Epistles.”

        The author is apparently ignorant of 1 Tim. 5:18, where Paul quotes Luke 10:7 and acknowledges that Luke is “Scripture.” To Paul, “Scripture” means “the very word of God.” It doesn’t get any more finalized than that.

        Have you ever thought that a scholar assuming that miracles are impossible would have to conclude that the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, no matter what the evidence says? I submit to you that your “unbiased” scholars are just as biased as anybody else. Plenty of scholars accept the authorship of the gospels based on the objective evidence of the texts themselves.

        [ please provide some independent corroboration of the miracles and the
        resurrection. ]

        Would you question any other ancient historical event attested to by four separate accounts? Besides, any “independent corroborator” of Jesus’s miracles, especially the resurrection, would necessarily become a believer in Christ. Wouldn’t you reject his account out of hand?

        [ it is easy to imagine that a prophesy has been fulfilled if you want it to be so. ]

        Isaiah 53 predicts specific details of the crucifixion of Jesus, which could, in theory, have been plugged into the gospel accounts by unscrupulous authors. But no 1st century author could have slipped summaries of the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement via human sacrifice into Isaiah 53, which was written six centuries earlier by an orthodox Jew. ]

        Ezekiel predicted accurately that the very stones and timbers of the city of Tyre would be thrown into the sea, an act unprecedented in human history, with the city site left a bare rock. The fulfillment is recorded in secular history, not recorded in the New Testament, so there can be no question of manipulations by believers. Here’s an article analyzing the Tyre prophecy:

        http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1790

        My beliefs are based on evidence, What evidence are your beliefs based upon?

        • Red Mann

          You try to make a good point, but it all boils down to believing words of questionable veracity and accepting the notion of supernatural beings. You evidence is still just words, words from a book full of impossible things, that cannot be corroborated and cannot actually provide real evidence for its claims. You are, of course, free to believe this, but in my opinion, you are walling of the experience of the real world for some fuzzy notions.
          I don’t have your kind of beliefs, I accept what science has told us about the world, since there is real, physical evidence, that can be seen by all. We know all about the physical world that your god used to occupy, we know that nothing supernatural has ever been shown to do anything. I don’t subscribe to wishful and magical thinking. Reality holds enough joy and beauty for me, with no death threats from some petty god who would destroy everyone that doesn’t bow down to him. Submerging my humanity and subjugating my mind to some unseen, unknown and unknowable, virtually imaginary god seems very sad to me.

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    [ I don't take the
    texts at face value, ]

    Of course you don’t.
    I’m just pointing out that there is no evidence you or I would find
    compelling – alternate versions of manuscripts, or manuscripts identifying
    different authors, for example – that calls the canonical books into question.

    [ You rely almost
    completely on the notion of eyewitness to support your belief, yet how do you
    know these eyewitness accounts are true?
    ]

    Focusing on the crucifixion and resurrection, we have four
    distinct accounts by different authors, at least three of which were written
    within 30 years or less of the event, that
    agree on the essential points – Jesus lived, Jesus was tried by the Jewish
    authorities, Jesus was condemned by the Roman authorities, Jesus was crucified,
    Jesus died, Jesus came back to life, Jesus appeared repeatedly to his disciples
    – yet differ enough in minor details to
    set aside any concerns that the authors might have been colluding. If the
    accounts were recording an everyday event like the appointment of a new Roman
    governor of Judea, nobody would even question its historicity. The four accounts are recording a miracle,
    however, and many people cannot admit the possibility of miracles because they
    imply the existence of the supernatural.

    [ You only have a
    single source with no corroboration to support it. just like all the other
    myths. ]

    This point holds only if you consider the Bible to be a
    single book with a single author, but in fact it’s a collection of 66 books
    written over a period of millennia. The crucifixion
    and resurrection are attested to by four separate authors who corroborate each
    other.

    [ Anything can be
    written and claimed to be an eyewitness account, anything can be written down
    to make it look like the fulfillment of prophecy . ]

    Theoretically true, but unlikely in the case of the
    gospels. When the gospel accounts were
    written, there were plenty of eyewitnesses walking around, and they surely
    would have confronted the author of a gospel that contained incorrect
    information, i.e. “Jesus never said that on the cross!” Such hamhanded, easily exposed efforts at manipulation
    would never have been accepted as Scripture in the first place. As we’ve seen with the example of Paul and
    Luke, the gospels were accepted as God’s word very early, probably as soon as
    they were written, because they came with the stamp of apostolic approval if not actual apostolic authorship. The early disciples
    were Jews, and Jews viewed God’s word as holy and inviolable.

    [ How much has been
    tweaked and/or rewritten along the way? ]

    We don’t really need to worry about “tweaking,” because we
    know that the texts were viewed as Scripture, so subsequent editing would have
    been rejected. The manuscripts were quickly disseminated to
    the various churches, so the texts were well known, and “rewritten” passages
    would have been rejected. Certainly,
    however, minor copying errors made it into the manuscripts, but only in Mark 16:12-20
    are more than a word or two in question.

    Our modern Bibles are translated directly from the best,
    earliest available manuscripts written in the original Greek and Hebrew, with actual
    NT text fragments dating back to the 2nd century, and OT dating back
    to 150 BC, so there’s no issue of repeated translations from language to
    language.

    [ You have a
    misunderstanding of the fossil record.

    Fossilization is fairly rare, most dead animals are destroyed before they can
    be fossilized, so we can't have anything a frame by frame "movie".
    However

    there are scads of transitional forms see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ]

    I’m aware that most dead animals are never fossilized, but
    we do have millions of fossils, and again, if Darwin were correct, transitional
    forms would abound. The fact that
    Eldredge and Schindewolf had to propose their theories indicates that the
    scientific community recognizes the shortcomings of the fossil record. We see sudden appearance of new species in
    the fossil record, and sudden disappearance from the fossil record, but there
    isn’t a single example of a species changing into a radically different form through
    a series of intermediary steps we can follow, then into another different form,
    and so on to today. Not one, even though
    my high school biology teacher assured us that we can absolutely trace human
    evolution from a ratlike species to modern homo sapien. I could understand if no continuous feature movie from ancient species to modern
    exists, but we don’t even have a film preview, or even an ad to go out to the
    lobby for a snack. All we see is
    individual frames of the “movie,” with no demonstrable connection to any other
    frame.

    Wiki’s “scads” of transitional forms are not very impressive. The most famous proposed transitional form is
    the dinosaur-to-bird Archaeopteryx, but even Wiki admits that no modern birds
    are descended from Archaeopteryx. All Wiki offers is a series of conjectured
    intermediate forms that it places in an order that suggests steady development
    according to its conjectured timeline. The
    various forms are millions of years apart, and you never see what supposedly
    came between what appear to be two completely different species. The evidence, as Wiki presents it, can just
    as easily fit into a theistic evolution model or a creation model.

  • NEIL C. REINHARDT

    EVOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON FAITH!

    EVOLUTION IS BASED ON FACT!

    AND HERE IS ARE SOME FACTS FOR YOU!

    THE PROOF OF EVOLUTION IS IN YOUR OWN BODY AS WE HAVE CANINE TEETH WE DO NEED AS WELL AS A TAIL BONE, A THIRD EYE LID, TONSILS AND AND APPENDIX WE REALLY DO NOT NEED AT ALL!

    • Don Hignite

      It takes more faith to believe in evolution than the faith to believe in all religions combined. I’ll give you the acid test to validate your claims.

      What is Faith? Faith in essence to follow or believe in something UNSEEN do you agree?

      Do you understand the term “Scientific method”?
      Would you agree with it?
      The definition of “Scientific method” is as follows “the collection of data through observation and experimentation”. ~ Science Daily.

      The test…
      So to prove you do not need faith to believe; can you give me an example of observable evidence that proves evolution without any form of faith?

      Can you provide any observable evidence of any change of kinds in a species?
      Only one will prove your point; so give me and example of a change of kinds such as a monkey to a man, dog into a cat, etc..

      If you cannot then can you tell me when you started to
      “Believe” in evolution?

      Note try evolving into proper use of your keyboard, use caps only when needed.

  • http://BarbWire.com/ Brian Fitzpatrick

    What makes you think this person is a Christian, Neil?

    • NEIL C. REINHARDT

      SHE SAYS SHE IS

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!