Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
bible2-620x428

An evangelical Christian Army chaplain’s assistant who has served honorably in the Army for six years, including time in Afghanistan, alleges

…that she was threatened with a reduction in rank and pay for a Facebook post where she dared to call homosexuality what God calls it: sin.

After returning from church and watching a documentary about a minister who endorsed homosexuality, on Facebook the Christian soldier expressed her frustration with clergy disregarding Biblical principles. Foolishly feeling free enough to speak her mind, she posted in part:

“Yes God loves you as a person but He hates the sin. Tired of hearing about Pastors being ok with homosexuality.”

The following day, the wife, and mother of a six-month-old baby, was promptly beckoned to her commander’s office where she was accused of creating a “hostile and antagonistic” environment and threatened withUCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) if she did not immediately take the post down.

Thus far, the Christian soldier’s idea of moving onward is to refuse to remove the posting.

The young woman, who requested anonymity, claims she was ordered by a commanding officer to remove the post, or else. Refusing to submit, the soldier said “I haven’t taken it down and I won’t take it down.”

After serving her nation to preserve freedoms that include her First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion – which includes professing her faith – the woman said:

“It is frustrating that people are trying to silence me – for something that I believe in. We fight for the freedom that I can’t enjoy right now. That’s not right.”

Exactly! So now our military is fighting for freedoms that are conditional and at times even exclusive? And Christians in the military are spilling their blood on the battlefield and then once home are threatened by enemies of their faith who reside within that same military?

The chaplain’s assistant is willing to go to court, saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong.” Assessing the situation accurately, the soldier observed that “God said we would be persecuted for our faith and I think now is the time.”

Regardless of how this turns out, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” no longer applies to gays in the military. However, a hybrid form of the policy is now being imposed upon Christians serving their country.

So if you’re gay and in the military, share your lifestyle with pride!

But if you’re a Christian in the military and express disagreement with the gay lifestyle, you’re “hostile and antagonistic,” and you will be punished. Sounds about right.

1A

************************

Related: Military Religious Freedom Foundation Wants Air Force Chaplain Gagged

 

It's FINALLY HERE!
Kevin Jackson's hilarious take on Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!

Enjoy this excerpt from the book:

"In actuality, black people will go to substandard hospitals, wait in long lines behind illegal immigrants, and be treated like non-citizens, as there simply won’t be enough healthcare to go around. There will be the occasional lucky few who will receive treatment, and we will parade them around like championship rings, thus continuing the ruse. As you can see, we’ve left out nothing. We touch more on this in Chapter 10: Promise Everything, Deliver Nothing. If for some reason we happen to run out of blacks, we will be able to apply our trade to the Mexicans with little disruptions. Plans are already underway for our next edition in this “How To” series: How to be a Latino "Race Pimp for Fun and Profit…even if you’re Illegal."

Pre-Order Now!
 
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.

  • Helen

    He is promoting a gay military for the same reason he gives cel phones free to anyone who wants them, for the same reason he wants open borders, for the same reason he demanded illegal could vote, for the same reason he disses whatever is honorable and Lawful and give respect to all that is UNAmerican. illegal and indecent ‘Bribery,’… that keeps him in office. He deliberately dishonors and show contempt for our present Military.Causing many of these brave souls to commit suicide under his abuse of Power. Saying they are not special, Taking away medical and financial needs that they are entitled to. Even calling Ft Hood a work place violence. Well, we now know for a fact it was a jihadist attact. The jihadist was rewarded and the fallen and wounded were spit on by this man who attempts to destroy all of us. How many reasons do we need to Remove him from office???? How long must we tolerate this Abuse of Power?? He thinks, and I hope he has miscalculated, that if he promotes gays in the Military they will stand Against the People and stand with him when he decides to totally collapse the Constitution and turn our beloved Country into a Marxist Dictatorship. Whether he does this under his corrupt Regime or Hillary’s!!! . He is busy at work and we had better be busy at work against him. He is not our President. He is our worst enemy! What is even more offensive is the Democratic party stands with him against the Constitution and all that is holy. They have all sold their souls and that, I am sorry to say, goes for many, many liberal Republicans.

    • roy shook

      you are so right,sadly,,,i will not stay here and live my life under his terms,,,i will go to my wifes country,,,we already have a house there so it will be a relatively easy move,,,i love my country and always will,,but I refuse to live under tyranny,,,,,,and that is what is happening,,,,those men wrote the constitution the way they did for a lot of good reasons,,,and one of them is to stop people like Obama,,,,,thank god for the founding fathers being so intelligent and insightful,,,,,god bless all americans,,,,,,

    • Karen Minter

      Please have faith! Pray, then write, email, whatever to voice your direction for Americas future. Here isn’t doing it, & the way your prophesying the way ahead is actually speaking against God’s power & strength. Unfortunately people start talking like this all the time & its useless hollow words. There’s no change or forging on ahead spoken about that I’ve read in your post. I know with God on our side who can be against us is the Spirit! Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit, says the LORD of hosts.(Zechariah 4:5-14). We are with the LORD’S army & He wins remember?!

    • Bob Judd

      HOGWASH! You need a little information that it’s NOT the president who has promoted gays in the military, it is AMERICA! Why do you think it’s changed? It’s because ever since America was a country, gay and lesbian folks have fought and died for our country in a military who wouldn’t allow them to serve openly and thank GOD this has changed. So, like the Christians who swore that using birth control or marrying someone of a different race would ‘destroy marriage’ or the bigoted Christians who protested when blacks and latinos served in the military, today we have the same bigoted Christians whining incoherently saying that gays don’t belong in the military. So please try to keep in mind that gays have ALWAYS been in the military because WE ARE EVERYWHERE. Perhaps that realization will help you CURB YOUR DOGMA.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        Wow. You people in Urkel’s drippy butt posse just can’t control yourselves, can you?

  • sophiepeaches

    Thanks for letting us know about this. Fighting for freedom that is denied to the very ones risking their lives. Despicable.

  • Georgia Girl

    The good people in the military need to realize they are not fighting for freedom here or abroad anymore. They are fighting because of the agenda of a few elite. Obama has no intention of protecting our freedoms. He is doing everything in his power to take them away. I feel very sorry for good Christians in the military these days. They don’t even have a decent POTUS to lead them. He is trying to destroy our military along with our country. God help us all.

  • jeanbean14

    She’s on my prayer list now. God bless her for standing up for what she knows to be true, and God protect her from all evil. I applaud her bravery!

    • Bob Judd

      Prayer list? “Bravery”??? You think it takes bravery to quote the most popular and genocidal book ever written? Horse, crap. What takes true BRAVERY is for people to stand up to the injustices that this foolish member of the military represents and her behavior is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the goals of our military. The US wants soldiers and leaders who are GOOD for morale, not ones who make bigoted and untrue statements about other soldiers. Because if you make bigoted statements about homosexuals, you’re also making bigoted statements about the US MILITARY IN GENERAL! So, keep that in mind next time you PRAY!

      • jeanbean14

        Yes, it takes bravery to stand up against hateful, angry atheists like you who demand conformity, and work hard to destroy freedom of speech whenever someone disagrees with you. Your hatred for God is palpable in your post. I will not be thinking about any of the misguided and angry statements in your post the next time I pray. I might pray for you, though.

        • Bob Judd

          People who feel the need to insult and mistreat members of the LGBT community do so because they are angry and misguided, but all anger is derived from FEAR. And because so many U.S. evangelicals fear gays, they must continue their hateful propaganda, equating someone’s sexuality with ‘sin’.
          Further, you can’t have ‘hatred’ for something that doesn’t exist, but what I hate is the way this author has twisted the REAL issue in trying to pretend this hate-mongering woman is ‘brave’.
          You may be surprised to know that the American Atheist Society has received more hate-mail including death threats and actual murder attempts by rabid Christians ever since it’s inception. Try googling it or checking the stats and you’ll see this simple fact.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        Absolutely breathtaking. A product of leftist educators.

        • Bob Judd

          Speaking of ‘products': your comment is the product of ignorance so unfathomable, it can’t even think of a single intelligent thing to say, so all you can come up with is an insult that a 4 year old would come up with. Guess you’re afraid to respond with something that intelligently negates my statement, probably because you know I would rip your argument to shreds. LOL>

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            No, I know it’s because you are typing with one hand and beating off with the other, excited at your impudence to your betters.

      • Lee Saffold

        Your ignorance of the Bible is apparent in all of your
        comments concerning it. I am beginning
        to doubt your military credentials. Could you tell us your understanding of the
        “goals of our military” and point to sources that support your
        conclusions? How is it that you believe
        that any statement that shows disapproval of homosexual behavior is a statement
        against the “US MILITARY IN GENERAL”?
        Can you point us to a source from within the military establishment or
        from the Uniform Code of Military Justice that supports that assertion?

        • Bob Judd

          Thanks for asking. The reason that allowing soldiers to make bigoted statements against ANYONE but especially other soldiers is wrong and won’t be stood for is because it affects morale, which in turn affects the way our soldiers do their jobs. Again, I don’t make the rules, the US military does. If you don’t like it I could suggest moving to a 3rd world country where religious beliefs rule the land. NOT in my country! I think this article points to the code you’re looking for, or I could suggest a simple google search.
          The place for religious bigotry is in CHURCH. Learn it and keep your mouth shut.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Thanks for asking.”

            You are welcome but I am still waiting for an answer!

            You further state:

            “The reason that allowing soldiers to make bigoted
            statements against ANYONE but especially other soldiers is wrong and won’t be stood for is because it affects morale, which in turn affects the way our
            soldiers do their jobs.”

            I did not ask you the “reason for not allowing” what you
            call “bigoted statements against anyone in the military”. I asked you to show evidence from within the
            military establishment that “any statement that shows disapproval of homosexual behavior is a statement against the military in general” as you asserted. So far you have not answered that question. Certainly the military wants nothing to affect morale and they do work very hard to keep morale high but this does not mean that they prevent all disagreements and expressions of opinion from
            persons who hold opposite views. Doing so would greatly depress the morale of the troops who are citizens of a country where they are accustomed to speak
            their views freely. What they do prevent
            however is harassment because of the differing views. The mere expression of opposing viewpoints is not harassment nor is it bigotry but in reality it is freedom in action and is quite good for morale in most places including the military. A person expressing their view that homosexuality is a sin will not prevent or hinder the military from doing their
            job, neither will it adversely affect the “way” a professional soldier or sailor does his job. Therefore this woman’s
            words did not have any serious affect upon morale or “good order and discipline” in the ranks. Therefore it was not even
            an issue for her superiors to address.

            Then you say:

            “Again, I don’t make the rules, the US military does.”

            The military does not make the rules; the people do through their elected representatives in congress.
            And I have asked you to show me where ‘the rules” states specifically that speaking a word against homosexuality is equivalent to speaking “AGAINST THE MILITARY IN GENERAL” as you claimed. It is true that you do not make the rules and it is also true that you do not answer difficult questions either, do you?

            Then you suggest:

            “ If you don’t like it I could suggest moving to a 3rd world country where religious beliefs rule the land. NOT in my country!”

            I have said nothing about my “likes or dislikes” I have
            simply expressed my disagreement with your position and asked you to prove that your statements are factual. So far you have presented no facts to support your claims and my going to a “third world” country will not help you at all because they have internet there also and I can still continue to ask you questions that you do not have answers to, can’t I?

            I like living here where our laws are very different from
            your imaginations and illusions. Christians have little or no ambition to make religious beliefs the law of the land in America but our laws protect our right to have those beliefs, and to openly express them in any place we so choose, including in the military. And this is “my country” as much as it is yours and I do not think that you have it in your power to make me move across the street much less out of this country. Religious beliefs are voluntary in this
            country and I would not have it any other way. And you cannot do anything to stop us from openly expressing those religious views in any place. You can
            whine, cry, moan and complain and beg us to leave this country to you but we are not likely to do that and you just cannot do anything about it, now can you?

            Then you pretend to point to an “article” that supposedly
            supports your claim thus:

            “I think this article points to the code you’re looking for,
            or I could suggest a simple Google search.”

            I do not see any “article” to which you are referring so I cannot determine if it is what I am looking for or not. Suggesting a “Google search” when you were completely incapable of searching to find any such statement yourself shows that you do not have any evidence to support your claim, doesn’t it? You made the assertion and I expect you to be able to prove it to be true. That is your responsibility in a discussion like this, Bob. HA! Stand up like a man and either prove your point or admit that you were just expressing an opinion that you had not researched.

            Then you try to order me around as if you are or have ever
            been in the military yourself, which I am beginning to doubt by saying:

            “The place for religious bigotry is in CHURCH. Learn it and
            keep your mouth shut.”

            Now obviously there is really no place for “bigotry”
            religious or otherwise least of all in the Church. Your problem is that you have said nothing whatsoever that establishes that what this young woman said on her Facebook pages concerning God loving sinners and hating the sin and that homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible was a “bigoted statement”. I do not have to agree with another person’s point of view to be tolerant of it. It
            is when I try to prevent them from having that point of view, expressing it and living according to it that I become a real bigot. This woman’s expression of her view concerning homosexuality was merely expressing her opinion and her disagreement with those who differed with her within the Christian community. She had a right to do that on her own face book page and it is my understanding that the military has no right to say anything about it. But you claimed otherwise so I asked you to give me evidence from the “rules” you keep talking about that supposedly forbids her from expressing such an opinion on her personal face book
            page. So, far there is no answer from you on that score. Why is that, Bob?

            And when you order someone to “keep their mouth shut” you may want to consider just how it is that you are going to force them to obey you? I do not think you would know how to do that, now would you? This is my country and I will speak anything I want to speak in any place I want to speak it and I defy you to do anything about it. So, here I am, Bob, how exactly are you going to force me to “keep my mouth shut”?

  • Omar

    If formally charged would BS please send me an email. I was a military police investigator for 20 years. I would, without fee, help investigate for the defense. I can supply references.

    • Herb Johnston

      Omar, thanks for your offer of help to a servant of our country….I gotta ask though..does anyone besides those of us who sit here at night read these things..the comments..?.. just wondering..

    • roy shook

      you are a good man and a good American,,thank you,,,i know we still exist,,but they are trying to silence us,,,i am a gun toting,christian American,and I am married to a Filipina and have a Filipino son,,,,i am a American,,,,,i will live my life free,,if not here then in my wifes country,,,,they still know what freedom is and most Filipinos love americans,,,,,just to bad so many Filipinas find the wrong kind of American,,,,,i love you America,,,,,i love you nday and our son,prince Lawrence c.u.shook,,,,,and love to all American patriots who follow the constitution,,,god bless you all,,,,,,,,

      • Bob Judd

        No one gives a good god-damned what Christians say in their own time, the only thing the military (which has every legal right to say) is to enforce rules of common courtesy and good morale among the troops. And when one soldier hears another’s incessant whining that homosexuality is a ‘sin’ or any other Biblical NONSENSE, it is very obviously bad for morale. Though from the sound of your nonsense, I’m sure you don’t have the ability to see this very logical reasoning, which is the reason you’re not a military official.
        Also, if you’d married your filipino wife in the 1940’s and earlier, you would be put in jail because marrying someone of a different face was ILLEGAL, and after the court case Loving VS Virginia, it was made legal and the church and Christians went NUTS saying that allowing interracial marriage would ‘destroy’ the institution, just like previous to that they suggested that couples who used birth control would ‘destroy’ marriage and today bigoted christians say that gay marriage will ‘destroy’ the institution.
        Hope that shows you how lame your comment about ‘silencing’ is. This soldier is free to say whatever he/she wants on their own time, but in the military there’s a time and place for the bigotry they endorse.

        • 1NedSprockethead1

          Breathtaking.

  • Bob Judd

    What’s amazing to me is how ‘Christian Army’s’ and Christians in general lack the ability to empathize with anyone other than other Xians. It’s something that would make Jesus vomit. Equating homosexuality with sin is like saying it’s a sin to be left-handed or red-haired and it’s about time someone speaks out against such discriminatory hate-speech. Of course it makes headlines when anyone so much as disagrees with the hate-mongering speech of these bigots and I’m glad that the military is seeing vast reform, which it has needed for at least a century. Now the military needs to make prayer go away, because there is nothing more offensive to a non-christian than to sit around and pray to something that isn’t there.
    So, if you think homosexuality is a sin, GREAT, keep it to yourself — because society in general is SICK of listening to your perpetual proselytizing!

    • stripeyunderpants

      i would love for these bigots-for-Jesus to tell me the exact moment they CHOSE to be heterosexual, and the exact line of reasoning that led them to that decision. I am sure they can also explain how they CHOSE to be right-handed, or to grow their hair and skin a certain color.

      • 1NedSprockethead1

        So now homosexuals CHOOSE to be gay? That’s a change.

        • stripeyunderpants

          Well, that’s what Christians believe. Of course, they can never explain how THEY chose to be heterosexual.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Well, you need to read Lee Saffold above to get the drift of why ‘Christians’ “chose” to be heterosexual. But the big argument of the sodomy lobby was always “they were born that way.” Either they are or they aren’t. Or can’t they make up their minds?

          • Lee Saffold

            Heterosexuality is in harmony with the natural purpose of
            sexuality which is reproduction and perpetuation of the human race. Hence it is natural for everyone to be
            heterosexual and therefore does not require a conscious choice from anyone to be heterosexual. But homosexuality is not in harmony with the design or natural purpose of sexuality and therefore deviating from that natural purpose would involve a conscious choice. So, that is this Christians explanation of how he was designed to be heterosexual and therefore became heterosexual
            without making a conscious choice to do so.
            There is no evidence whatsoever that homosexuality is in the design of our DNA or our genetic makeup but heterosexuality is very much a part of our natural genetic design. We are built to be heterosexual and in order to be homosexual we must choose to deviate from that which is according our nature.

            So, your above question has now been answered twice by a Christian. Just because you do not like the answer does not justify you in claiming that we can “never explain how they chose to be heterosexual”. I have just explained it to you twice. Heterosexuality has been chosen FOR US by the one who designed us and therefore we do not need to choose to be heterosexual, that is the default position. To do anything otherwise requires a choice to deviate from the default built into our nature. So, you can no longer say we
            NEVER explain how we “chose” to be heterosexual. I have explained that we believe it is inherent and natural for us to be heterosexual and therefore not necessary for us to choose it. We can however choose to be asexual but because we are Christians we choose to accept the natural
            design of our bodies and to live in harmony with it.

          • Bob Judd

            Heterosexuality as far as us humans are concerned is NOT in any kind of harmony with nature at all! Shows how little attention you pay to science and current events, which is part of your problem. Read my most recent post about homosexuality as birth control. It’s not necessary to respond.

        • Bob Judd

          The only homosexuals who ‘choose’ to be gay are actually straight men (usually married) who have a gay fling or 2 usually under a bathroom stall or rest area or gay cruise parks.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Oh, you’re not bigoted! Jerkoff.

          • Bob Judd

            Nope, I’m not and thank you for at least confirming my original comment that you have a big mouth, small brain and nothing intelligent to add.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Considering the source, that is a compliment.

      • Lee Saffold

        Inasmuch as the clear design (or as you might put it the natural purpose) of sexual behavior is reproduction, it is quite clear that
        sexual behavior is intended to be inherently heterosexual. And the notion that sexual activity has no higher purpose than the gratification of pleasure is refuted by the very design
        of our physical bodies which are clearly equipped to facilitate reproduction and perpetuation of the human race.
        Hence, there is no need for one to consciously choose to be heterosexual if he lives in harmony with the natural purpose or design of his physical nature. And it would be quite reasonable
        for any person to not be conscious in the least of ever choosing to live according to that which is so clearly inherent in our nature.

        The very obvious fact that our sexuality exists to facilitate reproduction and perpetuation of the human race evidences that
        heterosexuality is the “default” purpose of sexuality. And homosexuality is a deviation from that default purpose of our sexuality and therefore necessitates a conscious choice. Hence those who behave contrary to that inherent purpose
        are indeed often quite aware of when they made such a conscious decision. This would likely explain why heterosexual
        people are not generally conscious of having made a choice to be heterosexual and behave according to that natural purpose because living in harmony with our nature does not necessitate a conscious choice while deviating from it would require some conscious consideration on our part.

        This may explain why the homosexual community feels the need
        to justify their lifestyle by claiming that their way of life is also inherent in our DNA or genetic makeup. But while heterosexual behavior is without question inherent in our nature no one has
        ever proven that there is a necessity in our inherent nature whether genetic or otherwise that forces one to be homosexual.
        Homosexuality is clearly a conscious choice to behave contrary to the physical design or natural purpose of our sexual makeup. And my point is that the choice to deviate from that sexual purpose and focus solely upon gratifying personal sexual pleasures according to our own personal fetishes has never been proven to be an inherent trait written in our DNA or genetic code.

        In reference to your question, “for these bigots for Jesus”
        to tell you the “exact moment they CHOSE to be heterosexual and the exact line of reason that lead them to that decision” the answer is in the above facts that heterosexuality is in harmony with the natural design or purpose of sexuality and therefore does not require a conscious choice in much the same way that “being right handed” or “Growing hair” and “having skin a certain color” does not require a choice. The same cannot tfactually be said of homosexuality because there is nothing in our nature or the
        natural purpose of sexuality, or our DNA, or genetic makeup that necessitates homosexual behavior. Such has never been
        proven by any scientific endeavor whatsoever.

        But to deviate from our natural make up does require a
        choice much like one born right handed can tell you if he ever chose to train himself to become left handed or ambidextrous which was contrary to nature. And since is a simple fact that
        homosexuality is contrary to the obvious design and purpose of sexuality it would necessitate a choice to live contrary to it. And one just might be able to tell you when they decided to take that course. But heterosexuals, Christian or otherwise, do
        not have any need to decide to live according to their inherent nature. Only those who are deviating from their inherent nature need to make that decision. And homosexuals are deviating from the clearly esablished and scientifically proven natural purpose of sexuality inherent in their genetic makeup and may well be conscious of when they made that choice. Even though they may not be conscious of it they appear to be very much aware of the deviation from the normal purpose of sexuality in the human race hence we observe their desperate need to prove to the rest of us it is just as natural for them to be homosexual as it is for us to be heterosexual. So far they have failed miserably to prove those assertions to be factual or true.

        I agree however that it is the right of every person living
        to choose how they will live without being required to justify themselves to anyone but God. It is also the right of
        every Christian to express their point of view about these things. By doing so they harm no one and if anyone disagrees with them they have every right to counter with arguments of their own. And the fact that Christians consider something to be a sin against God because of what they read in the Bible, which is their rule of faith and practice which they themselves try to live by, is no reason to consider them to be “bigots”. A serious reading of Romans Chapter one18-32 would convince any honest person that the Bible does teach that homosexuality is a sin. But this does not mean that Christians need to insist that those who are not Christians must be forced by law to not live as they choose to live.
        That is not our intention and never should be. It only means that we cannot ever approve of it or support it in any way.

        • stripeyunderpants

          Sex is NOT entirely about reproduction, as you would know if you actually bothered studying the matter a little instead of believing any old thing your pastor tells you. Your talk of “natural design” amounts to the ignorant babbling of someone who has never studied human sexuality, so can be ignored. Your superstitions mean nothing. “Sin” is merely a concept that is best defined as “anything the priests don’t like and claim to be evil.” Certainly, God, himself never personally told you anything about what he likes or wants or needs. Why would God want or need anything, anyway? He doesn’t care about the 25,000 children who will die of starvation today, but he’s enraged if a man has sex with a man? Really? THAT’S the kind of god you worship? And you think I should worship him, also?

          Your contention that Christians can’t live as they choose is complete, stupid nonsense. You can go to any church you like, preach on street corners, go door-to-door selling your religion, you have your own TV network, millions of websites, radio shows, and morning worship broadcasts, there are Christian book stores and gift shops, billboards announcing various churches and religious messages–all of this and much more, and NONE of it is illegal, none of it is forbidden, none of it will get you arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. You don’t have to hide your beliefs, or meet secretly in each others’ basements in fear of the law, you have complete freedom to believe anything you damn well please. People are sick and tired of you Christians pulling out the I’m-so-persecuted card every time something doesn’t go your way. You wouldn’t know what persecution is if it kicked you in the groin and stole your wallet.

          • Lee Saffold

            I have not said that sex is entirely about
            reproduction. I have said that
            reproduction and perpetuation of the human race is its natural purpose or
            design. A part of that design involves
            making the sexual behavior pleasant, desirable and almost irresistible at
            times. Another factor in sexual behavior is the
            feelings of love and commitment to one’s partner. And a spiritual bonding
            between sexual partners may also be a part of it all that I do not think I can
            prove by empirical evidence but I mention it as well. All of which supports the
            concept of perpetuation of the human race. I have studied the matter.

            I have never contended that Christians cannot live as they choose. I do not know what made you think that I did. I am glad to be an American because I know that I can be a Christian without anyone percecuting me for being one in this country. In fact, I do not believe that Christians are being persecuted here in this country. And your rants against Christians is far from persecution. In fact, they are too ignorant to have very much serious impact upon us at all. You actually make it very easy to for us to demonstrate how Chritianity is quite reasonable.

          • Bob Judd

            The LAST thing our human race needs more humans. Perhaps it would help ‘designer believers’ (which I simply call UNEDUCATED folks) to think of gay marriage and homosexuality in general as the designer’s population control. After all, any such designer who is smart enough to design humans who love to have sex and enjoy orgasms should also be smart enough to devise a method of birth control that doesn’t stop breeding entirely (which may be why homosexuality has always remained about 10% or so), and would also be smart enough to know that birth control should be built in to society because most folks simply aren’t smart enough to use birth control and children today have become entitlements. In fact, I can hardly hear the exponentially increasing human population statistics from the deafening sound of screaming babies!

          • Lee Saffold

            Folks, notice that Bob has said:

            “The LAST thing our
            human race needs more humans.”

            It does not take long for those who say “there is no God” to soon prove the Bible is right when it says, “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God”. It is characteristic for atheist to devalue human life as Bob has done with this statement. Notice that it is the fool that does not
            believe in God that wants to limit the existence of life for human beings on this earth. All of you expectant mothers
            out there pay attention to what this “fool” has said. Your child is the “LAST thing” on this earth that “our human race needs”!

            We have plenty of things that are easily preventing the world from ever becoming over populated,
            like Wars, earthquakes, cancer, disease, wickedness, murders, hatred, suicides, ignorance, foolishness, and stupidity and now our friend, Bob, wants to add
            homosexuality to the list. I do not doubt that homosexuality can contribute to diminishing the human race in more
            ways than merely reducing the population levels but homosexuality is hardly sufficient to significantly control the population of the human race and therefore would
            not be a very well designed means of population control. For that reason it is very unlikely that the “designer” of this world would be so foolish as to hope that homosexual behavior would control a population that needs no control in the first place.

            The urge to have children is strong and is good for all of us. But this “fool”, who says in his heart there is no God,
            thinks that you expectant mothers out there should not be “entitled” to have your children because the “screaming” of those that have been recently born has drowned out his unproven assertions about an “exponentially increasing” out of control population growth that needs to be stopped by those heroic homosexuals out there who will never want to have children! So, he is saying shame on you for thinking that you are entitled to have children! You are upsetting his
            world. You are destroying his world. You are, according to Bob, the cause of the problems we face. You are
            causing world hunger! Even though it has not crossed his mind that hunger is his ally in reducing the numbers of those human beings that are, according to him, after all the very “last thing the human race needs”! So long as we have world hunger he will not have to worry about over population, now will we Bob!

            Bob is so bright and brilliant that he has found a far better way to reduce the numbers of human beings on earth. All we need to do is increase the numbers of homosexuals among us and according to him the “problem
            is solved”. Who would have ever been so clever? Why did not the random forces in the universe come up with this solution earlier and how on earth, with the historic existence of homosexuality in large numbers fail to prevent us from reaching the point to where highly educated men like Bob is concerned with over population? We have had homosexuals around for a very long time but it seems that their existence has done little or nothing to prevent us from reaching such high numbers of these unneeded human beings. Bob is a genius isn’t he. He is highly educated and cannot be easily fooled into believing in God like us poor “uneducated folks” who actually believe in God and love life and seek to have lovely children that grow up to
            be blessings to us all and to one day replace us and keep life going on this earth after we are gone. No, he sees humanity as of little value, and despises those ignorant women that dare to actually believe that they should be entitled to have children! We can only say that us ignorant “believers in design” can only be grateful that his mother was wise enough to think she was entitled to have a child and blessed all of us with the birth of BOB who
            has not stopped screaming since the day he was born that we just have too many human beings on earth and we must now become homosexuals in order to stop this
            epidemic of humanity!

            Then he says:

            “Perhaps it would help ‘designer believers’ (which I simply call UNEDUCATED folks) to think of gay marriage and homosexuality in general as the designer’s
            population control.”

            Perhaps it would help those “highly educated” and very “humble” believers in complex designs without
            any designer to consider the very possibility that there is little need for “population control”. We may need to consider more intelligent and coordinated population distribution around the globe but the idea that there
            are too many living human beings upon this earth living too long has never been scientifically established. This man
            wants humanity to be reduced. Perhaps he would consider anything that reduces the number of those pesky humans to be greatly beneficial to the “human race”
            as if he is himself no part of the human race.

            It seems as if he would very much agree with Dr. Eric R. Pianka, “the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006
            Distinguished Texas Scientist” who delivered a speech to about 400 attendees at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science proclaimed that, “‘we’re
            no better than bacteria!’” In his speech, Pianka suggested that the Earth cannot survive the current human
            population increase, and that something needs to be done “to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.” Pianka then mentioned several ways this might occur. He, however, did not think homosexuality would do the job. Instead “His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days instead of years.” His solution was not mere “birth control” but the literal killing of 90 % of the human race. After all, he and Bob agree that the “last thing the human race needs is more human beings” produced by heterosexual men having sex with women who actually desire to have children. He would rather that they join the ranks of those heroic homosexuals that would never, ever do anything to add
            another human life to the already far excessive numbers of them living today! After all the incessant screaming of those little unneeded nuisances is preventing them from getting out their message that the human race is the problem and needs to be drastically reduced in numbers
            on this earth. And they will continue to believe this nonsense so long as they themselves are not numbered among those who are eliminated from the human race that does not “need any more humans”. Anyone that cannot see that a culture of death is forming among these so called “highly educated” idiots is just simply blind to reality. Bob probably has no earthly idea that he is actually devaluing all of our lives, including his own with his view summarized by himself with his immortal words of wisdom which I
            now quote for us all to praise: “The last thing our human race needs is more humans!”

          • Bob Judd

            Of COURSE they’re not being persecuted though many pretend they are, much like the woman in this PREPOSTEROUS article who many pretend is some kind of martyr when all she was warned about was not following military orders. Too bad she’s not as smart as you and realizes that the military doesn’t take anyone’s rights away, it enforces very specific conduct outlined before soldiers enlist. If she doesn’t like it, she shouldn’t have joined and should have been a bigoted pastor or something.

          • Lee Saffold

            Let’s talk about your definition of the word “sin” and compare it to the dictionary definition and the Biblical definition.

            You define sin thus:

            “”Sin” is merely a concept that is best defined as
            “anything the priests don’t like and claim to be evil.”

            The dictionary defines it as:

            1. “the transgression of divine law”

            2. Any act regarded as such a transgression,
            especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral
            principle.

            3. Any reprehensible or regrettable action,
            behavior, lapse, ECT; a great fault or offense.

            In the Bible sin is defined as the transgression of the Law
            of God.

            “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for
            sin is the transgression of the law.”1 John 3:4.

            So, the Biblical definition of sin agrees with the first
            dictionary definition of it listed above as transgression of divine law. And upon this basis Christians are convinced
            that because homosexuality is fornication it is a transgression of Gods law and is therefore a sin. Again I refer to Romans 1:18-32.

            Your opinion that sin is “merely a concept that is best
            defined as anything the priest do not like and claim to be evil” does not agree with any definition of sin found in any language especially the English language. Sin is definitely an act that transgresses the Law of God. Clearly if one does not believe in God he may well not believe in sin either. But when Christians speak of homosexuality as being a sin they are correctly using the term “sin” to describe that which transgresses the law of God. And this means that sin is that which God does not like instead of things that as you say “priest don’t like”. Only your ignorance of the English language, Christianity in general and the Bible in particular could have lead you to completely misunderstand the very meaning of the term “sin” in our language.

            You have said:

            “He doesn’t care about the 25,000 children who will die of
            starvation today, but he’s enraged if a man has sex with a man? Really? THAT’S
            the kind of god you worship? And you think I should worship him, also?”

            Can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that 25,000 children
            are definitely going to die of starvation today? And how exactly do you know that God does not
            care about any of them? Has God told you
            personally that he does not care about the children who will die today? God inspired the writers of the Bible and he
            told them what he wanted us to know and they recorded it in writing for the rest
            of us to know God’s will. And if you
            want to know if he cares about children you can read what it says and find out
            for yourself.

            So that God cares for little Children you can read, “But
            when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the
            little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the
            kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you,
            Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not
            enter therein. And he took them up in
            his arms, put [his] hands upon them, and blessed them.” Mark 10:14

            That God is “enraged” if a man has sex with a man one can
            read this verse from the Bible which Christian’s believe is God’s inspired
            words as follows:

            “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

            “For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even
            the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.”
            Leviticus 18:29.

            Read Romans 1: 18-32.

            I cannot say if God is “enraged” as you put it but I can say
            with certainty that the Bible, which Christians accept as God’s word, teaches that men having sex with men is an abomination to him. This means that he abhors it and therefore it is a sin.

            Is it not interesting to you that God states that a man
            having sex with a man is an abomination and he places in the same category as the similar abomination of bestiality and he is not merely condemning idol worship where men slept with men in the temple worship of idols. It is the act of men having sex with men that is an abomination to him, just as much as sex with animals is a similar abomination in the very same context. That which is an abomination to God is definitely considered by Christians as a sin. And for this reason we believe that homosexuality is a sin. Now you may not accept our faith in God’s Word and you may not even believe in God at all but when Christians call these things sinful they are doing so because they believe
            that God has spoken in his inspired word, the Bible, condemning these things as a sin. And they have that right to believe as they choose to believe about it.

            So, yes God cares for all children living or dead and he definitely considers men having sex with men as an abomination in the same way and for the same reason that he condemns bestiality as an abomination. Whether these
            abominations “enrage” him I cannot say because his word has not spoken or revealed that information to us.

            God is good and it does not matter what I think about
            whether you should “worship” God or not.
            But God expects to be worshiped and he will judge you in all of these
            matters. If you choose to defy him that
            is your right but I do not advice it.

          • Bob Judd

            And again, God and the Bible are 100% MAN-MADE constructs, and so are the ‘sins’ within it. The bigger sin to me would be to deny the way God made you and homosexuality is as natural as being left-handed or red-haired despite what the Holy Babble says. Maybe you could answer though, why Christians insist upon choosing homosexuality as the ‘abomination’ to cling to rather than not eating pork, or burning your child as an offering to God? If you’re able to understand why it sounds so stupid when I see it that way, then you’ll know why non-believers think most Christians are so full of crap.

        • Bob Judd

          Again, what the bible says about homosexuality (or just about anything else) is 100% IRRELEVANT since the US is not a Christian theocracy. And when you can understand why you wouldn’t want the BS from the Koran written in to Law in the US, you’ll know why non-Christians don’t like seeing Biblical BS written in. You may also want to take your Biblical Blindfold off for 5 seconds and think about how many humans there are that destroy our planet on a daily basis, with no resources to feed or clothe them and then you might begin to figure how PERFECT a design homosexuality is that fits in to help curb human populations. If you had the ability to think reasonably you could see ‘design’ from a rational point of view. Christians should be PRAISING homosexuality for both bailing out the human race and for bailing out the failed institution of marriage that heterosexuals have brought down below 45% success rates.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Yet again, your ignorance is breathtaking.

          • Bob Judd

            Maybe I’ll have to change it so I can make it not breath-taking and you’ll STOP breathing, which would be a breath of fresh air to the viewers of these threads who don’t have to sift through your inane and childish observations. You seriously must be a 10 or 12 year old, and I’m surprised your mommy let’s you browse the internet.

          • 1NedSprockethead1

            Aren’t you a hero. Come on here and insult everybody from the safety of your jerknest. Nobody in the world knows anything but Bob Judd. And really, considering what you have to say, you should be pretty humble.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Again, what the bible says about homosexuality (or just about anything else) is 100% IRRELEVANT since the US is not a Christian theocracy.”

            If one is trying to convince the majority of the people in
            this country to support gay marriage then they will have to consider the simple fact that more than 85% of this country claim to be Christians and we do not consider what the Bible says about things to be “100% irrelevant”. In fact, we find it to be completely up to date and very relevant.

            Then you say:

            “And when you can understand why you wouldn’t want the BS from the Koran written in to Law in the US, you’ll know why non-Christians don’t like seeing Biblical BS written in.”

            We do not advocate that Christian principles be written into
            our laws because we do not want America to be a Christian Theocracy as you claim. The Church of Christ is the Kingdom of God on this earth not the United States. But the fact is that a large majority of our people are citizens of the Kingdom of God as well as citizens of the United States of America. We advocate for freedom of
            religion, all religions, including the atheistic self -worship form of religion. And we are not trying to make homosexuality illegal in this country or to prevent anyone from passing laws to allow Gay marriage. We simply do not support the idea of gay marriage because we believe that homosexuality is a sin. We do not support it for the same reason that we do not support prostitution, adultery, and fornication of any kind, including heterosexual sins in that regard. Asking Christians to support laws making homosexual marriage legal is the same as asking us to support the legalization of Prostitution. We cannot prevent such laws from being made but if they are made they must be made without our consent and agreement because
            we cannot support that which we believe to be sinful. And that is exactly what makes the teaching of the Bible very relevant to this discussion.

            Then you say:

            “You may also want to take your Biblical Blindfold off for 5 seconds and think about how many humans there are that destroy our planet on a daily basis, with no resources to feed or clothe them and then you might begin to figure how PERFECT a design homosexuality is that fits in to help curb human populations.”

            Even without Biblical Blindfolds on I do not see any
            evidence whatsoever that homosexuality has reduced the birth rate significantly since many of them have actually had children by artificial insemination procedures and surrogate mothers etc. And your argument does not take into consideration the effect of millions of abortions every year in the world at large as having any impact upon reducing the population. Even you admit that starvation is a significant contributor to reducing the world’s population but you do not praise it as being beneficial to our planet, do you? So, not everything that reduces the population of the world is necessarily to be considered beneficial, is it?

            My argument was simply to answer your question and show that it is quite natural for heterosexuals to not know when they chose to be heterosexual because that is in harmony with the default natural purpose of sexuality. But homosexual behavior is not in harmony with the natural purpose or design of sexuality. And you still have not said anything that proves otherwise.

            Then you continue to doubt our ability to “think reasonably”
            as follows:

            “If you had the ability to think reasonably you could see ‘design’ from a rational point of view.”

            There is no other way to see design but as a rational
            process and therefore I do see it from a “rational point of view”. I believe that the world was made by God who is very rational and his design for this world is very detailed and complete in every way. How you see “design” without a designer seems quite irrational doesn’t it?

            Then you say:

            “Christians should be PRAISING homosexuality for both bailing out the human race and for bailing out the failed institution of marriage that heterosexuals have brought down below 45% success rates.”

            Christians cannot praise sin, homosexuality is a sin in our
            view and therefore we should not and will not be found “praising” it. And marriage is not a “failed” institution. There are very many people in the world who have benefited greatly from that institution for thousands of years and it is far from failing. Yes many marriages in modern times have
            failed but the institution was not the cause of the failure. The success of heterosexuals at marriage will be far better than homosexuals if they have the chance to try it for a while. And if you honestly believe that marriage is a “failed institution” why on earth do you want your homosexual friends to be a part of a “failed institution”? It seems to me that even you do not believe it is such a bad institution after all, do you?

          • Bob Judd

            Then considering what you said, it is apparent that you support discrimination, JUST LIKE Christians before you swore that inter-racial marriage or marriages that use birth control is ‘sinful’. And despite your overly wordy excuses, all you’re really saying is that because you believe in the mythology and hatred in the Bible and pick and choose which ‘abominations’ to follow and which ones are sins, you are the very definition of hypocrite. Christians often gloss over the question why they will protest gay marriages, yet won’t protest hot dogs being sold in football stadiums when both are considered ‘abominations’.
            Christianity is nothing more than a tower of hypocrisy, led by money-grubbing criminals and supported by fools who believe in the stupidity and superstitions within it’s pages.
            All it takes is general knowledge in science to know that the Bible is nothing but myth, yet thousands still believe (just like Islamic folks will blow themselves up) with only faith and not a SHRED of real evidence.
            THAT is what is so disturbing to the average rational human being when looking at religious bigotry and beliefs.
            And to address your question: NO, I would personally NEVER participate in the failed institution of marriage because my WORD is as good as any public ceremony, nor do I need the approval of ANYONE to make my union sacred and binding. The only time in which I would consider it is if it would save me tax money and/or get benefits. Xians often forget that marriage is a simple legal contract and as far as the US gov. is concerned has not a THING to do with ‘god’ or any other hallucinatory superstition, despite your feeble attempts to paint it as something more. Besides, if marriage WAS more than a simple contract, then Christians wouldn’t be getting divorced in record numbers.

      • Bob Judd

        Thank you! I GUARANTEE you that if you ever approached a Christian with that line of questioning, the only thing they would be able to come up with is some scriptural BS that has nothing to do with the question you asked, or they would ignore it completely. I see it constantly and have had it happen to me at least 10 times in the short 2 weeks I’ve been visiting this ghastly site.

    • 1NedSprockethead1

      Actually, the Bible says homosexuality IS a sin, regardless of what mental midget leftists believe.

      • Bob Judd

        The Bible also says eating shrimp and hot dogs are an ‘abomination’, yet I have yet to see Christians protesting Nathan’s Hot Dogs or seafood restaurants. The Bible also instructs parents to stone children to death who curse or rebel against parents, but I haven’t seen a Christian kill their child for at least a few years, though I recall an article about every 10 years or so of Christian parents who either disown, or beat or kill their children for being gay.
        The other important item here is that it is IRRELEVANT what the Bible says because luckily, the good ole USA isn’t a theocracy that endorses the Bible or the Koran. So, when you can understand why you wouldn’t want Islamic folks calling soldiers infidels or Christian idiots like Westboro protesting soldier’s funerals with signs that say ‘praise god for dead soldiers’, you will understand why gay military folks don’t want this ‘christian soldier’ belittling and treating fellow soldiers with disrespect.
        Try looking up the word ‘empathy’ and you thick skull may start to understand why the battlefield isn’t the place for bigotry and hate-spewing. The military has EVERY RIGHT to enforce rules of engagement just as much as rules of behavior, so if you or the soldier in question in this article don’t like it, I suggest you move to the middle east and fight under the theocracy there because it will NEVER happen in our nation, so GET OVER IT!

        • 1NedSprockethead1

          Your ignorance is breathtaking.

    • Lee Saffold

      You have said:

      ” because there is nothing more offensive to a non-christian than to sit around and pray to something that isn’t there.” I am convinced that non Christians, or at least those who do not believe in God, do not sit around and “pray to something that isn’t there. Neither do they have any good reason to care if someone who does pray to someone they believe firmly is there.

      Why is that offensive to you? If you really believe this “someone” is not there I can see no reason why others praying to Him because they do believe he is there should offend you in the least. Why would it bother you at all?

      While I respect your doubts about what you might call my “imaginary friend” and understand that a minority of the human race have always
      nursed some resentment toward the majority of us who believe in God. But I cannot see very much difference in my believing in what you consider to be an “imaginary friend” that I am convinced is real than in your actual fighting against one that you honestly believe is imaginary. Nevertheless, the reality of God is, in my estimation, beyond reasonable doubt and for that reason I am not ashamed in the least to state that I firmly believe in Him. And it seems to me that you are offended by my belief because you seem to suspect that I just might be right about it otherwise why would you care?

      • Bob Judd

        When you can understand why you wouldn’t appreciate football games, military training, and public school classrooms having Satanists and Pagans taking YOUR time for prayer at the beginning of games, school and battle, you will suddenly understand why non-Christians are offended having to listen and put up with your prayers to your ‘god’. Hence, my statement about empathy. Prayer is something that should either be done AT CHURCH or on YOUR TIME and isn’t something that should inconvenience others. You can pray to god anytime you choose, why on earth is there a need for Christians to involve EVERYONE in their prayers. If I were a Christian, I would find it both blasphemous and offensive to see teams praying for God to win a sporting event, yet they do it all the time, and very RARELY do atheists complain about this awful past-time. I also think it is incredibly inappropriate for prayer to be conducted within halls of government when a simple moment of silence would suffice and a few words.
        But like I said, I wouldn’t expect you to understand because Christians lack the ability to empathize, which even your ‘good book’ seems to embrace.
        Jesus: Save me from your hysterical followers!

        • Betty4440

          so you think muslims praying in the streets as ok? when they cause traffic to back up and all kind of problems.do you see this as being ok? or are you just going after Christians?

        • Lee Saffold

          Bob:

          I believe that I can understand your point that Christians
          should not impose their prayers upon those who are not Christians and I agree with you in general. But surely you can understand that there are many places in this country where a significant majority of the people in the city as well as attending the football game are Christians and the rest are believers in God in some way other than Christianity, including often the entire team as well as 99% of the attending crowd. And there is absolutely no reason
          that a few atheist in town should be offended because the Christians, along with others who believe in God, want to pray in public. If the tables were turned as a Christian I
          would not be offended if every game began without a prayer because I could understand that since I am the only Christian in town no one should have a prayer just to avoid offending me. Likewise, if you are among the very few atheists in town I can see no reason whatsoever
          that you should expect everyone in town to patronize your beliefs about God. When you convert enough of us to be atheist then the tables will turn and we will simply have to respect the beliefs of the majority.

          I have no way of knowing if you have ever been present when Christian soldiers gathered to pray prior to a serious and significant battle. But I can tell you that I have
          never seen anyone object to any soldier “taking their time” to do it. In fact, I have seen cases where the supposed
          atheist intentionally attended those prayers that they were NEVER forced to participate in. And I do not know when
          you were trained in the military but when I was trained no one insisted that we listen to any prayers during the training. The only ones I heard praying were a few trainees who were having a very hard time with the rigors of training and needed some help to make it. And no one was offended by hearing their prayers.

          Christians work constantly to convince others to believe in Christ and they have done so well in the past history that still atheist are a very small minority in the world. Because
          sufficient numbers of people have been converted to Christ throughout history in many places public prayers and public displays of Christians practicing their religion should be expected and accepted by intelligent persons. And if atheists want to change that situation they will have to get busy and convince the majority of us to not believe in
          God and then they will have no problem ending public prayers. But to expect the majority to end it just
          because a very small minority of people who happen to be atheists does not like it is very selfish and inconsiderate indeed. And given the way that they are mostly negative about their fellow men and constantly complaining because others have chosen to believe in God and are so easily offended by someone who believes in God choosing to publicly pray with the majority around him that also believes in God they most likely will remain a minority.

          Having said all of that I do not believe that Christians
          should be out in the public imposing their religion on others by trying to put Christian principles into law so as to force others who are not Christians to live by Christian principles. But they have every right to promote their religion by the very practice of it in any place at any time they so choose. A public prayer in a place where the vast majority of people present are Christians or supporters of those who are Christians is not an imposition upon anyone who can easily ignore the prayer or at the very least respectfully accept the fact that your fellow citizens, who mean you no harm whatsoever with their prayers, just do not see things the way you see them.

          If wiccans, atheist, or any other religion should ever gain ascendency in America I would have no choice but to respect their rights to do as they please at public events since all of us have the right to practice our religion in public no matter what it is. I would continue to practice mine in public with no hatred, anger or ill will toward any of them. I am sure that you are right that many of their practices in public would be objectionable to me but I would never insist that they forego their rights to practice their religion just because I do not agree with it. I would persist in my efforts to persuade them to believe in our Lord Jesus Christ but I would not expect them to make any
          special provisions for me. Christians do not need such help because we have always been able to stand in the mist of adversity and in places where we are hated and despised.
          We can serve Christ in whatever conditions we face. It is
          quite revealing that atheist do not seem to have that same kind of fortitude which is demonstrated by their inability to bear up to a simple harmless thing as one person praying in public in their presence. Poor things, I cannot imagine what they would do if they were subjected to the kinds of severe persecutions Christians have faced throughout history. I am certain that atheism with wither and die in the presence of such adversity. And just how much of an imposition is a brief public prayer to you anyway? I seldom see such public prayers that you speak about last more than 5 minutes. And they are a bit boring to me if they last
          even ten minutes. I can see how one would be bored if they do not believe in God but I cannot see it as being such
          a terrible imposition upon any reasonable person that atheist or otherwise would consider it to be a very serious inconvenience. I cannot see however just how it is that these prayers “inconvenience others” as you claim.

          But the principle of freedom of religion applies here. A public prayer among a majority of persons who are already Christians does not establish a religion but it certainly makes it obvious that one has been established, doesn’t it? And maybe it is that fact that offends you the most. The government of the United States did nothing to establish Christianity in America. But Christians did much to make that happen. If you want to make atheism even remotely comparable to Christianity it its influence you will have to get busy and teach atheist how to do a little “proselytizing” themselves! Unfortunately they cannot seem to care enough about these things to “inconvenience themselves enough to join the battle for the souls of men against Christians so they choose instead to whine, cry, and
          plead with the government to impose their atheistic materialism upon us and take away our freedom to practice our religion in public. There is no law that says prayers belong only at Church or home. They belong anywhere free people practice their religion whatever that religion might be. In America the majority religion happens to be Christianity but our freedom of religion applies to all religions including the self-worshiping religion of atheist. So why not step up to the plate and compete if you dare but whining, complaining and begging the government to deny us our constitutional rights to “freely
          exercise our religion” is simply cowardice.
          If you want prayers to stop then convince us all to agree with you and you will succeed. But until then understand that you have your work cut out for you and it is a very long arduous road which you may find it terribly “inconvenient” to travel!

          Oh, Christians can and do “empathize” with you. We understand that you do not believe in God and woud rather not be reminded constantly by our presence and our practice of our religion of the reality of His existence.
          But empathy and sympathy are two very different things. We may well empathize but we shall never sympathize
          with you. And it will not be until we sympathize with you that we shall stop the practice of our religion. And you
          have a very long way to go to convince us to do that.

          You are right, “Christians can pray to God any time they
          choose” and that is exactly what we do and you complain about it. You asked “why must they involve everyone in their prayers”? The truth is that they do not involve everyone, they invite everyone and you are only disappointed that the majority of people accept the invitation and participate in those prayers. So the better question for you to ask is why the majority of the people accepts the invitation and involve themselves in our prayers. If an atheist stood up and asked everyone to
          join them in walking out on the prayers and the Christian stood up and invited everyone to stay and pray the poor atheist would walk out alone or with a few other disgruntled souls similar to him but the majority would stay to
          pray. So why does the atheist want to deny everyone the right to pray just because they do not like it?

          And you make the difference between atheist and Christians quite obvious when you say that if you were a Christian you would be offended by sports teams praying for God to help them win at a sporting event. If you
          were a Christian you would not spend your life being “offended” by everything. We are pleased when young
          people pray to God about what concerns them, even if it happens to be something as insignificant to the world at large as a simple ball game. You show that you are even displeased when prayers are made in our halls of government, preferring instead a simple “moment
          of silence” to suffice in a place where very serious decisions are being made concerning the future of not only our nation but the world at large. You see, everything seems to offend you that do not harmonize with your perception of how the world must be. Basically you will not cease to be offended until everyone yields to your opinion and becomes an atheist just like you with nothing better to do than run around the world finding things that offend them and complaining about it. That is the basic problem with atheist. They do not build anything but rather they simply complain about how those who do build things go about building them. While three Christian men were about to make the history by stepping upon the surface of the
          moon, Madeline Murray O’Hare was on earth complaining and suing NASA over the reading of a verse of scripture from the Bible from outer space. They were making history while she was down here on this earth complaining about how they were expressing their religious beliefs as they risked their lives in outer space and ultimately to set foot on
          the surface of the moon.

          You say “very rarely does atheist complain about this awful
          past time”! You say this as you complain about that very “awful past time”. The truth is that complaining is an atheist’s favorite “awful past time”.

          I am pleased at least to see you offer a public prayer for
          everyone here, even at the risk of offending atheist like yourself by involving everyone in your prayer, as you pray hysterically for Jesus to save you from his “hysterical followers”. To which I say amen and may he also save you from sin and from the deceptions of atheistic thinking
          and the dark deluded world of those who spend their lives complaining, criticizing and condemning and grant you sufficient faith to give you joy, hope and abundant life.

    • Betty4440

      well if you do not like to be around when people pray stay away from them but you will bow before GOD one day just remember this.

  • Sam Stephens

    Christ said they “the world” would hate you cause they hated HIM first. Be not surprised.

    • stripeyunderpants

      Then why do you complain so much when people call you what you a bigot? They’re only telling the truth.

      • Sam Stephens

        Hey stripy, did my comment sound like a complaint? By the way, have you ever served in the military? If not, try it, you might like it. The military needs progressive thinkers like you. You new title: Sargent Stripyunderpants, how catchy.

        • Betty4440

          stripy might just have flowers on his undies not strips I guess it depends on what day it is.

  • arturo

    PRAY for our leaders, you will see God have His way and it won`t be pretty

    • Bob Judd

      Yeah — well, it hasn’t been quite so pretty so far. Your God has covered the planet with endless war, evil, disaster, disease and famine. All while the smiling ‘creator god’ sits and watches whispering ‘was free will really a good idea?”. If I thought for one second that this senile delinquent you folks have invented for yourselves was true, I would dedicate my life to destroying such a sadistic and lazy slob.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Time for Christians to consider whether it’s even Christian to be serving in today’s Constitutional Republic’s military. “Christians soldiers,” fighting on behalf of America’s unbiblical
    imperialist military-industrial complex on the behest of the New World
    Order international bankers, is an oxymoron.

    This is not to say
    that the Bible condemns all warfare. It doesn’t. But what Christian
    parents are sending their sons (and now daughters) to sacrifice their
    lives and limbs for doesn’t even get close to being Biblical:

    “…The
    power to declare war is a serious responsibility. Why were the framers
    so vague in defining the parameters of war and the conditions under
    which it could be declared? Section 8, Clause 11 is the only place of
    significance where warfare is mentioned in the Constitution. Little
    wonder this power has been abused….

    “Because the framers
    provided no Biblical parameters, unbiblical warfare has been the rule
    ever since. Following is a list of the countries bombed by the United
    States since World War II:

    “China: 1945-46; 1950-53
    Korea: 1950-53
    Guatemala: 1954; 1967-69
    Indonesia: 1958
    Cuba: 1959-60
    Vietnam: 1961-73
    Congo: 1964
    Laos: 1964-73
    Peru: 1965
    Cambodia: 1969-70
    Granada: 1983
    Libya: 1986; 2011
    El Salvador: 1980s
    Nicaragua: 1980s
    Panama: 1989
    Iraq: 1991-2001; 2003-09
    Sudan: 1998
    Afghanistan: 1998; 2003-09
    Yugoslavia: 1999.

    “From
    1945 to the present, the United States has bombed nineteen different
    countries under the guise of defending America’s sovereignty and
    promoting democracy. But America is none the better for it, and not one
    of these countries
    has become a legitimate democracy – not that this
    would be anything to celebrate. Something is amiss. Wars fought for
    political gain or financial profit can only be classified as ungodly
    acts of aggression….”

    For more, see online Chapter 4 “Article
    1: Legislative Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States
    Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 4.

    • Bob Judd

      Then what are you still doing in the US?? I would think such a person would get out of a country they hate so much. Or is it that you find it unnerving that gay and lesbian folks are protecting your freedom? Just be sure you remember that, next time you freely assemble for church and you will suddenly realize that we ARE EVERYWHERE.

    • Bob Judd

      I would though, just for kicks, LOVE to know what is ‘biblical warfare’. The Bible does endorse war just as it endorses slavery and keeping women’s mouth’s shut in church and killing children who curse or are rebellious, but I’d love to hear your definition of ‘biblical warfare’ — sounds like a great name for a band.

    • Bob Judd

      Yeah, let’s follow ‘Bible Law’ and kill our own children for cursing or acting rebellious which is a very simple part of growing up. That will sure solve the population problem.
      What the sadist and psychopath do because they are mentally ill, those who believe in Biblical Law do because of their ‘duty’ or ‘justice’. Besides, Europe already tried Biblical Law during the Crusades and Inquisition and all it lead to was murder, death and genocide. And where was ‘God’ when all that happened? Sitting on his thumbs inventing the next disaster?

  • MARY

    Stay with Jesus friends and we’ll win in the end.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Sooooooooooooooooooooooo True, I read the last page.

    • Bob Judd

      By dying? Yea, that’s a great little bonus he threw in…hope you enjoy it. Or, are you gonna float among the clouds and worship God for the rest of your life? Sounds pretty HELLISH if you ask me.

      • Mary

        When your on your death bed ,will your last three words be…”Oh my God”? Your a fool, and lucky for you our Lord even loves the fools.

        • Bob Judd

          I’m the fool because I don’t lie to myself and think God is gonna ‘save’ me?! PREPOSTEROUS!
          God is an invention of HUMAN minds, so if it makes you feel better be my guest but people create gods to please themselves.

  • stripeyunderpants

    “Share your lifestyle with pride?” Who does this? What soldier goes around announcing “Hey, everyone, I’m gay!” Nobody, that’s who. It’s nobody’s business what another person’s sexual identity happens to be. It is not the business of Christians to tell others whom they are allowed to have sex with, or what they are permitted to do in the bedroom with other consenting adults. It is also not their business to preach their religion to people who are not interested in hearing about it. I know that’s a radical idea, this notion of keeping your beliefs to yourself, but you know what? If you just give it a try, it could probably work! You wouldn’t like it if I started proselytizing about atheism or Hinduism or pagan beliefs, now would you? Well, take the hint and stop blathering about your god.

    • 1NedSprockethead1

      If you don’t know anything about being a Christian, perhaps you should keep your fool mouth shut.

    • Guest

      It is the “business” of Christians to “preach their
      religion” because they have been told by their Lord Jesus Christ to do
      just that. And it is none of your business to tell them otherwise. They are not required by any law human or
      divine to “keep their beliefs to themselves”. And I would not mind if you
      wanted to try and promote atheism, Hinduism, or pagan beliefs because you have
      every right before God and Man to try to do just that. And we Christian folks would be happy to meet
      you in debate concerning any of those three religions. And there are, in fact, many occasions where
      Homosexuals announce to everyone “hey, everyone, I’m Gay”. They call it “coming out”. We do not hear you telling them to keep their
      sexuality to themselves, do we? And we
      are not going to “take the hint” or even pay attention to any demand
      from you or anyone else to “stop “blathering” about God, who
      happens to be not only our God but yours as well whether you believe it or not.

      • Popperite

        The soldier concerned should have considered this before she signed up and accepted military discipline.

      • stripeyunderpants

        Jesus never told you anything personally. You read in a book, written by someone else, that he told THEM to do certain things. Anybody can write anything and then claim it came from God; that doesn’t make it true. You are asking people to believe all kinds of nonsense, like talking animals, magic, invisible beings coming down from the sky to talk to people, etc. You are asking us to pretend that one of those beings has told you to preach at us about him, and frankly, many of us are getting very bored and annoyed with it. If you want to have invisible friends to keep you company, fine, but there is no need to persuade everyone else that your magic friend is real.

        Oh, and homosexuals have the right to be treated fairly and have the same rights as other people. If you don’t like it, move to Russian, where Putin has declared homosexuality a crime punishable by imprisonment; or to Uganda, where gays are regularly kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and killed. I am sure you and your invisible buddy will be happier there than in a country where we believe in treating gays like human beings and not like monsters.

        • Kenneth Ferguson

          There is more documentation on this Jesus than you could read in one life time. Do you believe there was a civil war? or how about WW1 or WW2 or did we send a man to the moon ? why do you belive that ? were you there ? Food for thought. If you are right in what you say no problem, how ever if this invisible Jesus is real you are in deep do-do.

          • Betty4440

            well say what you must but in the end you will answer to my GOD and you will live this day again.because you have turned your back on GOD.

          • Bob Judd

            Wrong. I’ve turned my back on RELIGION and ideology and those who have been programmed by religion. I am always open to the many new and exciting theories in science, some that are have been proven and some that have not. However, there is one thing that I believe beyond any shadow of doubt and that is that the idea of the Christian God and the impossible and often preposterous theories that most Christians come up with are totally false and incredibly closed-minded. You see, discounting all other possibilities by accepting only ONE which is the very face of monotheism leaves no other possibilities which defines it as closed-minded. It also forces folks to believe in things that they KNOW is not true, which is what you call faith.

          • Bob Judd

            Religion offers no new or different theories because believers rather stupidly accept wholeheartedly what they’ve been told, as you seem to think people will be judged for simply thinking for themselves, which is all the proof I need to assert that your God is false. An all-knowing, all-loving God would never want to destroy people for being what God made which is another fly in Xianities ointment. This senile delinquent that the Christians have constructed behaves more like Satan than any kind of loving being, which is how I know with every fiber of my being that the teachings are false and God is nonexistent.
            But just for kicks, I’d like to ask you what ‘intelligent designer’ created your God? I love hearing responses to that question.

          • Bob Judd

            Horse crap. There is hardly ANY actual documented historical fact on Jesus, but gobs of made up insinuation, here-say and non-factual bs presented as truth. Jesus and God and the Bible are 100% man-made inventions, designed to stop people from thinking for themselves. You’re a lamb/lemming being led by hysterical and insane people who trust their delusions more than anything science has proven. You’d be surprised the number of idiots actually believe that Noah collected every animal species on earth, or that Jonah lived in a whales stomach. What’s amazing is the amount of nonsense that people believe without any evidence. They call it ‘faith’.
            “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so!” — Mark Twain

        • Lee Saffold

          You say:

          “Jesus never told you anything personally.”

          Thus far in this discussion no one has ever said that he
          did.

          Then you say:

          “You read in a book, written by someone else, that he told
          THEM to do certain things. Anybody can write anything and then claim it came from God; that doesn’t make it true.”

          I read it in the book that has benefited mankind for
          thousands of years that is filled with wisdom beyond human capacity and that has numerous internal evidences that it was inspired of God. It is one thing when someone writes a book “claiming” to be from God when in reality it is filled with evidence that it was written by ordinary men. But there is one book in this world that is full of internal evidence of things that were written that no unaided human being could have possibly known. For instance, many historical events were predicted in the Bible hundreds of years before their appearance on the stage of history by men who had no possibility of knowing or
          predicting them without divine revelation.
          That book is the Bible. And anybody can claim that it is a book written by human beings without the guidance of divine revelation from God but that does not make it true, does it? Can you offer proof of your assertion that everything in the Bible was written by men without the aid of inspiration? Simply making that assertion is not good
          enough to make anyone believe it that does not already have some bias against the Bible.

          Then you say:

          “You are asking people to believe all kinds of nonsense,
          like talking animals, magic, invisible beings coming down from the sky to talk to people, etc”

          I believe what the Bible says and I do not consider any of
          it taken in context to be nonsense and you have not proven any of it to be nonsensical, have you? Of course I would try to convince others to accept its teachings including all of the miracles recorded in it. I would expect anyone to be skeptical before they hear the evidence. And I would be
          happy to discuss the facts concerning these matters with anyone that is willing to discuss it via email with me that are sincerely interested in it. But merely swapping assertions without examining the evidence one way or the other is a mere waste of time for all concerned.

          Then you assert:

          “You are asking us to pretend that one of those beings has
          told you to preach at us about him, and frankly, many of us are getting very bored and annoyed with it.”

          I have never said that any “being” has directly come to me
          and told me to preach about him. But Jesus Christ commanded his disciples in Matthew 28:19, 20 to teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe those words and will continue to do what they say. I am not asking you or anyone else to believe any of that without first considering the evidence. And, while your “frankness” is greatly appreciated none of us Christians are deeply concerned that you are “bored” and “annoyed” with us exercising our freedom to practice and promote our religion.

          You continue to state:

          “If you want to have invisible friends to keep you company,
          fine, but there is no need to persuade everyone else that your magic friend is real.”

          I see little difference between me being a friend to an
          invisible person that I am convinced is real and your fighting with that same person that you are convinced is imaginary! I have a Friend in Jesus, and though he is invisible to you and me, does not mean he is not real. His life is just as historical as the life of George Washington or any other prominent figure in history. In fact, he has had more positive influence on the world than any figure in history. And no one, Least of all Christians, need your permission or approval to believe in him. And we will continue to preach about that miraculous one who lived, was crucified, and buried and raised again three days later and is alive forevermore. And we will continue to do what has been done by Christians for over 2000 years. We
          will continue to persuade others that Jesus Christ is not only real but that he is the very Son of God. And we do not need your permission to do that either. In fact there is nothing whatsoever you could do to stop us.

          Then you say:

          “Oh, and homosexuals have the right to be treated fairly and have the same rights as other people.”

          All faithful Christians would agree with you on that
          topic! I certainly agree and have never said anything in this forum or any other place that would indicate that I do
          not believe they have the same rights as the rest of humanity. In fact, though I believe homosexuality to be
          a sin I do not consider it a sin any different or any worse than sins committed by the rest of us. We all sin and need
          forgiveness from the Christian perspective and this does not exclude homosexuals. I do not agree with Gay
          marriage but I do not deny that homosexuals have every right to try to establish laws that will give them protection from any discrimination based upon the fact that they have chosen to live that lifestyle. I do not advocate that anyone should harm them in any way. In fact, as a Christian
          I love all of them and seek only to do good things for them. I abhor those who would physically harm them or persecute them in any way whatsoever. Those who have committed crimes against them should be in punished to
          the full extent of the law. And no oneshould be insulting them or speaking disrespectfully about them least of all shouldChristians do such things. Christians believing
          that Homosexuality is a sin is not intended as an insult to them but a simple statement of fact that is only made when the subject comes up. Christians preach Christ Crucified for ALL men including homosexuals. Christians
          are calling everyone to repent and turn from sin and exclude no one especially ourselves from that call.

          But you continue to insist, without any provocation, to say:

          “If you don’t like it, move to Russian, where Putin has
          declared homosexuality a crime punishable by imprisonment; or to Uganda, where gays are regularly kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and killed.”

          My above paragraph demonstrates that I firmly believe that
          homosexuals have the same rights as the rest of us and that I support and defend that idea. And therefore I will
          stay right here in American and defend their rights while I continue to try and persuade them gently and lovingly turn from their sins the very same way that I urge myself daily to avoid sin.

          Then you say:

          “I am sure you and your invisible buddy will be happier
          there than in a country where we believe in treating gays like human beings and not like monsters.”

          On what basis are you so sure that both myself and the Lord Jesus Christ whose, existence is as well documented as any other figure in the history of man, would be happier in a country where gays are “regularly kidnapped, beaten, tortured, and killed”? My statements above show that I definitely would not be happy in a place where anyone, gays included, were treated in such a fashion. And no one following the teachings of Jesus Christ would ever be happy about such things. You cannot prove by any means whatsoever that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is happy when homosexuals are treated in the way you describe Russians treating them. And, you may not have noticed but
          there have been a few cases in this country where such violence against gays has been perpetrated. And faithful Christians do not support it in any place in the world and neither does Jesus Christ.

          • Bob Judd

            That’s way too wordy, but I will say that especially in the past THOUSANDS of christians have supported bigotry and bashings. The American Atheist Society has recieved more death threats and hate mail and murder attempts than any other organization in our nation’s history. I wonder which group of people are making all those threats? It certainly isn’t atheists.
            And for the record, I am NOT an atheist.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “That’s way too wordy, but I will say that especially in the
            past THOUSANDS of christians have supported bigotry and bashings.”

            I do not think it was too wordy, but I will say that anyone
            can assert that “THOUSANDS of Christians have supported bigotry and bashings” but offering proof that the assertion is true is a different story altogether. So far you have only
            demonstrated that you hardly know what real genuine “bigotry” really is. Therefore I do doubt sincerely if you have
            even the faintest idea what a Christian is either. And if you are not knowledgeable of those two things you would not be a competent judge whether “Christians” have, in fact “supported” bigotry and bashings”. I will admit that
            there are some Christians who have strayed from the teachings of Christ and committed any number of sins including homosexual behavior. But in doing so they are not to be considered faithful Christians who are justified in their actions before God any more than anyone else who would be guilty of such sins. That they, as well as the rest of the world who are not Christians have access to forgiveness if, and only if, they repent of and forsake such sins must be understood. IF they do not turn
            from them they will face God’s righteous judgment like the rest of the world.

            Then you say:

            “The American Atheist Society has received more death
            threats and hate mail and murder attempts than any other organization in our nation’s history. I wonder which group of people are making all those threats? It certainly isn’t atheists.”

            Again, you merely assert this without offering evidence. And the reason you “wonder which group of people are making those threats” may well be because you do not
            have any concrete examples or evidence that this many such threats have, in fact, been made and hence no good reasons to even believe it. And if you cannot speak to concrete examples and you do not know who made the threats how exactly do you know for certain that it is not atheist threatening each other? Truth is you simply do not know and you therefore cannot be just in insinuating that somehow Christians might be guilty of having made such threats.

            And then you state “for the record”:

            “I am NOT an atheist.”

            Well that is very good to know. We just might be making some progress! At least you do not want any of us to think you are atheistic. You are certainly not very willing to tell us just what you are but at least we know you are not an atheist.

          • Bob Judd

            I’m a devout Gnostic, (derived from Latin: ‘to know’. I seek to know. I don’t subscribe to any form of ideology or religion. My only goal here is to help people to learn how to think for themselves.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You say:

            “I’m a devout Gnostic, (derived from Latin: ‘to know’. I
            seek to know. I don’t subscribe to any form of ideology or religion. My only goal here is to help people to learn how to think for themselves.”

            Well, maybe you could enlighten the rest of us upon your
            religious beliefs as a “devout Gnostic” even though you do not “subscribe to any form of ideology or religion” it may be that you have a set of beliefs concerning both ideology and religion in general.

            I appreciate your “goal” to “help people learn to think” and
            one of the best ways to do that is by example.
            I do honestly believe that everyone is capable of and should think carefully about everything.

          • Bob Judd

            Seeking to learn and know isn’t a religion, nor is it a form of ideology in any religious sense, it is just a decision to learn. Hope something that simple is enlightening for you. I’m also never comfortable remaining the same or staying in a static position, I am forever changing in ways that I hope is for the better. You could call my trust in constantly forming new opinions as a form of spirituality, if you like. And I do think very carefully about most of the things I say. Well, at least if it is a response to something that isnt’ just plain negative or ridiculous like the vast majority of posts in this place. It also help hone my communication skills.
            I also try not to think of what I ‘should’ say or do as that is simply a response to societies programming. I rather try to think of what *i* would say. I tend to think of folks who are constantly thinking of what they ‘should’ say as not totally honest and not speaking from the heart but rather from what they have been PROGRAMMED in to thinking is true or an appropriate response, though I probably didn’t word it correctly.

          • Bob Judd

            And I’ve read a lot of things in the Bible that have cursed mankind, much like a lot of the stuff in the Koran — perhaps you can show me where the ‘love’ is in these couple of Biblical quotes:

            “If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her … He must marry the girl … He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

            — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

            “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them…. “Now … kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

            — Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV) — similar to the Koran’s promise of a Heaven where men will have an endless stream of virgins to have sex with…

            “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother…”

            — Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

            And who could forget Leviticus 20:9:

            “If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.” Surprisingly, christians have even obeyed this one.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “And I’ve read a lot of things in the Bible that have cursed
            mankind, much like a lot of the stuff in the Koran — perhaps you can show me where the ‘love’ is in these couple of Biblical quotes:”

            It seems from the examples you have given of the few things
            you have read from the Bible that, according to your less than educated view of them, they have somehow “cursed mankind” and comparing it to some unspecified portions of the “Koran” which you failed to quote so that we could compare them
            to see if they were in fact comparable as you assert. Not only do you thereby demonstrate you ignorance of the Bible you also show that you may be even more ignorant of the Koran. It is almost as if you do not really know which portions of the “Koran” can be comparable to these quotations you have taken from the Bible.

            The fact is that you have done nothing more than “assume” that a “lot of things from the Bible” have “cursed mankind”. You have offered no evidence that any of these passages that you have quoted has brought any kind of curse upon “mankind” in general. That some of them have brought punishment upon evil doers among mankind is very true. And the punishment of the wicked is actually a blessing to mankind, not a curse.

            While I do not necessarily see “the love” in all of the passages you quote and I am under no obligation to show it to you because I have never asserted that every passage in the Bible is written to demonstrate “love” in all of its references to sexual behavior, I definitely do not see the “curse” upon all mankind in general that you failed to prove exist in these portions of God’s inspired and holy word. And because you have made such an
            assertion it remains your responsibility to PROVE that such a curse was in fact brought upon mankind in general that resulted from these passages of scripture being written as you claimed. We will wait for you to produce evidence to support that claim.

            In the meantime I will discuss each of these one by one for
            the benefit of our readers in a separate post for each one so that they are discussed in their own individual context. The first one I will discuss is your quotation from Deuteronomy 22:28-29 which you quote using one of the very few translations of this passage from Hebrew into English that translates it so as
            to imply that man who had “raped” a virgin who had not been engaged to be married would be required or forced to pay a fine and marry the girl and he cannot divorce her as long as she lives. You naturally overlooked the vast majority of
            translations that render the verse in English words that describe the law intended to deal with the case of a man who has seduced a woman so that the two of them together had mutually consented to have sex with one another before and
            without being married which was against the law. I will show clear evidence that this version of the law is far more accurate than the one you so desperately needed to quote in order to make that law appear as ridiculous as you could since you desire to imply that the Bible is such a “curse” to mankind! If you had been honest instead of predisposed against the Bible you would not have considered this verse to be a curse to anyone on this earth. Below is your actual partial quotation of the verse:

            “If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be
            married and rapes her … He must marry the girl … He can never divorce her
            as long as he lives.”

            — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

            The actual full quotation from the New International Version,
            which was your preferred version to make your point, reads as follows:

            “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be
            married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29

            By reading the full quotation one can see that the phrase,
            which you seem to have quite conveniently left out of your so called “quote”, “and they are discovered” implies consent on the part of both parties which would make anyone question whether the English word “rape” accurately translates
            the Hebrew word,” תפש taphas”, which means to “take hold of anything” and is often used to even refer to “taking hold of a garment such as when Potiphar’s wife took hold of Joseph’s
            garment and said “lie with me”. This word does not necessarily imply the use of irresistible force as the English word “rape” does. And the majority of Biblical translators have recognized this very fact: I will now list quotations from the many excellent translations of the Bible that differ with the NIV on the translation of this word and notice that they agree with one another uniformly.

            These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not
            in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not
            espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

            If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

            If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to
            be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

            When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed,
            and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

            When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not
            betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

            “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

            If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and
            lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed,
            and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

            If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

            If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged,
            and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

            If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed,
            and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

            Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

            Furthermore, any honest, objective observer who studies this
            verse will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape. For instance:

            Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was
            obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

            Matthew Henry: “… if he and the damsel did consent, he
            should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary
            on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

            J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl
            was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary,
            Tyndale Series, p. 237).

            In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster
            Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly
            distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

            Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the
            category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was “their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law tothat found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3,
            p. 412).

            And this is what the late great Christian philosopher and
            apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wrote concerning this issue:

            “If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, and
            he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his
            days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

            This is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible translations … make the mistake of
            interpreting these words as referring to the use of force and thus to raping avirgin. Such a view is quite unacceptable, for a number of reasons. (1) This would lay a burden and penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted murder.

            (2) The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized
            above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17).People are “caught” (I Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut.
            20:19; Isa. 36:1). An adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act (Num. 5:13). In all of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.

            This verb used in Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the
            verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam. 24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc. Deuteronomy 22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman
            and “forcing her.” Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25 (viz., rape).

            (3) The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized
            above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse 24. It can simply mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11;
            Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

            We can agree with the reasoning of James Jordan: “At first
            sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however,the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11). Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance.Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant,
            p. 149).”

            I believe that this is sufficient evidence to support my position that this verse is not talking about the law concerning “Rape”. Instead it was talking about a man having consensual
            sex with a virgin that was under no legal obligations to marry anyone or one that was not “engaged” to be married. These
            facts make this verse look a lot more reasonable than your absurd deliberate partial quotation of the verse from a translation that is completely out of harmony with the views of the majority of Biblical scholars and translators, the Jewish understanding of theLaw and thier actual application of it.

            The context and the other words used in connection with it
            make it quite evident that no “rape” occurred in this case. Second, the majority of Biblical scholars do not agree with the NIV translation of this verse. Third, even if one accepts
            the translation given by the NIV the words “and if they are discovered” show that the woman consented. And fourth,
            what father upon learning that his daughter had actually been “raped” would even consider accepting a gift and then willingly allow the rapist to marry and force her to live with the rapist for the rest of her life shows that this translation does not harmonize with even good common sense, nor the actual practical application made of this law by those who were extremely diligent to obey it, the Jews, for there is simply no instance of this law ever being applied in such a manner
            in all of the history of the nation of Israel of a rape victim being forced to live with her rapist for the rest of her life simply because she was not engaged to a man before being being raped has ever occurred. So, the Jewish reading of
            the Hebrew and their actual application of this law does not comport with the NIV translation of this verse either.

            So much for your first quotation from the Bible that you
            claim has “cursed” mankind. This verse has actually blessed those women in those days by preventing them from being used as sexual objects and then cast away and left to live in a world where no one would marry them because they were so used. Is it possible therefore that this law of God was specifically designed to help women because God loved
            and cared for them? I am convinced that
            was.

          • Bob Judd

            Sorry lee, it seems that you really went to a lot of trouble explaining stuff, but I have a point of not reading comments that contain biblical verses because I don’t believe the Bible to be either informative or helpful, so I hate wasting my time. Thanks though, and I’m sure at least someone in this thread read it.

          • Guest

            No apology is necessary, Bob. It is perfectly within your rights to
            believe, think and read anything you choose and I would not have it any other
            way. It was not really any trouble at all.
            The reason that I referred to several Biblical verses is because you
            quoted from the Bible in your post and that made me think that you were
            interested in discussing what you believed that it said. I am aware that you were trying to inform us
            of something and thought that you may want some feedback and possibly be
            informed yourself. You are welcome and I
            do hope that some others will read it and find it useful. I will keep my promise to write something
            about each of the verses which you quoted in your post to which I have been
            responding.

          • Lee Saffold

            No apology is necessary, Bob. It is perfectly within your rights tobelieve, think and read anything you choose and I would not have it any other way. It was not really any trouble at all.
            The reason that I referred to several Biblical verses is because you quoted from the Bible in your post and that made me think that you were interested in discussing what you believed that it said.

            I am aware that you were trying to inform us of something and thought that you may want some feedback and possibly be informed yourself. You are welcome and I do hope that some others will read it and find it useful. I will keep my promise to write something about each of the verses which you quoted in your post to which I have been responding.

          • Bob Judd

            I would like to add though, skimming through your answer that I find it interesting, that in EVERY case a believer is directed to some of the more controversial verses that litter the pages of the Bible, the only thing they really do is make up excuses why it doesnt’ say what is clearly written in black and white. the fact that most Christian church’s are also at war with one another is a great inspiration for me to stay far away. Thanks for helping me to stay even further away, beautiful work!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “I would like to add though, skimming through your answer
            that I find it interesting, that in EVERY case a believer is directed to some of the more controversial verses that litter the pages of the Bible, the only thing they really do is make up excuses why it doesn’t’ say what is clearly written in black and white.”

            You see, the Bible was “clearly written” in the “black and
            white” of the original languages and sometimes a poor translation does give us the wrong impression of what was the original message. And the fact that the majority of the translations written in “black and white” say the direct opposite of the translation that you chose to read is evidence that one sincerely interested in the truth of what the Bible actually says has a good reason to investigate the
            matter. That which was originally written in the “black and white” of a language foreign to you actually says what it said in the original. A mistranslation, even though it is written in “black and white”, does not actually say what the original work says and therefore must be corrected. It means what it says in “black and white” but it does not accurately convey the message of the “black and white” words written in the original language. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the
            error so that the actual “black and white” message in the original language can be conveyed. Doing so often clears up many misunderstandings of the message of the Bible. It certainly clears up the misunderstandings conveyed in the NIV version on Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that you had quoted.

            Then you say:

            “ the fact that most Christian church’s are also at war with
            one another is a great inspiration for me to stay far away.”

            Now I can at least understand your point of view on that
            score! It is indeed shameful when servants of the Christ are, as you say, “at war” with one another. It should not be that way and it grieves me that you happen to be right about that matter though I am not convinced that “staying far away” is the best choice, but it is your right to make that choice.

            Then you say:

            “Thanks for helping me to stay even further away, beautiful
            work!”

            I had not intended to help you stay away from Christians but
            I thank you for the complement on the “beauty” of my work.

          • Lee Saffold

            Then you ignorantly say:

            “Jesus/God were not sent here to bring peace, but war:”

            “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I
            came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance
            against his father, and the daughter against her mother…”

            — Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

            Again, Bob the false impression you seek to leave concerning
            this passage of scripture is that somehow Jesus, who is called the “prince of peace” and upon whose birth the angels sang “glory to God in the highest peace and goodwill toward all men” is found to be opposed to peace and advocating a sword and seeking to deliberately to promote strife, division, variance between the inhabitants of earth.

            But the solution to this problem is simply to quote the
            entire context for all to read for themselves and they will readily notice that Christ is sending his disciples out into a violent world to preach the gospel of peace and doing so was not going to be easy for them because while many
            would accept the message there would be those who oppose it and some of them would aggressively, and violently oppose it because this gospel would be contrary to their existing religious views, beliefs, and opinions. And it would certainly be opposed to false gods and idolatry. TO prove this point I will now quote the context in full for all to see as follows:

            “Jesus called his twelve disciples to him and gave them
            authority to drive out impure spirits and to heal every disease and sickness. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and
            Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles
            or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your
            belts—no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on
            it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry
            about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking,
            but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one
            place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has
            been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the
            daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both
            soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all
            numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in
            heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I
            have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household” Matthew 10:1-36 NIV.

            Now, for anyone capable of reading this entire context it
            should be quite clear and obvious that Jesus is not even remotely discussing the subject of “world Peace” or “war” or international politics or even the conflicts that already existed among men before his coming to earth or his intention to instigate even further conflict among them. He was telling his disciples whom he was at that time sending out to preach that the “Kingdom of God was at hand” to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” only that they were going to meet with fierce resistance to their message from the Jews. They were not even allowed to go to the “gentiles” or to the “Samaritans” but only to the Jews. And the religious prejudices and erroneous
            preconceived notions and existing erroneous beliefs concerning the kingdom of God was not going to allow them to receive the news that the Kingdom of God was at hand peacefully. And Jesus did not want his disciples to mistakenly think that the task he was giving them would be an easy one and that the news that the long awaited Kingdom of God was near would be met with immediate acceptance and joy but instead would be met with strong resistance of which they would bear the brunt.

            He did not want them to go forth having the illusion it was
            going to be easy and that the gospel was going to be met with a warm, pleasant reception and that their task would be an easy peaceful one. So, he tells them plainly that he “came not
            to send peace but a sword.” Because the much needed message that was essential to the salvation of souls was going to be resisted at the point of a sword. In fact, even John the Baptist had already lost his life to the sword by preaching
            to the Jews to repent for the Kingdom of heaven was at hand. And some of them would suffer likewise.

            So this verse is not teaching that Christ desired to put
            everyone against each other but that such would be the natural result of preaching the gospel of the kingdom. When the gospel is preached some would believe it and others would not. In some cases the sons would believe and the fathers would not and mothers would believe but their daughters would not. Because of this families would be divided. But Christ does not even mention “war” in this passage. He uses the word “sword”
            to depict the persecution that would be brought upon his disciples when they went about preaching that the Kingdom of God is at hand, and that some of them would literally be slain by the sword. He was sending them out as “sheep among wolves” and he did not want them to think that the wolves would not attack and devour them. While it is true that those who accepted the message would be at peace with God and one another they would not be at peace in the presence of those religious and political leaders who felt threatened by their message.

            Now, Bob could not prove that this passage has anything
            whatsoever to say about world peace any more than he can find the word “war” in this context! But Bob, because of his
            ignorance of the teaching of God’s word he condemns the words of Christ given to prepare his disciples for the persecution they were about to face as they preached the kingdom of God is at hand and tried to make it look as if Christ
            was instigating a “world war”.

            He came to make peace between God and man. And only those who surrender to God and accept the blessings offered through the shed blood of Christ will have that “peace that passeth all understanding. But in order to have that peace the gospel must be preached and that will cause men to persecute the preachers of it. The same heat that melts butter hardens clay. And the same gospel that melts the hearts of good men and women hardens the hearts of the wicked ones hence the preaching of the gospel will always breach the peace among men and bring out the sword against those who preach it.

            Bob, himself is proof of the truthfulness of the Bible Jesus Christ in the presence of Bob and he cycles up into a rage against all Christians in every place and insults them virulently. Why? Because Christ came not to send peace but a sword as this verse so clearly states. Those who reject God despise and hate the message of peace that he has
            offered through the gospel of Christ. And Bob himself is a reluctant witness to the very truthfulness of this passage.
            If Bob had a son and someone preached the gospel to his son and the son believed it and became a Christian there would be a “variance” between him and his son unless Bob also accepted the gospel and became a Christian.

            No, this passage does not even remotely teach that Christ is
            advocating war instead of peace in this world. He does not even mention military campaigns or tactics and strategy. Neither is he seeking to establish “peace” in a world that has been for thousands of years in rebellion against God and murdering one another. He came to make peace between man and God and once that is achieved men will stop killing one another and peace will ensue. But Christ never encouraged to notion of “peace at any price” which the world pretends to seek. He instead advocates peace through surrender to the will of God. And that message is not going to bring peace until all men do surrender to God.

          • Bob Judd

            Thank you Lee, that was as entertaining as it was wacky. You seriously need medical attention. I suggest you seek it so relieve your delusional beliefs. I am however, pleased to see that you identified with me and agreed that the Bible contradicts itself. I guess my main question to follow up with you would be: How do you keep your faith when you are shown these incredible contradictions like when you called Jesus the ‘prince of peace’ yet I provided quotes that said he brings no peace but a sword. Do you just choose the one that sounds the most believeable?

          • Bob Judd

            I thought it might be fun to throw some more biblical quotes for you to gargle on for the next few hours. It will give you something to do that you enjoy and I’ll get some entertainment listening to your excuses:

            Start with a couple on women, showing how the authors of the Bible view women as property instead of actual humans or a wife as an equal:

            “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

            — Exodus 20:17 (AV), The Tenth Commandment

            Apparently, women should keep their mouth’s shut in church too! Did you actually think the authors of the bible weren’t sexist? Think again.

            “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

            — I Corinthians 14:34-35 (NIV)

            Oh — and I guess if you find yourself raping a girl, NO WORRIES, you just should marry her. Rape is apparently OK with God:
            “If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her … He must marry the girl … He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

            — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

            Here’s a pretty disturbing quotation in which God is playing a pretty demonic trick on Moses testing him to see if he’ll actually kill his own child. What kind of ‘loving’ God could even think up something so genocidal??

            “God did tempt Abraham, … And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest … and offer him there for a burnt offering…”

            — Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

            Jesus/God were not sent here to bring peace, but war:

            “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother…”

            — Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)

            More gobbledeegook on slavery. But if we update the Bible and remove it’s endorsement of slavery, I guess we would be changing God’s original statements. Here, he evidently created slavery as a way for slavemasters to get out of working hard themselves and humans are merely treated like animals. Welcome to Heaven! (NOT)

            “.. all who are under the yoke of slavery … who have believing masters … must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. If any one teaches otherwise … he is puffed up with conceit, he knows nothing; he has a morbid craving for controversy…, which produce envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among men who are depraved in mind…”

            — I Timothy 6:1-5 (RSV)

            Here’s where a couple of the most genocidal quotes from the Bible were found. Read them and tell me if you would actually worship a God who apparently likes to see his creations destroy one another, even though he created the different tribes:

            Here’s a couple that our President seems content with:

            Deuteronomy 7:1-2

            When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations … then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

            Deuteronomy 20:10-15

            When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. … This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

            However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them–the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites–as the Lord your God has commanded you.”

            Ephesians 5:22-24

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “I thought it might be fun to throw some more biblical
            quotes for you to gargle on for the next few hours. It will give you something to do that you enjoy and I’ll get some entertainment listening to your excuses:”

            It does seem that since you do not appear to be having very
            much “fun” answering my responses to some of these passages that you have already quoted it only makes sense that you would go back to quoting a few more passages for us to consider. And I am happy to respond to them, even though I
            have already responded to two of them in your list and proved that you were woefully ignorant of what those Bible verses said and you were “silent as the tomb” in reference to those comments. But we will repeat them again knowing that you will remain silent about them and everyone can easily see that your false accusations against the Bible are based upon your incredibly apparent ignorance of its contents! I am also quite gratified that you are being led to at least read much of the Bible though our discussion! It pleases me even more that you have to search through the Bible to make your arguments which exposes you to truths you would normally ignore.

            But I shall begin with your first feeble attempt discredit
            the Word of God that demonstrates your pathetic ignorance of the Bible.

            You begin by saying:

            “Start with a couple on women, showing how the authors of
            the Bible view women as property instead of actual humans or a wife as an equal:

            “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt
            not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

            — Exodus 20:17 (AV), The Tenth Commandment “

            I suppose that you would think that any man today who uses
            the possessive form in speaking of his wife is declaring to the world that she is his property. If a man today were to
            say to a visitor to his home welcome to “my home”, the car in the drive way is “my car” and oh, by the way that beautiful woman getting out of the car is “my wife”. Because of your ignorance of the English language you would think him a
            mere brute who sincerely believes that “his wife is his property”! The Bible here is simply condemning the sin
            of desiring that to which you have no legal rights to. No one has any legal right to my house, my wife or my servants, if I am a slave owner, (today some might call them employees), or my livestock. This language is no different than the current language used in referring to our wives.

            So how is it that you believe that the verse you quoted “shows that the Bible views women as property instead of actual
            humans or a wife as an equal”? You see, Bob, you merely asserted that this passage shows that “the Bible views women as mere property” or chattel but you made no effort to prove it, did you? If you think you are capable of doing so please take up this challenge to prove that this passage expresses a “view” toward women as property”. Do spend some time to explain to us how it is that you reached such an absurd conclusion from
            reading this passage. In the English language the possessive pronoun does not always imply “ownership”. An elementary student of the English language would know that we use possessives to show ownership but when we use them in reference to people we use them more in the sense of relationship instead of ownership. The same is true today in our common use of possessives in English. No one today
            would think that because he refers to a woman as “his wife” that he is indicating thereby that he OWNS her but rather that there is a special relationship between him and her in which she is by her own free will dedicated to him alone. In fact, I routinely hear women today refer to men with the words “my husband’ and it never occurred to anyone that they were implying that these men were mere chattel or their
            personal property but instead indicating that they were in a special relationship with that person wherein they were dedicated solely to one another in a mutual commitment with which no one is allowed to interfere! Only a fool would think that the use of the possessive when referring to human beings always implies actual ownership of that person except in days of slavery when some human beings were actually bought and sold as chattel and were in reality considered to be the property of those who bought them but a man’s wife has never been so described by the Bible, especially in this verse. And in the Bible a wife that was among those captured in war was not allowed to be sold as a slave, “And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.” Deuteronomy 21:14. You are completely incapable of proving that women described in this passage you have quoted with the words “thy neighbor’s wife” is being described as his personal property in
            any sense other than possibly a metaphorical one wherein she is to be left alone because of that particular relationship that exist between a man and his wife. So the possessive not only shows ownership it also indicates association as well. If you had known even this much about the English language you would not have even attempted to make such a pathetically
            stupid argument.

            But let us read what the Bible actually says about the
            relationship between a man and his wife and the wife and her husband.

            “A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far
            more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still night; she provides food for her family and portions for her female servants. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and
            purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her
            children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all. Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Honor her for all
            that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.” Proverbs 31:10-31 NIV

            Bob, the above description of a woman by God in the Bible is
            a very respected, honorable and noble view of married woman and her relationship with her family cannot be assailed by anyone but a fool. It is a beautiful tribute to good women
            everywhere and I can see why you chose to ignore that passage of scripture when you sought to assert that the Bible “views women as property”. Or is it just they you are so ignorant of God’s Word that you did not know that the Bible had such a high and honorable view of women?

            And I will also quote another verse that shows the proper
            relationship between men and women.

            “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to
            the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
            Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two
            will become one flesh. This is aprofound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” Ephesians 5:22-33 NIV

            The above passage makes it clear concerning the behavior of
            Christian husbands and wives toward one another none of which suggest that a woman is “property instead of actual humans” as you have suggested. And while the Bible does not advocate the foolish modern concept of “equality” it does
            teach mutual respect and care for one another. The wife is taught to submit to the authority of her husband in the
            family as the responsible head over them and the husband is taught to love his wife as Christ loved the church and be willing to sacrifice his very life for her. She is described as being “one flesh” with the man such that she is in truth but a part of him. And men aretaught to love their wives as much as they love themselves and the wives are taught to respect their husbands.
            Nothing in the Bible supports the view of woman as less than human and nothing more than a man’s property and no one other than a complete fool would think otherwise.

            Women are described as having “adorned themselves” by being in subjection to their husbands.

            For after this manner in the old time the holy women also,
            who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 1 Peter 3:5

            And concerning the problems that some have in modern times
            over the notion of “equality” it is sufficient to point out that:

            Women are described as “joint heirs” with their husbands of
            the “grace of life”.

            “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to
            knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.” 1 Peter 3:7

            “Joint heirs” hardly fits the idea of woman as mere chattel,
            does it? She is one with her husband which cannot be said of any man’s property that he owns.

            Then you say:

            “Oh — and I guess if you find yourself raping a girl, NO
            WORRIES, you just should marry her. Rape is apparently OK with God:

            “If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be married
            and rapes her … He must marry the girl … He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

            — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)”

            I have already answered this one and you had no reply
            whatsoever to the answer that I gave you. So I will repeat my answer again knowing that it will be met with a similar silence characteristic of one who does not know what to say. Below is
            your actual partial quotation of the verse:

            “If a man [meets] a virgin who is not pledged to be
            married and rapes her … He must marry the girl … He can never divorce heras long as he lives.”

            — Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)

            The actual full quotation from the New International
            Version, which was your preferred version to make your point, reads as follows:

            “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be
            married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
            Deuteronomy 22:28-29

            By reading the full quotation one can see that the phrase,
            which you seem to have quite conveniently left out of your so called “quote”, “and they are discovered” implies consent on the part of both parties which would make anyone question whether the English word “rape” accurately translates the Hebrew word,” תפש taphas”, which means to “take hold of anything” and is often used to even refer to “taking hold of a garment such as when Potiphar’s wife took hold of Joseph’s
            garment and said “lie with me”. This word does not necessarily imply the use of irresistible force as the English word “rape” does. And the majority of Biblical translators have recognized this very fact: I will now list quotations from the many excellent translations of the Bible that differ with the NIV on the translation of this word and notice that they agree with one another uniformly.

            These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not
            in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not
            espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

            If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

            If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to
            be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

            When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed,
            and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

            When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not
            betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found,
            ROTHERHAM

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917
            OT

            “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

            If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and
            lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

            If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not
            betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

            If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

            If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged,
            and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

            If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her
            and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

            If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed,
            and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

            Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

            Furthermore, any honest, objective observer who studies this
            verse will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape. For instance:

            Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was
            obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

            Matthew Henry: “… if he and the damsel did consent, he
            should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

            J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl
            was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary,
            Tyndale Series, p. 237).

            In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster
            Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

            Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the
            category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was “their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol.
            3, p. 412).

            And this is what the late great Christian philosopher and
            apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wrote concerning this issue:

            … “If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, and
            he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his
            days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

            This is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible translations … make the mistake of
            interpreting these words as referring to the use of force and thus to raping a virgin. Such a view is quite unacceptable, for a number of reasons. (1) This would lay a burden and penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted
            murder.

            (2) The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized
            above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos
            2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). People are “caught” (I Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut. 20:19; Isa. 36:1). An adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act
            (Num. 5:13). In all of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.

            This verb used in Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the
            verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam. 24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc. Deuteronomy 22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman
            and “forcing her.” Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25 (viz., rape).

            (3) The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized
            above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse
            24. It can simply mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

            We can agree with the reasoning of James Jordan: “At first
            sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11). Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant,
            p. 149).”

            I believe that this is sufficient evidence to support my
            position that this verse is not talking about the law concerning “Rape”. Instead it was talking about a man having consensual sex with a virgin that was under no legal obligations to marry
            anyone or one that was not “engaged” to be married. These facts make this verse look a lot more reasonable than your absurd deliberate partial quotation of the verse from a
            translation that is completely out of harmony with the views of the majority of Biblical scholars and translators.

            The context and the other words used in connection with it
            make it quite evident that no “rape” occurred in this case. Second, the majority of Biblical scholars do not agree with the NIV translation of this verse. Third, even if one accepts
            the translation given by the NIV the words “and if they are discovered” show that the woman consented. And fourth,
            what father upon learning that his daughter had actually been “raped” would even consider accepting a gift and then willingly allow the rapist to marry and force her to live with the rapist for the rest of her life shows that this translation does not harmonize with even good common sense, nor the actual
            practical application made of this law by those who were extremely diligent to obey it for there is simply no instance of this law ever being applied in such a manner in all of the history of the nation of Israel of a rape victim being forced to live with her rapist for the rest of her life ever having occurred. So, the Jewish reading of the Hebrew and there actual application of this law does not comport with the NIV translation of this verse either.

            So much for your first quotation from the Bible that you
            claim has “cursed” mankind. This verse has actually blessed those women in those days by preventing them from being used as sexual objects and then cast away and left to live in a world where no one would marry them because they
            were so used. Is it possible therefore that this law of God was specifically designed to help women because God loved
            and cared for them? I am convinced that it was.

            Now we come to yet another instance wherein your ignorance of the Bible causes you to foolishly claim that God is guilty of being “genocidal”. I now quote your exact words as follows:

            “Here’s a pretty disturbing quotation in which God is
            playing a pretty demonic trick on Moses testing him to see if he’ll actually kill his own child. What kind of ‘loving’ God could even think up something so genocidal??

            “God did tempt Abraham, … And he said, Take now thy
            son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest … and offer him there for a burnt offering…”

            — Genesis 22:1-2 (AV)

            I believe if you would take just a moment to even read your
            above quotation of this portion of the Bible which you have severed completely from its context you can readily see that the verse says nothing whatsoever about “Moses”. This passage concerns ABRAHAM not MOSES. But one cannot expect one as ignorant of the Bible as you clearly have shown yourself to be to have enough knowledge to even notice the
            difference between the two men. But we will show that Abraham was not “tricked” in any way whatsoever but rather he
            was very much convinced that God would keep his promise to him in some way even though he was not sure of how it would be done. But if you think you find any “genocide” in this passage you need to look up the word “genocide” and as you would say, “think again”!

          • Bob Judd

            Thanks Lee and I’m sorry I said Moses instead of Abraham, you know they all kind of sound the same when you hear them and I truly am not an expert on biblical mythology because I prefer Roman mythology, which predates Xianity. So, in reality, everything you’ve said about God can also be said about Zeus who is much more powerful than God anyway and has lots of friends to help him. You know it was Zeus who even allowed you to be born, and he would be very displeased to see that you are using the Christian name instead of Zeus who was around much longer than your invented God. Better be careful, there have been some horrific deaths by the Greek Gods that if you studied, you’d be aware of. Or even Apollo for that matter. For example, let’s say you were born in 1000 BC instead of the 1940’s. You would be saying all the same things and have all the same adoration about Apollo instead of your Christian beliefs because the Bible hadn’t even been written. You would have no book to base your life around and would have been taught that Apollo instead of ‘God’ was the one and only God. Don’t you see the folly? Can’t you see that it is the creation of a BOOK that’s made you a fool for Christ?
            I hope putting it in that perspective may give you considerable thought, but with an insanely delusional person, it is hard to say. And try to be honest when you reply.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Thanks Lee and I’m sorry I said Moses instead of Abraham,
            you know they all kind of sound the same when you hear them and I truly am not an expert on biblical mythology because I prefer Roman mythology, which predates Xianity.”

            You are welcome, Bob. I can see that it was merely an error but I cannot see how the word “Moses” sounds the same to you as “Abraham” because they sound quite different to
            me. And I can see that you are not an “expert” on Biblical content. And no one in this world can be an “expert on “Biblical mythology” simply because there are no “myths”
            in the sense of “idle, fancy, fictions or falsehoods” in the Bible. And if there are any myths in the Bible in the sense of a mere story that serves to define the worldview of a culture they
            are “true myths” as C. S. Lewis once remarked:

            “ The Christ story is simply a true myth: a myth working on
            us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths: i. e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call real things.”

            And I do not know what “xianity” is since is not a word with
            sufficient common usage so that it has made its way just yet into our vocabulary or our dictionaries. But I can surmise that you intend to use it in the place of the word “Christianity”
            because you cannot even bear to mention the very name of Christ. Such weakness Bob is not very becoming, is
            it?

            Then you say:

            “So, in reality, everything you’ve said about God can also
            be said about Zeus who is much more powerful than God anyway and has lots of
            friends to help him.”

            Well, Bob, there was a time when old imaginary “Zeus” was
            popular and worshipped by many pagans in ancient Greece before they came into conflict with the living God through the power of Christ in the incredible advancement of Christianity when it spread throughout the pagan world and the pagan temples all were abandoned. Yes, Bob, you overlook the simple fact that the battle between paganism and Christianity has already been fought and your little god Zeus, even with the
            help of all of his little friends, lost that battle so that today the
            worshippers of Zeus are very few when compared to those who worship the true and living God.

            Then you surmise:

            “For example, let’s say you were born in 1000 BC instead of
            t he 1940’s. You would be saying all the same things and have all the same adoration about Apollo instead of your Christian beliefs because the Bible hadn’t even been written. You would have no book to base your life around and would have been taught that Apollo instead of ‘God’ was the one and only God. Don’t you see the folly? Can’t you see that it is the creation of a BOOK that’s made you a fool for Christ?”

            Well, nice try, Bob, but you are simply wrong yet again. If I had been born in 1000 BC it is just possible that I might have been taught about God from the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy which were written between 1440-1400 years before Christ and the first of these books predicted the coming of Christ 1400 years before he came to this earth. So, I would have the Pentateuch to “base my life around” and the true and living God creator of heaven and earth would still be guiding me. And you also overlook the fact that God was guiding men before any of the books were written because once the book was written we are told how he had been guiding them from
            the beginning. And “Apollo” never was a “God” even though men had created him as a false “god” to cater to their human
            fantasies. But the God of heaven created man in his own image and in his likeness and walked with Adam and his wife Eve
            in the cool of the evening in the Garden of Eden before sin entered into the world. And God’s word records that fact
            for everyone to know more than 1400 years before Christ and at least a thousand years before “Apollo, Zeus, and many other false gods were even imagined much less believed upon.

            Then you say:

            “I hope putting it in that perspective may give you considerable thought, but with an insanely delusional person, it is hard to
            say. And try to be honest when you reply.”

            Well, Bob, I hate to disappoint you but “putting things” in
            a false “perspective” does not really give an honest person much to think about other than how a person can be so uninformed as you seem to be and still maintain that the majority of people around them, who happen to be Christians are “insanely delusional”? And, Bob, I believe I have been very honest with you, Can you point to any way in which I have been dishonest with you or anyone else in this discussion? The truth is that you just cannot do that, now can you?

          • Bob Judd

            If the Bible is historical fact, do you actually think you could prove the PREPOSTEROUS stories from the Bible?? How bout we start with the Noah’s ark tale: it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a single man even in today’s engineering to build a boat that housed every animal species on the planet because they would need an entire ark just for the insect species! Complete with humidifiers and temperature control to keep them alive for so long. It’s for this reason that it is one of the most laughable of all biblical stories.
            And who could forget the Jonah and the whale story — a man living in the stomach of a whale for DAYS?!!? You couldn’t possibly think that really happened. I remember even as a child laughing at one of the photos I saw in Bible camp that showed him building a fire and the smoke coming out of the exhalation valve — so corny that I even laughed at it as a 7 year old.
            Adam & Steve was equally preposterous, especially considering that science has found pre-human species that don’t resemble homosapiens at all. A snake that makes you take your clothes off?? LOL. Where do the laughs end and the ‘history’ begin?
            Parting the Red Sea?? Don’t make me laugh. The Red sea never parted at all. Especially the way it is depicted in the 10 Commandments — RIDICULOUS!
            So, if you think any one of those are actually true, then you’re a hell of a lot more ignorant than I first thought. So, let’s see you try to prove any of them — I realize your responses keep glossing over the PROOF part and I know the reason you’re unable to prove anything you say is because you lack any real evidence, because there IS NONE. Even the shows that try to explain these stories on History channel, etc. fall WAY short of providing any real proof but only give scenarios loosly based on scientific facts that show how they could possibly be true, but they are far from proving it.
            And the one question I’ve asked that I’ve NEVER got a reasonable answer (and I’m not holding my breath for your response) is WHY haven’t any of these miraculous visions happened today? Why were all the miracles performed only for people who had no recorded history? It could only be one of 2 reasons: 1. God has no audience today and is too weak to perform any miracles today or is DEAD or 2. THEY ARE NOT TRUE. I tend to pick the most logical answer because with no proof, and no historical record they are simply not true. And remember, it is not MY burden to prove they didn’t happen — I’ve already proven it by just saying them. it’s up to one who believes in such nonsense to produce proof that they actually occurred. Which you can’t and won’t produce.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            I know that you are eager to discuss so many things since
            you seem to feel no obligation to explain or even offer any proof of your previous assertions that I have clearly proven to be based mostly upon your complete ignorance of the teaching of the Bible. And with your comments in this post you have further proved that such is true.

            You have said:

            “If the Bible is historical fact, do you actually think you
            could prove the PREPOSTEROUS stories from the Bible??”

            Well, Bob, if you will first “PROVE” that these stories are
            preposterous there would be no need for me to prove otherwise, now would there? But you have failed yet again to offer any evidence that the Bible is not historical or factual.

            But you want to start with the following:

            “ How bout we start with the Noah’s ark tale: it would be
            IMPOSSIBLE for a single man even in today’s engineering to build a boat that housed every animal species on the planet because they would need an entire ark just for the insect species! Complete with humidifiers and temperature control
            to keep them alive for so long. It’s for this reason that it is one of the most laughable of all biblical stories.”

            Well, you have not proven that the History of Noah’s Ark and
            the flood in general is a “tale”. Neither have you offered any evidence to indicate that it was impossible to build a boat such as the one that the Bible describes that Noah Built. And your ignorance of the biblical teaching concerning how many animals were on that boat as well as the Biblical dimensions
            of the Ark that clearly indicate that there was plenty of room on that craft for the numbers of animals God told Noah to save on the ark. In reference to this matter I will quote an article that goes into some detail about the matter in a discussion between
            scientist who believe the Biblical account and those who do not believe it in order to show that it is was entirely possible and very certain that Noah did, in fact build an ark large enough to contain all of the animals that God told him to take into the ark. I am quoting the article in full and giving credit to it by citing the website where I foundit as follows:

            “ADEQUATE ARK OR DEFICIENT DINGHY?

            One of the most frequently criticized parts of the biblical
            account of the Flood involves the size of Noah’s ark and the number of animals that lived in the vessel during the Flood. Allegedly, “[T]he ark…was far too small to be able to contain the earth’s millions of…animal species” (Wells, 2008). Another critic asked: “How could two of every animal survive for
            approximately 10 months on a boat encompassing 1,518,750 cubic feet. The food alone would absorb tremendous space” (McKinsey, 1983a, p. 1). In a document titled “Biblical Absurdities,” infidel.org board member Donald Morgan wrote:
            “The size of Noah’s Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard” (2008). Even one of the evolutionary scientists interviewed in Ben Stein’s recent documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, mocked the Bible’s account of Noah housing all of the various kinds of land animals on the ark (2008). All of these criticisms beg the question, “Was Noah’s vessel an adequate ark or a deficient dinghy?”

            First, contrary to popular belief, the Bible does not teach
            that Noah took aboard the ark two of every species of animal on Earth. The Hebrew term used in the Flood account (as in the Creation account) to distinguish animals is min (translated “kind” 10 times in Genesis 1 and seven times in Genesis 6-7). The Bible was written long before man invented the
            Linnaean classification system. The “kinds” of animals that Adam named on the sixth day of Creation and that accompanied Noah on the ark were likely very broad. As Henry Morris observed: “[T]he created kinds undoubtedly represented
            broader categories than our modern species or genera, quite possibly approximating in most cases the taxonomic family” (1984, p. 129, emp. added). Instead of Noah
            taking aboard the ark two of the brown bears species (Ursus arctos), two of the polar bear species (Ursus maritimus), two of the American black bear species (Ursus americanus), etc., he could have simply taken two members of the bear family (Ursidae), which could have possessed enough genetic variety so that bears thousands of years later could look significantly different. Even in recent times scientists have learned of a polar bear and brown bear producing an offspring. Some have tagged the bear with the name “pizzly,” in order to
            reflect its “polar” and “grizzly” heritage (see Wittmeyer, 2007). Truly, “[i]t is unwarranted to insist that all the present species, not to mention all the varieties and sub-varieties of animals in the world today, were represented in the Ark” (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 67). Still, even after analyzing the
            number of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians proposed by evolutionary taxonomist Ernst Mayr, Whitcomb and Morris concluded that “there was need for no more than 35,000 individual vertebrate animals on the Ark,” plus the small,
            non-marine arthropods and worms (1961, p. 69). Needless to say, the “2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species” proposed by Donald Morgan is grossly overstated.

            Second, supposing that the cubit in Noah’s day was 17.5
            inches (a most conservative “cubit” considering the Egyptian cubit, the Mesopotamian cubit, and the “long” cubit of Ezekiel 40:5 all exceeded this measurement by two inches; see Free and Vos, 1992, pp. 38-39), then Noah’s ark would have been at the very least 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75
            feet high. “[T]he available floor space of this three-decked barge was over 95,000 square feet,” the equivalent of slightly more than 20 standard basketball courts, “and its total volume was 1,396,000 cubic feet” (Whitcomb, 1988, p. 25), which means “the Ark had a carrying capacity equal to that of 522
            standard stock cars as used by modern railroads” (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, pp. 67-68). What’s more, “if 240 animals of the size of sheep could be accommodated in a standard two-decked stock car,” then 35,000 animals could be
            housed in less than 150 such cars (p. 69), which is less than 30% of the ark’s total capacity. Suffice it to say, “[T]he dimensions of the Ark were sufficiently great to accomplish its intended purpose of saving alive the thousands of kinds of air-breathing creatures that could not otherwise survive
            a year-long Flood” (Whitcomb, 1988, p. 25). [NOTE: God likely allowed Noah to take young animals into the ark, instead of those that were fully grown, in order to save space and reduce the amount of necessary food. It also would have
            meant that, on average, the animals would have lived longer and produced even more offspring after the Flood.” http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1222

            Then your ignorance again arises when discussing the
            historic fact that Jonah was swallowed by a “whale” as follows:

            “And who could forget the Jonah and the whale story — a man
            living in the stomach of a whale for DAYS?!!? You couldn’t possibly think that really happened.”

            You imply that the Bible records this as a perfectly natural
            event that could happen on any given day at sea. I was a sailor for many years of my life in the United States Navy and I do not consider this kind of thing to be a natural occurrence. Yet, I believe with all of my heart that the same God that controlled the weather during the above mentioned flood also miraculously arranged for Jonah to be swallowed by a great
            sea creature which he had prepared for the task and kept him alive during three days and nights.

            Why would anyone who believes in God and all of the miracles
            of the Bible have any trouble believing that according to the Biblical account, “Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah? And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” Jonah 1:17. Because Christians believe in God, that which is considered to be “impossible” in the natural realm is possible with God who created every creature. He specifically prepared a “great fish” to swallow up Jonah and having been a sailor I can tell you that even in nature there are creatures in the sea capable of swallowing a man whole
            and intact. But, without a miracle from God, I am convinced that Jonah would have died from being swallowed by any of
            those creatures that I have personally witnessed. But, because of incontrovertible evidence of the existence of God, and the inspiration of the Bible I believe this miracle. And I am in good company in that belief because Jesus Christ also believed it. He said these words: “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 12:40.
            And the fact that Christ was raised from the dead three days after he was crucified is proof to me that with God all things are possible including that he prepared a great whale to swallow Jonah and that he would have survived the ordeal. You see, Bob, the Bible is full of accounts of miraculous events and the crowning miracle of the Bible is the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Once a person believe in the resurrection of Christ faith in the truthfulness of the account of Jonah and the whale is no challenge.

            Then you say:

            “ I remember even as a child laughing at one of the photos I
            saw in Bible camp that showed him building a f ire and the smoke coming out of the exhalation valve — so corny that I even laughed at it as a 7 year old.”

            I would have laughed at it as well. But the Bible does not depict any such picture nor does it indicate such nonsense. It simply records a miracle at sea and until you can discredit the account in some way you have no reason to think that those who believe the account as it is recorded in one of the most reliable books ever written are wrong about it.

            Then you say:

            “Adam & Steve was equally preposterous, especially
            considering that science has found pre-human species that don’t resemble homosapiens at all.”

            While there is a mention of “Adam and Eve” in the Bible you
            indicate an incredible amount of ignorance of God’s word if you think it says anything about “Adam and Steve”. And
            there is nothing on the creation of “Adam and Eve” that is “preposterous” at all. And you offer no evidence of any
            species that do not “resemble homosapiens at all”. If there is such a species and it does not resemble homosapiens at all how would you know that it is “Pre-human” and if it
            was “pre-human” how do you know that it has any connection what you call “homosapiens”? Your theory of evolution is far more “Preposterous” to me than the fact that an intelligent God created “Adam and Eve”.

            Then you say:

            “A snake that makes you take your clothes off?? LOL. Where
            do the laughs end and the ‘history’ begin?”

            Where do you read of a “snake that makes one take his clothes
            off” in the Bible, Bob? Is this another example of your pathetic ignorance of God’s Word?

            Then you say:

            “Parting the Red Sea?? Don’t make me laugh. The Red sea
            never parted at all. Especially the way it is depicted in the 10 Commandments
            — RIDICULOUS!”

            I believe that the Red sea did part just as the account given in the Bible records. But you have affirmed that, and I quote, “The Red Sea never parted at all”. There you go again, Bob, making assertions you cannot prove to be true and you do not even attempt to prove them to be true. Can you produce evidence that would give anyone good reason to believe that the red sea never parted, Bob. That is your assertion and proof of it is your responsibility. And your ignorance of God’s word is again glaringly apparent when you claim that the parting of the Red Sea is “depicted in the ten commandments”. Bob, I will quote now the Ten Commandments and challenge you to show
            where the parting of the Red Sea is even remotely mention in them.

            “Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not
            make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him
            guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
            nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Honour thy father and thy
            mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. Exodus 20:3-17 KJV

            Now, do tell us Bob where in the Ten Commandments is the
            parting of the Red Sea even mentioned much less “depicted” in what you called a “RIDICULOUS” way? You see Bob, the real
            cause of your objections to the truthfulness of Biblical accounts can, in large part, be your ignorance of its contents.

            Then you say:

            “So, if you think any one of those are of them — I realize your responses keep glossing over the PROOF part and I know the reason you’re unable to prove anything you say is because you lack any real evidence, because there IS NONE.”

            Well, Bob I have offered evidence and you simply ignore it. There is plenty of proof Bob but I have spent most of my time correcting your errors and waiting for you to respond to the
            evidences that I have offered. Now I can understand that you may disagree with the evidences I have presented, for
            example proving beyond doubt that the Bible actually mentions homosexuality and condemns it. I proved it conclusively
            for all to see and you have yet to say anything about the clear evidence that I presented on that matter.

            Then you say:

            “ Even the shows that try to explain these stories on
            History channel, etc. fall WAY short of providing any real proof but only give scenarios loosely based on scientific facts that show how they could possibly be true, but they are far from proving it.”

            I agree with you about these shows on TV. Most of these folks are almost as ignorant of the contents of the Bible as you are Bob.

            Then you say:

            “And the one question I’ve asked that I’ve NEVER got a
            reasonable answer (and I’m not holding my breath for your response) is WHY haven’t any of these miraculous visions happened today? Why were all the miracles performed only for people who had no recorded history?”

            I do not want you to “hold your breath too long, Bob, it is
            just not good for your health and I do sincerely wish you to have good health. So, even if you do not like my answer please relax and take a good deep breath and live, Bob.

            The purpose of the Miracles was to achieve God’s object of
            ultimately sending his Son to the earth and saving mankind from sin. These miracles and the Miracles of the New
            Testament were done to establish that Christ was indeed, “God with us” and the miracles done by the apostles were to prove that they were in fact sent by God to preach the gospel of Christ. And not all of the miracles were done among people that had no recorded history as you ignorantly claim. The Greeks, Romans, Jews and the entire world of the days of Christ had and continue to have a “recorded history” and some of the miracles mentioned in the Bible are mentioned by secular
            historians such as one Josephus is a case in point as well as others like Tacitus and Suetonius. All of these people in the days of Christ had recorded history and Jesus performed miracles before them.

            Then you say:

            “ It could only be one of 2 reasons: 1. God has no audience
            today and is too weak to perform any miracles today or is DEAD or 2. THEY ARE NOT TRUE.”

            Well, Bob, as I have shown above the miracles
            were recorded for people who had a recorded history and I gave the example of every nation that existed during the days of Christ and the New Testament had and continues to have a “recorded history” wherein some of their historians
            even refer to the Miracles you claim were never performed for these people of the days of Christ. So, once again you are very wrong because of your ignorance of not only the Bible but history as well. But, God is capable of perfoming miracles at any time he so chooses to perform them. He can do them today if he wants to but the purpose of the miracles of the Bible has been accomplished and we are not witnessing a continuation of these actions that have achieved their purpose.

            Then you say:

            “ I tend to pick the most logical answer because with no
            proof, and no historical record they are simply not true.”

            AS I have shown above there is a historical record that
            mentions some of the miracles of the Bible especially the New Testament miracles which completely demonstrates that you are quite simply wrong about your assertion that all of the miracles of the Bible were performed for people who had no recorded history

            Then you say:

            “And remember, it is not MY burden to prove they didn’t
            happen — I’ve already proven it by just saying them.”

            Merely mentioning these events does not prove they did not
            occur, Bob. I find it interesting that you claim that it is not your burden to prove they did not happen, which I agree with, and then you claim to have proven, merely by mentioning them that they did not happen! HA! So which is it Bob? Have you assumed the burden of proof now, or not? Now, I agree that the one who believes in these accounts as real history are the ones who must bear the burden of proof because he who affirms a proposition must prove it. And that includes you Bob. When you affirm, for example that the Red Sea has “never parted” you are assuming the burden to prove that affirmation. But you cannot bear to have to prove anything, can you, Bob?

          • Bob Judd

            Thanks Lee, at least now I realize that the problem with you is either awful senility or possibly dementia. In typical form, you glossed right over what I asked and used your usual ‘copy, paste’ answer from google.
            I’m not interested in chatting with you. You are a TERMINAL FOOL!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Thanks Lee, at least now I realize that the problem with
            you is either awful senility or possibly dementia.”

            You are welcome Bob to receive my responses to your
            assertions. I do not see you offering any good reason that you should believe that I have any problem with dementia
            or senility. But I appreciate you concern nonetheless. It is, however, a diagnosis that you claimed to have realized several times in our discussion thus far without once giving any
            supporting evidence that your diagnosis is correct.

            Then you say:

            “In typical form, you glossed right over what I asked and
            used your usual ‘copy, paste’ answer from Google.”

            I have not “glossed right over” what you asked. In fact, it has been my “typical form” throughout our discussion to go out of my way to spend the time to ensure that I quote and
            respond to your every word leaving nothing untouched. And, my recent “copy and paste” from a website, which was not “Googled”, by the way. was my first and only time during
            our discussion to reference something I had read on the internet that I thought applied to our discussion. And my only
            reason for doing that was that the website itself authorized the use of their material under the conditions that it is quoted in its entirety and that credit is given by linking to the site. I was
            doing my best to avoid plagiarizing. But, I must say that there is nothing wrong with quoting someone else’s arguments for you to consider other than my own so long as I give them credit
            for making them. But your implication that I usually refer to things I have searched on Google is without merit because this is the one and only time I have done so which hardly makes it a “usual” occurrence. But even if it were it is not a fault by any means, is it?

            Then you say:

            “I’m not interested in chatting with you.”

            I can understand this Bob. Not everyone wants to “chat” with me especially those who do not believe in God. It is sometimes quite frustrating for them.

            Then you say:

            “ You are a TERMINAL FOOL!”

            The length of time I have spent “chatting with you” may be
            evidence that you are right. I may be a “terminal fool” but if I am such a fool I happen to be the only fool who ever lived that
            was right about the existence of God. Yet, I do doubt that I am the fool in this case because the Bible indicates that those who assert that “there is no God” are the real fools, Bob. It says: “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God” Psalms 14:1 KJV. I have good reason therefore to believe that you are fool but I am glad that your case is not terminal because there have
            been, even recently, some long term famous atheist that have begun to accept the existence of God, some of them even embracing the God of Christianity. So, I do have hope for you, Bob.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Thanks Lee, at least now I realize that the problem with
            you is either awful senility or possibly dementia.”

            You are welcome Bob to receive my responses to your
            assertions. I do not see you offering any good reason that you should believe that I have any problem with dementia
            or senility. But I appreciate you concern nonetheless. It is, however, a diagnosis that you claimed to have realized several times in our discussion thus far without once giving any supporting evidence that your diagnosis is correct.

            Then you say:

            “In typical form, you glossed right over what I asked and
            used your usual ‘copy, paste’ answer from Google.”

            I have not “glossed right over” what you asked. In fact, it has been my “typical form” throughout our discussion to go out of my way to spend the time to ensure that I quote and
            respond to your every word leaving nothing untouched. And, my recent “copy and paste” from a website, which was not “Googled”, by the way, it was my first and only time during
            our discussion to reference something I had read on the internet that I thought applied to our discussion. And my only
            reason for doing that was that the website itself authorized the use of their material under the conditions that it is quoted in its entirety and that credit is given by linking to the site. I was
            doing my best to avoid plagiarizing. But, I must say that there is nothing wrong with quoting someone else’s arguments for you to consider other than my own so long as I give them credit
            for making them. But your implication that I usually refer to things I have searched on Google is without merit because this is the one and only time I have done so which hardly makes it a “usual” occurrence. But even if it were it is not a fault by any means, is it?

            Then you say:

            “I’m not interested in chatting with you.”

            I can understand this Bob. Not everyone wants to “chat” with me especially those who do not believe in God. It is sometimes quite frustrating for them.

            Then you say:

            “ You are a TERMINAL FOOL!”

            The length of time I have spent “chatting with you” may be
            evidence that you are right. I may be a “terminal fool” but if I am such a fool I happen to be the only fool who ever lived that
            was right about the existence of God. Yet, I do doubt that I am the fool in this case because the Bible indicates that those who assert that “there is no God” are the real fools, Bob. It says: “the fool hath said in his heart there is no God” Psalms 14:1 KJV.

            I have good reason therefore to believe that you are fool but I am glad that your case is not terminal because there have
            been, even recently, some long term famous atheist that have begun to accept the existence of God, some of them even embracing the God of Christianity. So, I do have hope for you, Bob.

          • Bob Judd

            As for CS Lewis quote: he’s as full of crap as believers because again merely SAYING it is ‘God’s word’ and the rest are the words of men is patently false statement. The BIble is also the work of MEN, just like every other myth from every other time period and culture.
            There are only a few things I am very certain about. One is that humanity has evolved in to what we are today and we can see this natural evolution in everything we do as we continue to evolve and create new and wonderful inventions and the other thing I am most certain about is that the Christian god and the stories from the bible aren’t true.
            So Lee, you’re not going to convince me, or anyone else except yourself on this because more than anything in the Bible, these stories lack any logic or realness. They lack the reactions of others if these events happened and they lack any historical timeline, which is a sure indication that they are made up from the minds of men, who are the same minds that created Heaven & Hell, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            I now continue to discuss the passages that you quote in
            your post to which I have been replying as I promised to do.

            As I continue my discussion of the few scriptures that you
            have quoted as being in some way a “curse” to mankind I want to clarify something very significant to the application of these verses from the Old Testament to Christians. The Law
            described in the verses you quote from the Old Testament was given by God to Moses as both a civil and spiritual law for the children of Israel. That Law acted as a “Schoolmaster” to bring
            us to Christ. When Christ died on the cross for our sins the Old Law was fulfilled and Christians began to follow the Law of Christ which was a law of grace, mercy, and love. Being under the grace of Christ is a spiritual law guiding us in our actions by changing us from the inside. It is not a civil law in any way and it only influences civil law by its impact upon the character of men. So all of these laws related to civil matters among the Jews are not directly applicable to Christians and hence they are not subject to them. Therefore Christians are not now
            expected to “kill a child” who dishonors his parents and I know of no case in history where a genuine Christian ever did such a thing. I know that you do not want to read posts that are filled with quotations from the Bible but it is the only way that I
            can make the Christian point of view understood which is certainly what must come before anyone could expect any thinking person such as yourself to accept it.

            The following passages of scripture show that Christians are
            not subject to the Law of Moses. Matthew 5:17-18; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 8:7-13; 7:12; Ephesians 2:14-16. I have here merely given the references that anyone who wants to read them can look them up and decide what the facts are concerning my above assertion.

            I will now discuss the passage that you partially quote from
            Numbers 31:1-18 thereby implying that God had merely ordered “all the women” to be killed without any just cause to do so and asserted that the passage is comparable in some way so that it was the same as the promise the Koran makes alleging that it promises men, “an endless stream of virgins to have sex with”. The following are your words about this
            passage.

            “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses]
            asked them…. “Now … kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

            — Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV) — similar to the Koran’s promise
            of a Heaven where men will have an endless stream of virgins to have sex
            with…”

            I will now show from the scriptures that your assertion
            concerning this passage is very far off from the truth and that instead of it being a passage that promises men, “an endless stream of virgins to have sex with” it places a burden upon the Israelites with a large number, hardly an endless stream, of innocent girls to care for into their adulthood. While it is true that they would become the wives to men in Israel when they married there is no indication whatsoever that they were to become an “endless stream of virgins” for the men to commit
            adultery or fornication with because those crimes were the very reasons why the adult women of Midian along with a large number of adulterous men in Israel had been killed in the first place. So it is certain that God would not allow such
            behavior that had stirred his wrath to be continued with his permission upon the innocent virgins that he spared!

            When you understand the reason for this war against the
            Midianites one can easily understand the justification for “killing all of the women” in this case. If you had read Numbers 25:1- 18 you would not have been confused about this event and you
            would not, by your partial quotation of the scriptures removed from their full context, have left the false impression of God’s people being ordered to “kill all the women” without any just cause to do so. The actions of these women had brought a curse upon the Israelites and thousands of Israelites had died in the plague that God sent among them to punish them for their participation with these women in adulteries that had led
            them astray seeking other gods. And one can also see by reading the full context of these verses that saving the innocent female children who were virgins was not merely for the purpose of rewarding soldiers with an “unlimited
            number of virgins to have sex with” as you assert that the Koran promises the Muslims. The two ideas are not even
            remotely comparable. Since the men of Midian had been killed in the war and also the women adulteresses who had tempted
            Israel who were the primary cause of this war had been killed the innocent female children were left with no one to care for them so by God’s decree they became Israel’s responsibility so that they could be spared.

            Matthew Henry in his commentary on the Old Testament
            remarked upon this passage, “God had put to death the adulterers of Israel by the plague, and now it was fit that the adulteresses of Midian, especially since they had been the tempters, should be put to death by the sword. “It is dangerous to let them live; they will be still tempting the Israelites to uncleanness, and so your captives will be your conquerors and a second time your destroyers.’ Severe orders are
            therefore given that all the grown women should be slain in cold blood, and only the female children spared.”

            This passage therefore shows that God actually benefited
            mankind by removing the wicked influence that was threatening to destroy his chosen people by leading them into idolatry while simultaneously sparing those who were actually innocent of any wrongdoing and showing mercy toward them by
            insisting that the innocent ones be kept alive and cared for and they were determined to be innocent because as virgins they could not have been involved in the adulteries that had caused this huge problem in the first place.

            So, is it not possible to see in these verses not only God’s
            severity with those who sin against him but also his mercy and love toward those who are innocent? As Romans 11:22
            says, “Behold now the goodness and severity of God”.

            I know that you are not disposed to accept these things
            yourself but I am simply explaining how it is understood and accepted by those of us who are Christians and are therefore familiar with the teachings of the Bible by regular study. The passage you have quoted from Numbers is therefore shown to have not been a curse to anyone but those who disobeyed or rebelled against God. The wicked are cursed by God and this is a great blessing to the rest of humanity who would otherwise suffer from their wickedness.

          • Bob Judd

            If the Old Testament Laws are kind of tossed aside (which is basically what you’re saying), then why do Christians choose to keep the one about homosexuality being an abomination and not pork or shellfish? Perhaps pondering such a question will show you the willingness of Christians who remain bigots and who would deny marriage of a gay couple who loves one another, yet would stand by while a murderer, adulterer, rapist or fornicator.
            It’s a great example of how Christians today (especially the evangelical Christians who are also a thorn in the side of progressivism and Liberalism) are using the Bible to excuse their never-ending war on anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
            Your defense of God’s asking soldiers to kill or rape women is frankly incredibly lame. There is not ANY reason where such behavior would be ok whether they are in a time of war or not. It makes no difference. Maybe now you can see why I believe the morality in the Bible is so inferior. So your explanation was yet just another lame excuse why such genocidal language is in the Bible. Your willingness to excuse it shows how totally misguided you are by the words and your irrational way of thinking such behavior is ok. Thanks for being honest at least, which is not typical of most Christians, but the only thing your explanation did was to solidify the feelings I had about those quotes to begin with.
            So why not answer this question: Why would a reasonable and educated person living in a country that requires about 800 times the resources compared to 3rd world countries worship a God who required that children be murdered for cursing or being ‘rebellious’? Is it because you are as evil as this false ‘god’? Or, is it that you excuse it because it was people from a different time? Either answers are lame and unforgivable in any sane society.
            I’m also surprised at the number of Christians who deny these direct quotes from the Bible until they see them — hinting that the vast majority have never even READ the Bible. But it also shows the robotic blind faith that overcomes people’s morality and ability to think rationally when they become jesus freaks, so that all they become is massive excusers like yourself. All I can say is that living like that sounds to me to be the worst kind of suffering a person can go through. Yet, you continue to excuse such behavior.
            AMAZING!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “If the Old Testament Laws are kind of tossed aside (which
            is basically what you’re saying), then why do Christians choose to keep the one about homosexuality being an abomination and not pork or shellfish?”

            I did not say that the Old Testament was merely “cast aside”
            but only that it was a law given only to the Children of Israel and did not apply to Christians. I was not claiming that the Old Law was sinful or wrong but only that it was a national law for
            the Jews and not for Christians. And I do not keep any of the old law which means I have no problem eating pork or shellfish because there is no law that forbids Christians to eat such things. And my condemnation of Homosexuality actually
            comes from the New Testament as follows:

            “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
            kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV

            “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but
            for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.” 1 Timothy
            1:9,10 NIV.

            “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all
            the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being
            understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Or although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although
            they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one
            another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural
            sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due
            penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,
            strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although
            they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.” Romans 1:18-32 NIV

            From these passages one can easily see that among the list
            of wicked things that God condemns is homosexuality and it is because of the teachings of the New Testament that I cannot condone homosexuality and when it comes up as a subject for discussion I must condemn it also. S, the truth is that most Christians have no problem with eating pork or shellfish unless they are allergic to either of them. And they do not condemn
            homosexuality only by retaining portions of the Old Testament that condemn it since I have demonstrated above that the New Testament has sufficient condemnation of it. But, Christian still
            believe that the Old Testament was inspired of God and that it serves as a means for us to learn many valuable lessons about God. “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the scriptures
            and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.” Romans 15:4 NIV

            So, let all those who practice this long list of wicked things beware. God has plainly stated that those who do not
            turn from these things deserve death. And by reading from the Old Testament people we have examples of people who practiced these things were killed for having done so. Like it or not that is God’s decree and historically he has killed such wicked persons and let no one think that people living in our modern times shall escape his wrath if they refuse to repent of
            their wicked ways.

            Then you say:

            “Your defense of God’s asking soldiers to kill or rape women
            is frankly incredibly lame.”

            I have shown conclusively that God never ordered anyone to “rape” women. And what is really “lame” is the fact that you have failed miserably to show that he has done any such
            thing. He did order the killing of those adulterous women who had disobeyed his commands and had lead many of the People of Israel into idolatry. And I have not sought to “defend God’s judgment of these women” but only to correct your misjudgment concerning them. While you had sought to leave the impression that they were only innocent women and were killed only because they were not virgins. I pointed to the context to show that they were killed for their adulteries which was God’s punishment for adultery and Idolatry. And since God
            created man he is the only one that has the right to authorize the killing of any man or woman. That God has so killed
            wicked people in the past is a fact and in the future he will utterly destroy the wicked. He is God and he has the
            power, authority and right to do with his creation as He sees fit and just because you do not like it does not make it immoral nor does it change the reality of it. If you cared for
            morality you would condemn the wicked yourself. “For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.” Psalms 1:16. You see, I never sought to justify God in the killing of these wicked women but only to point out that they had been punished by the judge of all the earth for their sins. It is not my place to “justify God” to any
            man. And God has not sought my permission to punish the wicked nor has he sought my advice on how he shall punish them. I have no power or authority to correct or judge him in the matter and honestly I am not convinced that you have any power to do these things either. And because his actions do not meet with your approval does not mean that God will be held accountable by you. What exactly are you going to do about what God has done to those wicked women? Are
            you going to drag God into the Dock and judge him as a murderer and put him in prison? I do doubt it. What are you going to do to punish God? Are you going to punish him by destroying yourself by denying his existence to your own peril? The truth is clear, “behold now the goodness and severity of God” Romans 11:22. God is severe in his dealing with the wicked and he has sent his son to die for them so that if they repent of their wickedness they can be saved through his death. But if they reject his mercy they are subject to his indignation and wrath. Christians are therefore not
            trying to justify God but are instead warning humanity to turn from wickedness so that they can be spared from the wrath of God against the wicked. God is the ultimate in judgment. If He gives someone a death sentence no one can do anything about it. If he extends his mercy to anyone it is wise for them to turn from their sins and accept his mercy. “Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8,9. God will forgive the penitent but those who harden their hearts against him will not be spared no matter how many of their feeble fellowmen claim that his judgments are too harsh. As Christians we consider God’s judgments to
            be just in every way but God is not under your jurisdiction and therefore will not be brought into your court to be condemned but you and I are in his jurisdictionand he will judge us both.

            Then you say:

            “There i s not ANY reason where such behavior would be ok
            whether they are in a time of war or not. It makes no difference. Maybe now you can see why I believe the morality in the Bible is so inferior.”

            Now just here we need to consider the basis upon which you
            consider such behavior to be “ok”. It is one thing to condemn the morality of the Bible but when one ask you by what
            standard do you judge morality of anyone including God’s morality in the Bible? Are we to accept your view of morality just
            because you say it is moral? If you do not like the morality of the Bible can you tell us where you got your rule of morality?
            Are we all supposed to believe that Bob’s morality is the standard for all men living on the earth to abide by?
            On what grounds do you contend that it was wrong for God to order these women to be killed for their adulteries? What standard of morality will you refer us to, Bob, that you thin is so
            superior to that of the Bible? By whatmeasure shall we measure God’s behavior, Bob? Who is to decide what is moral or not, Bob? Are you the final arbiter of what is right and wrong? Or are the Christians right in accepting God’s ways and God’s laws for our standard by which we shall accurately judge right from wrong?

            Then you say:

            “Maybe now you can see why I believe the morality in the
            Bible is so inferior.” What Morality is it Inferior to Bob? What standard of morality do you consider to be superior to
            that which is found in the Bible, Bob? Let’s compare those standards with each other to see which one is superior. Which standard of morality are you talking about, Bob, that is in your opinion superior to that standard of morality given in God’s word the Bible?

            Then you say:

            “So your explanation was yet just another lame excuse why
            such genocidal language is in the Bible. Your willingness to excuse it shows how totally misguided you are by the words and your irrational way of thinking such behavior is ok.”

            There is no “genocidal language” in this passage of scripture that you quoted. The word “genocidal” means, “The deliberate destruction of an entire race or nation.” In this passage there was not even an attempt to destroy an entire nation but only to destroy a group of wicked women who had rebelled against God and sought to lead the children of Israel into idolatry. In fact, God ordered that the young women who had not been guilty of adultery to be spared.In order for it to have been “genocidal” there would have to have been an intent and action designed to completely destroy an entire nation or race of
            people from the face of the earth. And that simply is not what happened in this passage from Numbers.

            Again, I have not sought to “excuse it” as you claim. It was the right thing to do and therefore does not ask for nor does it need to be excused. You on the other hand have failed miserably
            to show that it is immoral by any standard of morality known to man. All we have from you is a mere assertion that it was immoral. We do not have any proof or any reference to any standard of morality that would support your claim. Are these actions only immoral because you do not like them? I hate to break the news to you, Bob, but your likes and dislikes are not the world’s standard of morality. So do try to prove to us
            that God’s ordering the killing of these wicked adulterous and idolatrous women was immoral. Until you can prove that it
            was immoral you have no grounds upon which to claim that anyone who agrees with it are “misguided” or that their way of thinking about it is “irrational” when they think it is “ok” when you have given them no reason to believe otherwise. What is your standard of morality and why should the rest of the world, including God in heaven follow it? Can you refer us to that standard so we can go and read it for ourselves or is this just your own personal standard of right and wrong that we must all accept?

            Then you say:

            “Thanks for being honest at least, which is not typical of
            most Christians, but the only thing your explanation did was to solidify the feelings I had about those quotes to begin with.”

            I believe that genuine Christians would try their best to be
            honest with you, Bob. And I regret that you have met with some who have left you with the impression that it is not typical of Christians to be honest. It was not my intention to “solidify” the “feelings” that you had about your quotes in the beginning. But it was my intention to dispel the false impressions that you had left that God justified “rape” which he did not and that God had ordered the killing of innocent women because they were not virgins and had spared virgins just to provide an unlimited
            supply of virgins for sex for the soldiers much like the Koran, as you alleged, promises to its followers. Those errors I have completely dispelled though I have not convinced you to change your “feeling” about these quotes in the least. I would
            truly like to change those “feelings” but that is something that is only in your power to do.

            Then you say:

            “So why not answer this question: Why would a reasonable and educated person living in a country that requires about 800 times the resources compared to 3rd world countries worship a God who required that children be murdered for cursing or being ‘rebellious’? Is it because you are as evil as
            this false ‘god’? Or, is it that you excuse it because it was people from a different time? Either answers are lame and unforgivable in any sane society.”

            I do not know if our country requires “800 times the
            resources compared to 3rd world countries” or not and cannot see what that exactly has to do with our discussion. But to worship the God of the Bible is something that large numbers of highly educated people have chosen to do for thousands of years even though they know that he was a God that required that rebellious children be killed. And it is justified upon the basis that God is the one who created these children and he
            has the right to do with them as he pleases. If they rebel against their parents they might well one day kill their parents as we have witnessed in our modern times often. It is not an uncommon occurrence today that children have been found guilty of killing their parents. But God does not explain his actions to you or me because he is sovereign over us and needs not to explain or justify himself to us. So, I do not offer any of the above explanations that you have imagined that I should offer. And your assertion that he is a “false god”
            is without any evidential support whatsoever. And on what basis do you appoint yourself as the judge of what is a “sane
            society” and by whose authority do you set yourself up as the one who shall decide what is “forgivable” in it? You
            see, we are again brought to the questions of whose standard of morality are you going by, your own?

            “But it also shows the robotic blind faith that overcomes
            people’s morality and ability to think rationally when they become jesus freaks, so that all they become is massive excusers like yourself. All I can say is that living like that sounds to me to be the worst kind of suffering a person can go through. Yet, you continue to excuse such behavior. “

            Again, Bob, I have offered no “excuse” because I believe
            that God’s action in this matter was absolutely right and you have not proven it to be wrong or immoral by any standard of morality at all. And I do not know why you think of those who believe in Jesus Christ as “Jesus Freaks” except to prejudice people’s minds against Jesus before they hear the gospel of his love and mercy extended to all sinners by his sacrificial death on the cross for us all. And living as a Christian is a life
            of peace that passes all understanding. I am daily filled with joy and happiness unspeakable. I have lived a life of peace and contentment from the day that I was baptized into Christ and accepted his mercy, love and forgiveness. It’s not a miserable life at all, Bob. I highly recommend it to you, Bob, as well as all men of a high level of intelligence such as you. Indeed, Bob, such a life is as you would say, “AMAZING”.

          • Bob Judd

            Not sure what Bible you’re reading and which mistranslation because mine doesn’t have the word ‘homosexual’ in a SINGLE of it’s pages, so we see yet again, more Christians, changing the words of their ‘eternal’ text to fit their own agenda. Homosexuality is not more a ‘sin’ than heterosexuality or marriage. During the time the Bible was written, people had no clue what human sexuality even WAS, let along what seasons and variety it was composed of. With that known, it is ludicrous for people in today’s age to pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts to keep symbolically.

            As for morality, mine is derived from the Law and from my own sense of knowing and while I think there are lots of people who may not be smart enough to know what is right or wrong, these folks can stay out of trouble by following their heart and obeying the Law. Another simple Pagan law is to ‘harm no living thing’ — something that Christians could use to be better people.

            The rest of your post is making more excuses why it would be a good idea for parents to kill a rebellious child because you think it would help the parents to beat the kid by killing the children first is the most twisted reasoning I’ve witnessed. If that is true, why don’t we just occupy and destroy every country on the planet before they do the same to us?

            I can see why people like you need the Bible, because you seem to have no natural ability to manage your life without it.

            So for this conversation, it may be recommended that the REASON there are non-believers is because they are happy, content and moral WITHOUT having Biblical training, or they are like me, who have lived through the Christians lifestyle and moved for beyond it to a much freer state.

            The Law regards morality to be what a ‘reasonable person’ would think is right or wrong, which changes with society and the times. So that, today we could care less who possesses statues, curses gods name etc, which eliminate most of the 10 commandments because they are so miserably out of date. And while you may have a sense of morality that IS ‘written in stone’ — for society in general, that simply isn’t the case because morality is a constantly changing beast, much like society itself. I will leave you with one of my favorite quotes on morality by a favorite author:

            “I regard “ideology” and “morality” as the two most dangerous forces on this planet. About “ideology” I have expressed my suspicions elsewhere; here I will only mention John Adams’s verdict that shortening “ideology” to “idiocy” would save some space and add a great deal to clarity. He had the French Revolution in mind, but “ideologists” haven’t changed much since then, have they?

            As for “morality” — or “moralic acid” as Nietzsche called it — I consider it the major cause of almost all the major atrocities not caused by “ideology.” This wonderful invention, “morality,” allows people — normal, ordinary people — to do things so cruel and violent that they could never bring themselves to do them for selfish reasons. What the sociopath and sadist do for fun, the “moralist” does on behalf of “duty” or “justice.”

            “Morality,” today, allows Moslems to stone women to death, as it once fueled the Christian witch-hunts. “Morality” has excused every war, and glorified some of them. “Morality” constantly plots to subvert the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. “Morality” inspires gay-bashing and the bombing of women’s clinics. Why, without “morality” we might all suddenly go stark staring sane.

            My vision of Utopia would include a hell of a lot more kindness and mercy than we have now, and a hell of a lot less “morality.’ — Robert Anton Wilson –

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob, You have said:

            “Not sure what Bible you’re reading and which mistranslation
            because mine doesn’t have the word ‘homosexual’ in a SINGLE of it’s pages, so we see yet again, more Christians, changing the words of their ‘eternal’ text to fit their own agenda homosexuality is not more a ‘sin’ than heterosexuality
            or marriage

            Bob, I specifically quoted from the exact same version that you quoted from when you gave me a few passages to consider. And you should not have any doubt about “which Bible I was reading” because it was the same Bible you had quoted and I made the reference quite clear when I ended my quotation with the letters “NIV” just as you had done when you quoted that exact same translation. And if you believe that the word “homosexuality” that is clearly found in that translation which you can read for yourself is in some way a “mistranslation” of the Greek Word, ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs) then you should prove it if you can. But, because you cannot prove that it is a mistranslation you think that a mere assertion would suffice. Well, Bob, among intelligent people such as you are assertions without proof with some form of evidence just will not suffice in this discussion between us. So, I will here claim that it is impossible for you to prove that this is a “mistranslation” and I challenge you to show evidence that it is if you can. I do not however expect that you will even attempt it because it is quite simply an impossible task for anyone familiar with both Greek and English to honestly do.

            I personally do not prefer the New International version but
            I quoted from it simply because you seem to prefer it since you quoted from it in your attempt to portray the Bible in a negative light. But now that it has been demonstrated that your chosen version does not support your perspective you act as if you have no idea which version we have been using and that it is
            now a “mistranslation” which you do not bother to even attempt to prove. And all reputable versions of the Bible in
            every language has either the very word “homosexuality” or its equivalent in it, including the NIV, which is the one you have personally favored in this discussion. If you have a different
            version that you would like for me to examine just simply quote these same verses that I have quoted from it and I will be happy to show that it also mentions and condemns homosexuality. Now no one could be fairer than that,could they?

            What we have here is not a “Christian changing the words” of his “eternal text” as you claim but rather a non-Christian that has failed miserably to prove his point that the Bible is a “curse” and he wants change the version or translation of the Christian text that he himself had selected to make his argument and because of his foolish choice, finding himself helplessly against the ropes, is hoping that the “bell will soon ring” so that he can escape to his corner and recover for the next round”! HA! Since you do not like the version that you quoted in the beginning because it does not favor your point of view how about telling us which version you would prefer that we use in this discussion so we can examine it to see whether or not it has any reference whatsoever to “homosexuality” in some way and whether or not it condemns it. Is that fair enough for you? If you do not mind I will speak metaphorically. Go back to your Conner, get a drink of cool water, wipe the blood off your face and come back with something substantial if you hope to prevail in your feeble attempts to discredit the word of God on these issues.

            In the mean time I will prove by again quoting your exact
            words that you used the same version that I used in this discussion. You quoted from the New International Version and even took the time to annotate your quotation with the initials NIV, indicating the New International Version in parenthesis
            to indicate which version you were using as follows:

            “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he [Moses] asked them…. “Now … kill every woman who has slept with a man,
            but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”– Numbers 31:1-18 (NIV) — similar to the Koran’s promise of a Heaven where men will have an endless stream of virgins to have sex with…”

            So, I quoted from the same version that you seemed to prefer
            in my assertion that the Bible does, in fact, have the word “homosexual” in it. You considered it an accurate translation when you thought that it had made your point but now that it is
            against your position you do not like it. I read from the NIV as follows:

            “We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but
            for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.” 1 Timothy
            1:9,10 NIV.

            So there you have the word “homosexuality” in the very
            translation that you introduced into this discussion. So, again you are wrong in claiming that the Bible does not have the word homosexual in it. The terms “those who practice homosexuality” in this verse is a translation from the original Greek word, ἀρσενοκοίτης. Its meaning as given in Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon is as follows: ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs) – “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”. Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon. Therefore any accurate translation of this word would
            have to indicate “homosexuality” in some way whether by the use of an equivalent word or a phrase that means the same thing. The NIV does just that when it chose the word “homosexuality” as an English word that is equivalent in
            meaning to the Greek term. So ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs), in this verse, along with others that have this Greek word in it not only has the equivalent Greek term for homosexual but the English word “homosexual” is, according to Greek
            Lexigraphers, an accurate translation of that word. This verse not only proves that the Bible actually does have the word “homosexual” in it but it also SPECIFICALLY condemns homosexuality as well. And this is from the translation that you preferred. If you now wish to argue that this is a “mistranslation” please demonstrate with evidence that would prove that it is a mistranslation and I will seriously consider and examine the evidence you present.

            Another passage, from the NIV, the exact same version that
            you quoted, says:

            “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the
            kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And
            that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV). In this verse the translators chose to translate two Greek words that refer to both the passive and active participants in Homosexual acts. Those two words are, “μαλακός (malakos)
            meaning “soft or soft to the touch” It is “like the Latin word mollis and is used metaphorically and in a bad sense: effeminate, of a calamite, a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness.” (Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon) and
            also the word “ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs)” as explained above, with the English phrase “men who have sex with men” which means the exact same thing as “homosexual”
            but in this case he is referring to both participants in the homosexual act as opposed to a general term like homosexuality. Is the translation “men who have sex with men” more acceptable to you? Or do you think that phrase means
            something different than the word “homosexual”?
            And do you not see that in this particular verse “men who have sex with men” are condemned along with adulterers, swindlers, thieves, and drunkards and are listed among those who will not “inherit the kingdom of God”? Thus this verse not only mentions homosexuality but it also condemns it along with a list of other sins. And yes, I said sins. Homosexuality is classed here in this verse along with things we know to be sin and therefore it is a sin as much as adultery, thievery, slanders, and swindlers with which it is here listed.

            Now, I shall quote the same passage from yet another version
            that I personally prefer over the one you quoted and it is just as clear as your preferred version that it is talking about homosexuality as follows.

            “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
            kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJV

            Again we find the word “homosexual” being used to translate the same Greek word that your preferred version, the NIV,
            translates with both the word homosexuality” in Timothy 1:9,10 and the phrase “men who have sex with men” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which clearly means the exact same thing in this verse.

            “And no one has “changed the text” as you claim. The original
            text was written in Greek, and after translation that original text remains unchanged for everyone to compare and examine whether or not the translation is accurate. To translate a text is not to change it but rather to convey the exact same message in another language. So, you seem to be completely unaware of what a translation really is. When God’s word in Greek condemns a man having “sex with another man” and English speaking translators who understand Greek translate it with an English word that indicates that he condemns “homosexuality” it has conveyed exactly the same meaning. So, how about showing us how exactly we have in any way whatsoever changed the original text? Simply to assert we have done
            so is not sufficient, Bob, we expect you to prove your assertion. So, can you tell us exactly which part of the original text you believe that we have changed in the process of merely “translating” the words of that text into English? Bob, I am sure that you would not want to be dishonest enough to “dodge” this question, would you? The fact is that you liked this version when you thought it supported your point of view and that is
            the reason you selected it for use in your original argument. But now it has become an albatross around your neck and you just are having a bit of trouble shaking it, aren’t you?

            Then you say:

            “During the time the Bible was written, people had no clue
            what human sexuality even WAS, let along what seasons and variety it was composed of.”

            Can you prove that “during the time that the Bible was
            written people had no clue of what sexuality even was”? They seemed to manage the practice of it pretty much as well as we do today. What evidence can you give that indicates that they did not “even know what human sexuality even was”? This is a mere assertion and an assumption on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that there is any reason for a thinking
            person to believe it. In fact, there is a very good chance that if our ancestors had “no clue” or did not “even know what human sexuality even was” as you have said, that you and I may not even be here today. The evidence seems to be overwhelming and almost axiomatic that whatever they knew about “human
            sexuality” they managed to use and abuse it very much like we do even today with little if any real difference between them in their day and us in ours. In fact, they seem to have had homosexuals then as much as we have them now. In
            truth, I do doubt that you can show that we actually know anything about human sexuality that they did not know.
            Please, Bob, enlighten us upon this subject and prove to us just what we know today about human sexuality that they did not know then. Remember, Bob, we require proof, not mere assertions.

            And your talk of “seasons and variety” that human sexuality “was composed of” indicates that you just might not really be very clear on the subject of “human sexuality” yourself. “Seasons”, Bob, What “seasons” are you talking about?

            Then you say:

            “With that known, it is ludicrous for people in today’s age
            to pick and choose which parts to take literally and which parts to keep symbolically.”

            Well, the word “that” in your sentence referes to your mere
            assertion that people in Bible times did not “even know what human sexuality even was”. And until “that is proven” it is not “known”, now is it? So far you have not proven anything about “that”, now have you? And it is “ludicrous” for you to expect anyone to “know” that the people in “Bible times had “no clue of what sexuality even was” if you cannot prove that such was, in fact the truth. And you are the one who is “picking and choosing” here, Bob. You picked the New International Version as your preferred translation to use when quoting the few passages of scripture that you used to make your argument. And now that we have shown that your favorite translation has the word “homosexuality” in it and that it also condemns it you cry “fowl” because we have used a version that actually uses the word “homosexuality” instead of the majority of versions that simply say “men having sex with men” or “Women having
            sex with women” such as Romans 1:18-32. Since the word “homosexuality” refers to persons of the same sex having sex with one another when the Bible talks about men having sex with men it is talking about homosexuality. The verses above are sufficient to prove that homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.

            And Bob, no one, least of all me, has said anything about the Bible in regards to “which parts to take literally and which parts to keep symbolically”. The fact is that these verses actually use the word homosexuality and I do not care if you take it literally or symbolically it is in your Bible. And it is, whether symbolically or literally, condemned in your Bible. In this discussion the issue of symbolic verses literal nterpretation of the Bible has no bearing whatsoever upon the subject. I have demonstrated that the word “homosexuality” is in the Bible and that the Bible condemns it. I have done so without affirming anything in relation to the matter of interpretation. You are welcome to interpret these words any way that pleases you but
            you are not welcome to deny that they exist because the facts just will not allow it, Bob. The word homosexuality or its equivalent is in your Bible in these verses I have quoted and your Bible condemns it unless you have taken your scissors and cut them out of your Bible in which case it would be you that is “changing the text” wouldn’t it?

            Now Bob, if you will choose any reputable version of the
            scriptures that you want to use in this discussion I will use it to prove that God does mention homosexuality in it and condemns it. How about that, Bob? You pick the version, so long as it is a serious translation recognized by a majority of reputable Biblical scholars and I will demonstrate from it that homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible and that it is condemned by the Bible. I just cannot be more fair that that, Bob.

            Then you say:

            “As for morality, mine is derived from the Law and from my
            own sense of knowing and while I think there are lots of people who may not be smart enough to know what is right or wrong, these folks can stay out of trouble by following their heart and obeying the Law. Another simple Pagan law is to ‘harm no living thing’ — something that Christians could use to be better people.”

            And in reference to your inability to show any source or
            standard of morality that you would enthusiastically recommend as being superior to that found in the Bible. The
            best you could do was attempt to leave the impression that Pagans believe that we should “harm no living thing” without even considering that pagans have been known to sacrifice children to their false Gods, which is very harmful to those
            little “living things” don’t you think? And thus far you have not demonstrated in this discussion that you have the ability
            to know “right from wrong” simply by “following your heart”. And your reference to “obeying the law” is something you will not do if you disagree with the morality of the law. For example, I do not see you advocating that people obey the law when it forbids homosexuals to marry, because you think that such a law would be immoral. So,clearly you do not have any standard by which you can actually “know right from wrong”. If everyone does that which is right in his own eyes there would be no common “morality” in the world. And it is very possible that if you actually support our current laws which make abortions legal then you would be violating your “pagan law” that says “harm no living thing” while you lend your support to laws that allow the killing of living “things” as you would call them in their mother’s wombs and then you come here to condemn God who ordered the killing of guilty adulterers who caused a war that ended in the deaths of many people.

            I recommend that you read more From Adams who definitely did not share your views on morality. Also if you want an example of exactly what would happen among a society that
            believed as you do that they would just make up their own morality you should read about the French Revolution because they rejected any standard of morality, much like you do, and look what happened:

            “Spanning from 1789 to 1799, The French Revolution was a
            period of great social and political upheaval, turmoil, and confusion—a time when the streets actually ran red with the nation’s own blood. Maximilien Robespierre, better known as “the Incorruptible,” was a ruthless but popular radical figure during the Reign of Terror. He was head of France’s new republic which held executive power, making him the de facto dictator of the country as well as the driving force behind the most violent period of the French Revolution. Robespierre’s reign was characterized by terror, fear, and the ruthless invocation of his own interpretation of virtue and morals.”

            As the French revolution unfolded, a group sporting the
            paradoxical name “The Committee of Public Safety” executed at least 20,000 people who did not agree with their morality.

            So thus far you have failed miserably to show us any
            morality that is better than the standard of Morality given by God to Christians to love one another, love our enemies, visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, speak the truth in love, etc. John 13:34, 35; Romans 13:8; 1 Peter 3:8; 1 John 4:7; Hebrews 10:24; Matthew 5:44-48; Luke 6:27; Luke 6:35: James 1:27

            And many other passages that teach us how to live good,
            wholesome, peaceful lives. Phil. 4:7. And anyone familiar with genuine Christianity knows that Christians do indeed live by a superior moral code higher than any that has ever been witnessed on earth. So far you have failed to demonstrate that
            you have any knowledge whatsoever of anything superior to the moral teaching of the Bible. I have asked you to prove that there is anything superior and so far all we have is your assertion that all men “follow their hearts and the law” and consider the pagan ways of “harm no living thing” even though that did not
            stop them from sacrificing their children to false gods. Honestly, Bob, you really need to make a better effort if you hope to convince us there is a better standard of Morality out there than that which is taught in the Bible.

            And in regard to your assertion that Christians would be
            “better people” if they followed the pagan ways of “do no harm
            to any living thing”. I know of no group of people on this earth that spend more effort and time working to improve or better themselves than Christians. Some Christians were at one time, before becoming Christians,adulterers, murderers, slanders, thieves, and even homosexuals. But they have turned from those evils and sins and strive daily to be better. And
            the teaching of God’s word is sufficient to make them better in every way. And if any pagan wants to improve his or her life I recommend that they turn from their sins and be converted to Christ and follow him to join with the Christians in daily striving to be “better people”.

          • Bob Judd

            Sorry you wrote all that stuff out, but I have no intention of reading it — it only took 2 of your paragraphs to tell you are pretty hopeless case of someone who’s lied to himself for so long you lack the ability to discern fact from fiction. Of course this happens to ALL strict fundamentalists along with the inability to empathize with others or hear other points of view, which you clearly disdain.
            Have a good life, and be sure and send me a postcard from Heaven, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it there worshipping the ‘king’ for eternity. (seems like hell to me…lol)

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Sorry you wrote all that stuff out, but I have no intention
            of reading it — it only took 2 of your paragraphs to tell you are pretty hopeless case of someone who’s lied to himself for so long you lack the ability to discern fact from fiction.”

            No need for any apologies, Bob. I am not sorry that I wrote “all that stuff” because I am confident that there are possibly some who will read it and readily see that it only took you two paragraphs to notice that you were hopelessly incapable of answering the arguments that had been presented and
            were therefore incapable of helping us to “discern fact from fiction” by giving us some “facts” or evidence to support your mere assertions such as the one you make when you assert that I have “lied” to myself “for so long” without being
            able to prove it.

            Of course this happens to those who try to argue against God’s
            word. I have not met one yet that has not failed miserably in such fruitless efforts.

            Then you say:

            “Of course this happens to ALL strict fundamentalists along
            with the inability to empathize with others or hear other points of view, which you clearly disdain.”

            I cannot imagine that you even know what a “strict fundamentalist” is but I do not claim to be one. I am a Christian, however, and I believe that I have very patiently heard your point of view in our discussion without indicating any ind of undue “didain” and I do sincerely hope I was respectful to you throughout our discussion for that was definitely my intent.

            Then you say:

            “Have a good life, and be sure and send me a postcard from
            Heaven, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it there worshipping the ‘king’ for eternity. (seems like hell to me…lol)”

            Thank you for your good wishes, Bob. I am having a very God life serving the Lord Jesus Christ, the “king of Kings and Lord of Lords” who is forever worthy of the worship of all men. In fact the time is coming when, “every knee shall bow and every tongue” confesses that “Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.” Philippians 2:10,11. I sincerely hope that you will yield to Christ and enjoy the peace, joy and immense happiness all Christians share now and forevermore. I do hope that you will learn more ablut what Hell really is because eternity in heave with Christ the Lord is not the least bit like “hell”, believe me!

            I like you, Bob, and I sincerely hope that I will not have
            to “send you a post card from heaven” but that I will only have to cross one of those “golden streets” to greet you and say, Bob, I told you heaven was real, didn’t I! (LOL).

          • Bob Judd

            Both outcomes sound Hellish to me, and you may bas well save your threats of fire and brimstone because I’ve heard must about ALL of these myths/stories/threats, I’ve also spoken with Christians who believe in neither Heaven, nor Hell. You see, there are as many types of Christians as there are many types of people, none of them are the same in their core beliefs, which shows the failure of Christianity to even get them to believe in the same thing. This has always been the case which is why christians are in direct conflict with catholic christians, why christians who celebrate the Sabbath are at war with Christians who believe the bible shouldn’t be taken literally. Chrisitians feel no fellowship towards previous Jewish christians, or previous Mormons (who still marry more than one wife, yet I still see no Christians protesting these marriages…)The list goes on and on and is a perfect reminder of why I don’t have to even get in to their arguments because this chaos caused by all the inaccuracies, all the contradicting within the Bible gives my position more rationale. Which is why what I’m saying is true. So, I LOVE IT, when one christian groups fights among others because it helps me illustrate just how out of touch with REALITY most Christians are. And the ones who aren’t out of touch with reality are sitting happily in psychiatric hospitals where they can start to be reprogrammed.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Both outcomes sound Hellish to me, and you may bas well
            save your threats of fire and brimstone because I’ve heard must about ALL of these myths/stories/threats, I’ve also spoken with Christians who believe in neither Heaven, nor Hell.”

            When a person warns another of impending danger, Bob, he is
            not “threatening” the person or persons he is warning. My warning to you concerning hell is simply because I am convinced from the teaching of God’s word that there is a place
            called hell and I would not want my friend Bob to go there and therefore, instead of “threatening” him I simply urged him to learn more about it so as to warn him to avoid it. Yes, there are a few Christians that are misinformed about the teaching of the Bible on various subjects but that is no argument that their confusion is correct. In fact, those Christians share one thing in
            common with you on that subject. They are simply wrong. As to the Biblical teaching concerning hell one merely need read
            these few verses from the word of God to see that those who believe what the Bible teaches about hell accept it as a real place of punishment for the wicked.

            “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt
            be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.” Matthew 11:23

            “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
            damnation of hell?” Matthew 11:33

            “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them
            down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
            And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; And
            delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out
            of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:” 2 Peter 2:4-9.

            So, the Bible speaks quite plainly of a place where the
            wicked shall be punished. And it speaks of that it as being an actual place. And the punishment of the wicked there is just as certain as was the severe punishment of the wicked in places like Sodom and Gomorrah and so is the pace designated for that punishment to occur. These and many other passages are quite clear from the Bible on the reality of Hell. And just because some Christians are “confused” about that
            subject does not change the facts concerning it. Yes, there are some Christians who claim to not believe in hell but they are not following in Jesus Christ in that belief because he definitely believed it was real and warned us to avoid it through the forgiveness of our sins.

            Then you say:

            “You see, there are as many types of Christians as there are many types of people, none of them are the same in their core beliefs, which shows the failure of Christianity to even get them to believe in the same thing.”

            Unfortunately, it is difficult to make others understand
            that the “differences” among Christians are caused by the fact that they are just as human and prone to error after becoming Christians as they were before. Atheist, agnostics, and Gnostics are just as divided among themselves on various issues as are Christians in their beliefs, if not more so, for the same reason. But among Christians there is complete agreement upon the one single core belief that is essential to being a Christian in the first place. They believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God. Matthew 16:16. Anyone
            who does not believe this is not a Christian. I do greatly regret the fact that many Christians allow their differences concerning their human opinions on various subjects to prevent them from fellowshipping one another. I believe that is a great error and I strive to teach otherwise as I have the opportunity to do so. I fellowship all who believe that Jesus is the Christ the son of God regardless of the differences that we have with one
            another on mere matters of opinion.

            Then you say:

            “This has always been the case which is why Christians are in
            direct conflict with catholic Christians, why Christians who celebrate the Sabbath are at war with Christians who believe the bible shouldn’t be taken literally.”

            This has always been the case with humanity in general. Few
            people hold to the exact same opinions on every issue. But Christians are united in their belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God because that is the very essence of what Christians are. They are people who have accepted that as a fact. Anyone who does not believe that fact cannot be honestly called a Christian. So, you are not correct in claiming that Christians are not united in their “core beliefs”.

            Then you say:

            “Christians feel no fellowship towards previous Jewish Christians, or previous Mormons (who still marry more t han one wife, yet I still see no Christians protesting these marriages…)The list goes on and on”

            People who do not agree with one another can fellowship one
            another until there is a requirement that they support sinful practices. For example, I am a Christian that has no problem
            whatsoever fellowshipping what you call “Jewish Christians” and I do not really know of many Christians who would object to fellowshipping another Christian just because he happens to be Jewish. For we are told in the Bible:

            “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
            For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:26-29.

            Yes, we do condemn polygamy even though we do not do it via
            “protesting in the streets” and I am one that condemns homosexuality though I will not be “protesting in the street” because I do not believe that Christians should be out protesting in this way. But when the subject comes up for discussion I stand against it.

            The Christianity that I defend, Bob is that which is taught and described in the pages of the New Testament. I do not defend any other expression of it. If you want to condemn Christianity to me you have to condemn that which is taught in the Bible rather than that which is practiced by some weak Christians who are ignorant of its teachings. That there are those in the world who claim to be Christians that do not follow the teachings of God’s word is a fact that grieves me as much if not more than it does you, Bob. But Christianity as it is described in the pages of the New Testament cannot be
            condemned by any intelligent person. This may explain why you have avoided all of my arguments from the Bible because you just cannot “swim in those deep waters” now can you, Bob?

            Then you say:

            “ and is a perfect reminder of why I don’t have to even get
            in to their arguments because this chaos caused by all the inaccuracies, all the contradicting within the Bible gives my position more rationale Which is why what I’m saying is true. ”

            What you are saying is not true Bob, and it is proven by the
            simple fact that you are afraid to “get into their arguments” as you have demonstrated by your complete inability to answer even my arguments that I presented proving that homosexuality is in the Bible and it is condemned by the Bible. When you saw that you could not answer those arguments you decided to “not get into it” but you had already “gotten into it” and when you were given an answer you ran away. Now you want to come back and try again without answering the arguments wherein we proved that you were wrong about that subject. Now you want to avoid all of our Biblical arguments while simultaneously condemning the Bible based upon your complete ignorance of its teachings. It does not work that way Bob.

            Now, your contention that the Bible is a “curse” is the part
            you have failed miserably to prove, Bob. You have not yet been able to show any real inaccuracies in the Bible or genuine contradictions and you completely surrendered your position on the subject of its condemnation of homosexuality because you just could not answer the arguments that we had presented on that subject. You claimed that you had even refused to read my last response to you on that subject… And now you want to try to get us to defend the many “forms” of Christianity caused as much by the ignorance of God’s word as your assertions concerning the Bible is caused by a similar ignorance. I do
            not defend any perversions of Christianity.

            I defend the pure stream found in the pages of the New Testament. If you want to argue that the teachings of Christ
            are wrong or if you want to condemn Jesus Christ or his teachings give it your best effort Bob. But you will have to do
            a lot better that you have thus far. So far all you have been able to do is to insult Christians and support your insults by attacking their weakness which is that many of them are not
            understanding and following the teaching of Christ as they should. But you are completely incapable of showing
            that the Christianity described in the New Testament is flawed in any way whatsoever.

            Yes, we do condemn polygamy even though we do not do it via “protesting in the streets” and I am one that condemns homosexuality though I will not be “protesting in the street” because I do not believe that Christians should be out
            protesting in this way. But when the subject comes up for discussion I stand against it.

            Then you tell us:

            “So, I LOVE IT, when one christian groups fights among
            others because it helps me illustrate just how out of touch with REALITY most Christians are.”

            I have no doubt whatsoever that you “love it” when one Christian group fights among others. But it is not because it actually helps you truly demonstrate that anything is wrong with
            genuine Christianity as it is found in the Bible but rather you mistakenly think that it helps you distract our readers from the fact that you have failed miserably to show that anything is actually wrong with Christianity. For you see, just because some weak Christians often have failings and shortcomings in following Christ is not proof that anything is wrong with actually following Him in his teachings. You cannot show anything whatsoever that Christ taught that was wrong, or harmful to anyone in any way. And you have still failed to prove that the
            Bible is a “curse. You see, in order to condemn Christianity the only thing you are capable of attempting is to find
            some weak Christians and condemn them for failing to actually practice their religion. But you are entirely incapable of proving
            that the actual practice of those Christian Principles taught in the Bible is in any way whatsoever a “curse” of condemnable by any standard known to man. You really need someone to help you out in this discussion Bob. You are floundering miserably.

            Then you say this:

            “And the ones who aren’t out of touch with reality are
            sitting happily in psychiatric hospitals where they can start to be
            reprogrammed.”

            You could not prove this assertion to be true if your life depended upon it, Bob! Ha! You have failed to show that the teachings of Christ are out of touch with reality and hence you have failed to prove that those who follow the teachings of Christ are in psychiatric hospitals because of following the
            teachings of Christ. Mental illness, Bob, is a tragic result of various factors both physical and emotional and every group including atheist, agnostics and even a few “Gnostics” have their share of folks who have suffered mental illness. But you cannot prove that following the teachings of Christ causes mental illness. Your implication that people who are Christians are “crazy” is simply just another assertion that you cannot prove that was designed for no better purpose than to insult those who are Christians. What you need in this discussion between us, Bob, is facts, not fiction. What you need is integrity not ingenious insults. Any fool can insult others but only
            the intelligent can carry on a reasonable dialog about differences between them. I still believe that you are
            capable of such dialog, Bob. But so far you have failed to actually do nothing more than insult Christians. You have a lot of work to do if your purpose is to demonstrate that Christianity and the Bible are a “curse” to mankind. And I am certain that you would like to send all Christians somewhere to be “reprogramed” even though you have no earthly idea what you would “program” them to be. In fact, you seem to be fearful of telling us just what your alternative to real New Testament Christianity might be. You cannot even offer a “standard of Morality” that you would recommend that we follow.

          • Bob Judd

            You forget yet again, that Hell, like everything else in the Bible is a MAN-MADE invention. So, when Christians can establish that the Bible is ‘god’s word’, which they haven’t since it contains work by so many authors and even given 2000 years to prove it. You telling me that I’m going to Hell is like a child saying I’m the tooth fairy. Because there is just as much provable data to suggest there’s a God as there is data to suggest there is Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
            So, how do you think someone who’s brain isn’t clouded with the delusions that yours is, is going to react to such a nonsensical subject. Again, you may have fellow believers who are convinced of that hogwash, but not me.
            So you can threaten anyone you like until your face turns blue and it won’t make Heaven any more real than Santa’s Toy Factory at the North Pole. Heaven and Hell are places created from HUMAN minds designed to force you to behave a certain way under the fear of God. Furthermore, I believe that anyone who worships a God they have to fear is someone who’s fallen prey to human delusions. And while it is not clinically defined as a mental illness, believing in things you know are not true (defined as faith) to me is the ultimate in stupidity.
            So, how can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who can’t discern fact from fiction. The answer is that I can’t, which is why our little chat time has come to an end.
            As far as a standard of morality, I could suggest obeying the Law which should keep you out of trouble. Follow the Law, don’t lie or steal or harm any living thing in any way and you’ll be just fine. Doesn’t take a genius to establish a standard of morality for themselves. That is, unless you’re such an amoral person that needs to have these morals hammered in to you or written out in long form because you forget what is good and bad. That may be true for you, but MY morals are deep within my heart in the same place that love, equality and honesty are, so I am not in need of the ‘hard copy’.
            There is virtually nothing you’ve said in your statement that is a FACT, so you may as well divorce yourself from speaking of fact and fiction since you appear unable to discern the two.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob You said:

            “You forget yet again, that Hell, like everything else in the Bible is a MAN-MADE invention. So, when Christians can establish that the Bible is ‘god’s word’, which they haven’t since it contains work by so many authors and even given 2000 years to prove it.

            I have not “forgotten” ever that you are ignorant enough to believe that “hell is a man-made invention” I am very much aware that you have asserted that several times without even attempting to prove that it is true. It is not sufficient for you to simple assert such nonsense, Bob. If you expect anyone
            with intelligence to believe you it is essential that you give sufficient evidence to support your assertions. So far, Bob,
            you have given no evidence that proves that Hell is a man-made invention. The Bible has long since been proven to be the very word of God and you simply have not given us any good reason to believe otherwise. Your only argument is that it cannot be inspired of God because it “contains work by so many authors”. How does that prove that it is not God’s word? Each of those men were inspired of God to say things that they could not have known without his guidance which has long ago proven that it is from God.

            Then you say:

            “You telling me that I’m going to Hell is like a child saying I’m the tooth fairy. Because there is just as much provable data to suggest there’s a God as there is data to suggest there is Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.”

            Bob, you are the first one that mentioned heaven and hell in this discussion in your first attempt to disengage from the Discussion because you were having a very hard time
            answering our well established arguments against your position. I also pointed out that I did not “threaten
            you” with hell as you falsely claim. I warned you that it was real. I am not the one who controls heaven and hell but God is and he is offering you mercy and forgiveness. And the evidence for
            the existence of God is so overwhelming that no man on earth, least of all you, is capable of proving that God does not exist.

            Then you say:

            So, how do you think someone who’s brain isn’t clouded with the delusions that yours is, is going to react to such a nonsensical subject. Again, you may have fellow believers who
            are convinced of that hogwash, but not me.”

            Well, Bob, you first must prove that my” brain is clouded with delusions” and so far you have failed miserably to do so. Second you must
            establish that the subject that you preferred to discuss in this forum is “nonsensical”. Again you have failed miserably to do even that much. And you certainly have not established that belief in God is “hogwash”. And the majority of human beings on this earth believes in God and considers men like you to be a fool for not believing in Him. So, yes, on the matter of the existence of God I happen to be in agreement with the vast
            majority of humanity, especially the educated members of humanity, throughout all of human history who have believe it.
            You on the other hand are among the very few that just do not get it. And when it comes to America approximately 85% of the population claims to believe not only in God but in Jesus Christ. While you may have a few fellow atheist that are convinced without any evidence that God does not exist, The majority of us in this country do not accept that “hogwash”.

            “So you can threaten anyone you like until your face turns blue and it won’t m ake Heaven any more real than Santa’s Toy Factory at the North Pole. Heaven and Hell are places created from HUMAN minds designed to force you to behave a
            certain way under the fear of God.”

            Do not be so “frightened” Bob, I have no authority to “threaten you” in fact; I have not threaten you in any way. And no one in this discussion has sought to “force you” to save yourself from the dangers that await the wicked least of all me.

            And you can assert that “heaven and hell are created from human minds to force you to believe a certain way under the fear of God” all that you want but no intelligent person should be expected to believe you until you are capable of proving that such an absurd assertion is true.

            Then you say:

            “ Furthermore, I believe that anyone who worships a God they have to fear is someone who’s fallen prey to human delusions.”

            I do not know who you think you are arguing with Bob, but I have not said that anyone has to “fear God” and the truth is that us Christians serve and worship God because he loved us
            and sent his son to die for us to save us from our sins and the punishment he is bringing upon the wicked. But I must
            ask you, Bob, if everyone worshipped God without feeling that they “have to fear him” would you still believe they had fallen as “prey to human delusions”. And what proof do you have
            that would cause an intelligent person to believe that worshipping God is in fact falling prey to human delusions.
            That is just another of your absurd assertions. Where is your proof of it, Bob? You see you believe many things that you
            cannot prove to be true, don’t you?

            Then you say:

            “And while it is not clinically defined as a mental illness, believing in things you know are not true (defined as faith) to me is the ultimate in stupidity.”

            Bob are you completely incapable of seeing that you have failed miserably to prove that Christians “believe in things that they know are not true”. We actually believe in God and our Lord Jesus Christ because we know for fact that it is all very true. Now you come back in here, if you think you can and PROVE that Christians know that their beliefs are not true. Where is
            your evidence, Bob that proves that Christians believe anything that they know is not true? Bob, it seems that you are
            proving yourself to actually be the one who is delusional here. You have deluded yourself into believing that Christians know that their beliefs are not true. Where is the evidence of such
            nonsense?

            Then you complain:

            “So, how can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who can’t discern fact from fiction.”

            You are deluding yourself again, Bob. You have failed miserably to prove that I am incapable of discerning “fact from fiction”. It seems to me, Bob that you would not recognize a fact if you saw one, especially if that fact did not harmonize with
            your preconceived notions. And, if you want to have an “intelligent conversation, Bob you must display some capacity
            for intelligence. But merely insulting Christians is not a display of intelligence, Bob. Any fool can do that but to offer arguments
            that support your point of view takes some effort Bob that you must expend if you really want to have an “intelligent conversation”. A good step toward having that intelligent conversation would be to try and respond to the arguments you have been ignoring and see if you can answer them. So far you are a miserable failure on that score. All you have shown yourself capable of doing is insulting Christians, but you definitely cannot answer them, can you?

            Then you say:

            “The answer is that I can’t, which is why our little chat time has come to an end.”

            Bob, this is now the third time you have tried to disengage
            from our “little chat time” because you are very much aware that you have failed to answer our questions and arguments that we have put to you in this discussion. But you keep coming back to continue the conversation that you say you have “ended”. Make up your mind, Bob. Do you really want to discuss these things or are you simply incapable of emotionally handling the stress of doing it?

            Then you say:

            “As far as a standard of morality, I could suggest obeying the Law which should keep you out of trouble. Follow the Law, don’t lie or steal or harm any living thing in anyway and you’ll be just fine. Doesn’t take a genius to establish a standard of Morality for themselves. That is, unless you’re such an amoral person that needs to have th em written out in long form because you forget what is good and bad. That may be true for you, but MY morals are deep within my heart in the same place that love, equality and honesty are, so I am not in need of such
            a standard.”

            You have not proven, Bob, that those “morals” that are “deep in your heart” originated within YOU. In fact, Bob, I doubt very
            seriously if you could show anyone where those morals were first established. In fact, I do not even think that you can show that these morals that are so deep in your heart would even be there without the influence of God and the Bible on humanity before you were even born. No one familiar with our
            laws will deny that the Bible has had a tremendous influence upon western civilization culminating in a morality that has overwhelmingly influenced our laws, and thereby our lives, including yours, Bob.. In fact you cannot demonstrate
            that those who deny the existence of God have ever significantly influenced the morals reflected in our laws. It does
            seem a bit ironic that it is very possible that the very morality that exist “deep in your heart” actually came from the very Bible that you so much despise! Ha!

            Yes Bob, you have “such a standard” whether you believe you “need” it or not and you cannot prove that standard that is deep in your heart originated there. You do not even know where your very concept of morality came from, Bob. And Bob, you
            cannot prove that it “does not take a Genius” to “establish a standard of Morality” for ourselves. You cannot prove that anyone has ever been able to “establish a standard of morality for themselves” it might well take a genius to do it. And that is how I am convinced you have not done so because neither you nor I can be considered geniuses.

            Then you say:

            “There is virtually nothing you’ve said in your statement that is a FACT, so you may as well divorce yourself from speaking of fact and fiction since you appear unable to discern the two.”

            Bob, I have presented you with several facts but I will simply remind you of two facts that I have proven to be facts beyond a reasonable doubt that you have managed to completely ignore hoping that they will just go away and leave you alone. I have proven that the Bible mentions the word “Homosexuality” and that it condemns homosexuality” and I proved it from your own version of the scriptures that you quoted from yourself. Those are two facts and we are waiting for you to prove either of them to be “fiction”. And your failure to respond to those arguments is evidence that you just might be the one in this discussion
            that cannot discern “fact from fiction”. You are just simply afraid to address those two facts, aren’t you? It at least seems that way because you have ignored it for a long time now, Bob. The truth is that everything I have said thus far is factual and so far you have failed to prove otherwise, haven’t you?

          • Bob Judd

            Ok — well let’s see some proof then Lee. PROVE to me that Hell exists. And quoting the Bible isn’t going to do it. I need a video or photographic evidence, or a hole or crack somewhere that eyewitnesses have seen Satan hanging around. Or, where you can hear the cries of the suffering and forever scalded.
            The reason there are no reports of anything even remotely like that is because HELL does not exist!! The first place Hell was mentioned was the BIBLE and there’s not a SHRED of evidence to suggest it is anything more than metaphor or legend, so asking me to prove that Hell doesn’t exist is laughable because the BURDEN IS ON YOU to first prove it, which you cannot and neither have any other Christian in the past 2000+ years.
            I’m not sure in your mental state that I could even convince you that the Bible was written by men, because you most likely believe God crapped it out on top of some mountain or something miraculous, but the FACT is that the Bible is a collection of writings that were ALL written by MEN. So, if MEN wrote it, then everything within it was CREATED by men’s imaginations.
            So, I’m not even going to read any paragraph after that, because your problem is starting to sound like severe mental disease and is something that you would need to seek direct medical attention for. You have WAY too many mental issues for me to solve and one thing I’ve learned over the years is to avoid insane people at all costs because they only make you as crazy as they are. So, I will refer you to a professional because I am certain that you are a TERMINAL FOOL!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Ok — well let’s see some proof then Lee. PROVE to me that
            Hell exists. And quoting the Bible isn’t going to do it.”

            Bob, I have already, more than once proven that hell exist
            and I did it using the Bible and until you are successful at discrediting the testimony from the Bible my argument stands.
            So far you have failed miserably in your feeble efforts to discredit or prove that the Bible is wrong about anything. In fact, all you have accomplished is to convince me that the reason you do not accept the teaching of the Bible is because you are so ignorant of its contents. So, the Bible definitely proves that hell exists and your original argument with me about hell was to contend that there are Christians that do not believe in it because the Bible did not teach it. It seems that you have given up that position and you readily admit that I was right in claiming that the Bible does teach that hell exist and now you want to say that the Bible is not sufficient proof. I contend that it is simply because the Bible has never been found wrong on any of the things that it teaches. And you have tried but failed
            to discredit its statements in any place. You would like for me to give up on making arguments from the Bible but those arguments are solid and you have not made a dent in any of them so why would I abandon that which is working so well?
            No, Bob, when you are debating with someone you do not get to decide what evidence the other side will present and what source they will use. Your job is to refute whatever evidence they do offer from whatever source. So far all you have done is ignore all of the arguments and return to make another series of assertions that you cannot prove to be true. And, if you will notice, I have address every single word you have said and have not ignored any of it other than those few things I have not yet commented upon because of lack of time. But you have done the opposite and ignored the majority of my arguments because you cannot answer them.

            Then you say:

            “I need a video or photographic evidence, or a hole or crack
            somewhere that eyewitnesses have seen Satan hanging around. Or, where you can hear the cries of the suffering and forever scalded. The reason there are no reports of anything even remotely like that is because HELL does not exist!!”

            Well, Bob that is exactly what the Bible is. It is the testimony of witnesses that have actually seen hell. The major witness is
            without reproach, his name is Jesus. Bob, I asserted that hell does exist and I gave evidence from the Book called the Bible wherein Jesus, the Christ, stated plainly that hell exist and he is a witness of the highest integrity among the people of this world. But now you are asserting that hell does not exist. And
            you seem to believe your assertion Bob. Remember he who asserts must bear the burden of proof. So, prove to us Bob that hell does not exist. You cannot do it can you, Bob?

            Then you say:

            “The first place Hell was mentioned was the BIBLE and there’s not a SHRED of evidence to suggest it is anything more than metaphor or legend, so asking me to prove that Hell doesn’t exist is laughable because the BURDEN IS ON YOU to first prove it, which you cannot and neither have any other
            Christian in the past 2000+ years.”

            You are right Bob, when I asserted that hell exist the
            burden of proof rested with me and I gave proof from the testimony of Christ in the Bible which you have yet even attempted to refute. And I have not once asked you to prove that it did not exist because the burden of proof was upon me and I carried my burden quite well and you have yet to even examine my argument from those passages. In fact, Christians have successfully argued from the Bible, which is the very word of God, for more than 2000 years and the
            reason folks like you are in the minority on that subject is simply because the arguments based upon the testimony of Christ is indeed sufficient proof of the existence of hell.

            But now that you have boldly asserted that “hell does not
            exist” the burden of proof shifts to you to support that negation while I continue to maintain my burden to prove that it does exist. You do not get a “pass” in this discussion, Bob. If you assert something you are expected to at least attempt to prove it. I have done that with my burden of proof even though you do not like my evidence that I presented but at least I present it. You see I give you arguments that hell exist and you simply respond by asserting that it does not exist instead of actually taking the time to examine the evidence I presented and then offering evidence to support your assertion. And when you make such negation it only works if you can prove that either my arguments are faulty or your negation can be proven. And if you take the latter course of action then you must prove your assertion that “hell does not exist” to be true. And the reason you cannot ever do it is simply because it is impossible to affirm a negative. You can use the negative to refute my
            affirmations but only if you prove that your negation is factual in some way. So far you have failed to do that, haven’t you?

            Then you again question my “mental state” because it is far easier for you to attack me personally when you cannot successfully address my arguments as follows:

            “I’m not sure in your mental state that I could even convince you that the Bible was written by men, because you most likely believe God crapped it out on top of some mountain or something miraculous, but the FACT is that the Bible is a collection of writings that were ALL written by
            MEN. So, if MEN wrote it, then everything within it was CREATED by men’s imaginations.”

            Well, Bob, there are two positive assertions in your above
            statement. One is that there is some problem with my mental state that prevents you from even examining my arguments
            and convincing me that I am wrong. And two, that it is a “fact” that the Bible is a collection of writings written by men using nothing more than their human imaginations. You are affirming those to positions and therefore you bear the burden of proof to establish that they are true. So far you have given no evidence that either of those positions is true. I believe that the Bible was written by men who were inspired of God to write what he led
            them to write and that they even on occasion wrote the truth about things that no human being could have known or even imagined and I stand prepared to prove my position. But you have asserted that the Bible was written by men using only their imaginations and therefore I am expecting you to try and prove it. The burden of proof is on your shoulders to
            prove your affirmations on that Bob. But you have shown a complete inability to even attempt to prove anything you have said thus far.

            Then you say:

            “So, I’m not even going to read any paragraph after that,
            because your problem is starting to sound like severe mental disease and is something that you would need to seek direct medical attention for. You have WAY too many mental issues for me to solve and one thing I’ve learned over the years is to avoid insane people at all costs because they only make you as
            crazy as they are. So, I will refer you to a professional because I am certain that you are a TERMINAL FOOL!”

            It is indeed incredible that you cannot even address my
            arguments and because of it you must excuse yourself for the failure by pretending that I need some kind of “medical attention” when you appear to know practically little about the medical profession. I am sure that it comforts you in some way to call me a “terminal fool” and it helps you to feel better about
            failing to even attempt to address my clearly presented arguments. Since I am not making these arguments to make
            you feel uneasy or angry or in any other way embarrassed I am happy that you have a means of “saving face” but I do not see any good reason from our discussion for you to act as if there is any clear evidence that I have some kind of mental defect. Ha! It seems to me that you simply have a deficiency in answering arguments that makes you feel the need to insult others. You might want to take yourself to see a “professional” about that problem. But, I like you Bob and that is why I try to
            respond to you as I have time to do it. I do not have much hope that you will be convinced by the facts as they have been presented to you simply because you have avoided facing them squarely and dealing with them. But, arguments from the Bible on any subject are valid and they are as much evidence as any
            other kind of testimony presented in any court in the land. So, I have argued that hell exist because the Bible says it exist and I have proven that the Bible does in fact say that it exist and now it is up to you to refute that evidence and show that it is wrong.
            So, let us hear your refutations and do try to remember that an “insult” is not a refutation of anything rather it is conclusive evidence of a complete lack of means to refute a position. But, be careful, Bob, if you happen to be right about my being such a “terminal fool” then you must avoid me at all cost according to your words for fear that you might become as “crazy” as you
            pretend that I am. All of that sounds like and excuse you will give yourself when you finally give up on this debate between us concerning the word of God.

          • Bob Judd

            Wrong you FOOL! I don’t have to disprove something that doesn’t exist (in this case God) because there is no proof at all that said entity exists in the first place, so if you are going to suggest that the Bible is the word of god, it’s YOUR BURDEN to prove it. And in 2000 years, it is still a point up for debate — EVEN among theologians and biblical scholars. I’ve listened to biblical scholars even admit that the first readers of the bible KNEW it was mythological stories and no historical fact, yet Christians today blindly accept it with ZERO proof and ZERO evidence. The only thing convincing you that the Bible is the ‘inspired word of God’ is the authors of the Bible’s words. Do you think that they hadn’t invented LYING in those days? Just how naive are you? Do you realize the number of preachers today who say to trust them because they know the ‘ultimate truth’?? Don’t you see what a sham it is? So, you continue to quote the Bible with no evidence and it only makes you look more and more foolish, like saying it over and over is suddenly going to make it true.

            Let’s say that I say: “it was the Divine Arachnid who created man as a joke. I read it in an ancient Pagan book found around the Dead Sea that says this is the truth and inspired by the Divine Arachnid.” — Would you believe me? Is it a fact just a fact because I found it in an old book? What if I found 2 books that conflicted? Would they both be the ‘ultimate truth’? Do you see how it can look to an outsider, that you just hold a particular belief, like the other 2/3’s of the planet who happen to believe in Allah, or Buddha or Krishna? What makes yours right and their’s wrong? Do you see how it starts to look like they’re all full of just a little crap?

            Those are the questions you may want to search yourself to answer and then you can BEGIN to prove Biblical verse is the ‘inspired word of God’.

            Can’t wait for your reply! Should be fun! ;->)

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said

            “Wrong you FOOL! I don’t have to disprove something that
            doesn’t exist (in this case God) because there is no proof at all that said entity exists in the first place, so if you are going to suggest that the Bible is the word of god, it’s YOUR BURDEN to prove it.”

            Bob, you really need to pay attention and stay on one
            subject at a time instead of running away every time you are expected to prove something. No one, least of all me, has
            asked you to “disprove that something does not exist”. We were not talking about the existence of God in our last response, Bob. We were talking about the existence of Hell. The proof that God exist is practically axiomatic. IN fact it is overwhelming. And there is proof that hell exist also. Both propositions I can and am willing to affirm. But for now we have been talking about the existence of hell and you just cannot seem to bring yourself to respond to my actual arguments about it, can you?

            I had given the testimony of Jesus Christ to the existence of
            hell and your simply responded by saying hell did not exist. Since you chose to make an assertion instead
            of refuting my argument I asked you to give evidence that your assertion was true.I know you cannot prove a negative, Bob. No one can. And I do not expect you to prove that anything does not exist. But, if you are not going to be expected to prove it you should also not be allowed to affirm it either. If you cannot prove that something does not exist you also cannot affirm that it does not exist. You cannot have it both ways Bob. Concerning whether something exists or not you simply must listen to the evidence given by those who affirm its existence and
            refute that evidence if you can.

            I am the one that affirmed the existence of Hell and offered as evidence the testimony of Jesus Christ to the fact of its existence. That is a valid argument, Bob, and your esponsibility then would be to refute that evidence if you can. But instead all you did was come in here and affirm a negative, that hell does not exist, knowing full well that no one should expect you to be able to prove that something does not exist and you thought you were ‘safe” on that score. But then I asked you to prove your affirmation. IF your affirmation is one that cannot be proven and therefore one for which you cannot accept the burden of proof then it is an affirmation that you cannot make simply because you cannot be expected to prove something that is incapable of proof. So, your assertion that hell does not exist, by your own admission cannot be proven, now can it? But the existence of hell is a valid subject that can be proven with evidence and I have given the testimony of Jesus Christ
            to prove that Hell exist and now it is your responsibility to refute that point and I am still waiting for you to do that, Bob.
            We can take up the subject of the existence of God and inspiration of the Bible later if you like but for now how about responding to my arguments instead of merely ignoring them and getting overwhelmingly emotional and calling me names. If you must vent I have no objection but I want you to know that such outburst of emotion is not proof or refutation of anything. It is nothing more than a lot of sound and fury with no significance whatsoever.

            And I am more than willing to accept the burden of proof for
            all of my affirmations. And I will make sure that my affirmations are always those that are subject to being capable of proof. And I will expect you to accept the responsibility of refutation which you have thus far woefully neglected. When I make and argument Bob, I expect you address it instead of affirming things that you are unwilling to accept the burden of proving. When you attempt to refute my arguments Bob you are expected to support any assertion that you make in refutation with evidence that it is true. So far you have done nothing more than respond by asserting things that cannot be proven and refusing to accept the burden of proving them or by changing the subject. You do this because you are incapable of
            responding to the actual argument that was made. And I am not responsible for your inability to respond to my specific arguments.

          • Bob Judd

            Again Lee, merely SAYING that ‘Jesus Christ said there is a Hell’ doesn’t even BEGIN to prove it. To prove it — you would have to make or at least attempt to make contact with folks in Hell and if necessary begin an excavation project. The fact that no Christian has ever sought to prove their own nonsensical stories means that they KNOW they would fail, so why even attempt it. If you expect to prove the existence of Hell, you should be prepared to bring images of the place back and show them to the world. Because AGAIN just saying ‘It’s in the Bible’ doesn’t prove anything, which shows you have an unfathomable ignorance of the scientific method for uncovering TRUTH. You already have the theory: ‘Hell exists’ — now your opportunity is to PROVE it. So, reply to me when you’ve got a hi res image of Satan spearing someone with a pitch fork or demons frying men in molten lava. If you could produce this, I would gladly admit defeat and agree that you’ve proven it.
            So, once again Lee, here’s what you’ve ‘proven’ so far: You’ve proven that you’re incapable of discerning fact from fiction. And because something is written in the Bible does NOT make it true. Why is that so hard for you to fathom? Do you have a learning disability of some kind? You must because you seem satisfied with your epic failure of proof. So, again: MERELY SAYING it’s ‘in the bible’ doesn’t prove something. That would be like me saying that Nemo’s giant sea monsters are true because they were in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea’! Do you see now how ridiculous that sounds to someone with reasoning abilities and logic?
            It sounds PREPOSTEROUS.

          • Bob Judd

            Oh – and Lee, just to make it perfectly cohesive, my last reply to this thread was a REFUTATION of your answer with ZERO proof that ‘Hell exists because Jesus told me so’. Meaning, it’s in the Bible so it has to be true. That is NOT proof. I could suggest you take an elementary level science class and you may be able to understand how people prove things. My proof that Hell doesn’t exist rests in the FACT that Hell has NOT been seen and documented. Men have NEVER made any kind of excavation to discover it. No one has brought back even a handy pitchfork that’s been carbon-dated and peer-evaluated by scientists. No one has shot photographs, no one has been to Hell and back and reported their findings that has been proven. No man has seen Hell, just like no man has seen God — that is even in the Bible! So, while you pick your brain trying to prove Hell, keep in mind that the same conglomeration of evidence that disproves Hell that I’ve listed above is the SAME evidence that proves GOD doesn’t exist. Let’s see if you REALLY have proof! ;->)

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Oh – and Lee, just to make it perfectly cohesive, my last
            reply to this thread was a REFUTATION of your answer with ZERO proof that ‘Hell exists because Jesus told me so’. Meaning, it’s in the Bible so it has to be true. That is NOT proof.”

            I have referred to the Bible as a text that gives testimony
            of one who would have the ability to know if hell exists and he stated that it did exist. And your last response to me
            was actually nonresponsive to the evidence that I offered. Yes, documentation of any reliable source, including the Bible, of the existence of something is evidence of its existence, Bob. And until you are able to show that the documentation is in some way false you cannot blame anyone for accepting it as true.

            Then you say:

            “I could suggest you take an elementary level science class
            and you may be able to understand how people prove things.”

            I have had several of what you call “science classes” and I
            know quite well how to “prove things”. I also know that the scientific method is not the “only” way to prove things. You and I both believe in many things that the scientific method cannot prove to be true but we are certain of them.

            “My proof that Hell doesn’t exist rests in the FACT that Hell has NOT been seen and documented.”

            Now, Bob, I thought you said that you do not bear the burden
            of proving that something does not exist but now you come in here and pretend that you have roved it! Ha! Bob, it is impossible for one to prove that anything does not exist because no one can prove a negative and you know that Bob because no one is expected to bear the burden of
            proof of any negative of a positive proposition. But your first complain that you cannot be expected to bear such a burden of proof and then you proceed to bear it and when someone shows how you have failed to prove your position you run away
            saying “I do not have to prove that something does not exist”.

            Now, Bob, just because something has not been seen or
            documented does not mean that it does not exist. It only means that if it does exist you do not know about it. There have been
            planets that were never seen before and some believed they were there and others did not until they finally proved it and now we have pictures of them such as the discovery of the planet Neptune whose existence was predicted by Newtonian
            mechanics and later proved to actually be there. So, just because something has not been seen is not proof that it does NOT exist. It can be logically deduced long before it
            can be verified by observation. And I produced the testimony of Jesus Christ because I believe he has seen hell and reported it to us in the Bible.

            Well, Bob, I believe that the testimony of Jesus Christ who
            was the very son of God is sufficient documentation of the existence of hell because, if he was divine and was in fact the very son of God he would know if God had established a place called hell and he would have even seen it himself
            before he came to this earth and even witnessed people going to that place of torment. Now, I know that you and I have
            not even begun to discuss the divinity of Christ because I have simply been following your rambling insults of Christians.
            But if one accepts that Christ was “God with us” then his testimony concerning hell, since he would be the one who not only established the place but saw it and observed it in operation.And the testimony of such a person would represent a genuine documentation of its existence, wouldn’t it?
            Now, I am aware that we would have to establish that Christ was indeed the son of God before anyone could accept the truth concerning it. But, you and I have been discussing things
            out of the logical order or progression in which they should be discussed because from the beginning of our little debate here I have been responding to your rambling way of casting insults at Christians. But, if you would like to discuss these things in their proper order just let me know.

            Then you say:

            “No one has shot photographs, no one has been to Hell and
            back and reported their findings that has been proven. No man has seen Hell, just like no man has seen God — that is even in the Bible!”

            Again your ignorance of the Bible is demonstrated with this
            comment, Bob. Christ claimed to have actually seen hell and documented the suffering of one who had been there. And
            it is true that no man has seen God but the son of God has declared him. Jesus told a man named Philip who had asked
            Christ to shew God, the father, to him this:

            “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
            and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” John 14:9

            “No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
            which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John 1:18

            Jesus testified that hell was a real place and that it is a place of punishment and flames as follows:

            “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple
            and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have
            mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of
            his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed:
            so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of
            torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:19-31 KJV

            Then you say:

            “So, while you pick your brain trying to prove Hell, keep in
            mind that the same conglomeration of evidence that disproves Hell that I’ve listed above is the SAME evidence that proves GOD doesn’t exist. Let’s see if you REALLY have proof! ;->)”

            Well, Bob, the evidence for the existence of Hell should begin
            with a discussion on the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible, the divinity of Christ and then one could be more prepared to accept or reject the evidence. And this is not a discussion that could be finished in a few paragraphs on an internet site. I have shown quite well that if one believes
            in the existence of God and the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of the Bible then the evidence for the existence of hell is overwhelming. But if one does not believe in God, the
            inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Christ he would not believe in hell or practically anything else that the Bible says. But Christians do believe these things and when you come to an internet site and insult them as if they have not really thought
            about these things and that they have not been convinced of them in some logical way and all they can do is respond piecemeal to your insults you are not really demonstrating that they are wrong but that you are unwilling to actually begin to discuss the matter in a logical sequence wherein each belief
            is built upon established facts in progression. You see, Bob, If one first is convinced that God exist and then is convinced that God actually entered the world in the Body of Jesus Christ and
            thereby demonstrated with his miracles the crowning one of which is his own resurrection from the dead that he is God and that same Jesus Christ declares that there is a hell it makes perfect sense that Christians have a good reason to believe in hell. But you and I have not had the opportunity to discuss these things in such a logical progression, Bob. And this makes it easier for you to insult us but it does not prove that hell does not exist and it does not justify insulting Christians as if they have no education or the ability to reason or that they are worthy of the many names you have cast upon them. So far Bob that is practically all you have been able to do.

          • Bob Judd

            Sorry Lee, but I learned a very long time ago that offering sympathy to the mentally ill is a BOTTOMLESS PIT and they tend to make you as crazy as they were. This is the reason I’m no longer reading your posts because I find your answers so unsatisfactory and irrational that it’s really starting to bore me. So I’m sorry, but I only read the first 2 sentences and couldn’t really read more. I hope you’re not insulted.

            Have a nice life

          • Bob Judd

            Further Lee, if you knew anything about our legal system in the good old USA you would know that NO TESTIMONY can be taken without cross-examination. So, if you’re willing to suddenly produce Jesus Christ, I’d be happy to cross-examine him to prove to you that Hell doesn’t exist. So, until you can either produce Jesus, or the authors of the Bible (who were men, btw) you won’t be even CLOSE to proving a thing in the Bible. I’m sorry, but that’s just the way it goes. Besides, if rational society accepts you insistence that the Bible is true, why would we not then accept every other text that claims it is true? Do you see where you dilemma is? If I suddenly said that the Bible is true just because it says it is, then I would also have to believe what the Koran and Torah say because they also claim to be truthful — can you see the dilemma here Lee?
            So, I’d be happy to cross-examine Jesus Christ any time you can produce him. If he’d like my email address, I’d be happy to give it to him. (do you hear how ridiculous that sounds)? BTW: I’m sure that knowing Jesus, you’d know how to contact him, right? So, let him know that I’m willing to test his truthful testimony with some cross-examination. In fact, I would LOVE this opportunity because I’m willing to be fair.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “Further Lee, if you knew anything about our legal system in
            the good old USA you would know that NO TESTIMONY can be taken without cross-examination. So, if you’re willing to suddenly produce Jesus Christ, I’d be happy to cross-examine him to prove to you that Hell doesn’t exist.”

            You are right, Bob, that “no testimony can be taken without
            cross examination” in our legal system. But this is true only during the trial, Bob. Once the trial is finished and the testimony
            has been given and the judgment or decision has been made anyone disagreeing with the outcome of the trial will have to refer to the “transcripts” of the trial and examine the testimony to prove that the results of the trial was incorrect. No one is allowed to call the witness back after the trial is over and cross examine them even in our legal system.

            Well, Bob, the trial was held a long time ago concerning the
            truthfulness of the Bible and its inspiration of God. It was a trial that culminated with the very testimony of Christ Jesus and his testimony concerning hell is recorded for all to review if they do not agree with the outcome of the trial. The outcome of this trial, by the way Bob, resulted in the establishment of Christianity so much so that even today, Bob, folks like you who do not accept the outcome of the trial are in the vast minority in the world. And the testimony of Jesus Christ was recorded. Therefore I have referred you to his testimony concerning the existence of hell and you have shown that you are completely incapable of dealing with it because you have yet to even attempt to examine it which indicates to me that you would have been pathetically incapable of “cross examining” Jesus, the Christ, if you had been present during the trial and had been given the authority to even question him.

            So, Bob, once again I will quote the testimony of Christ that
            was given during this trial when evidence was being given to establish that the Christ was the son of God while he was on this earth for you to examine since the trial has finished and judgment has been long ago made and we will see if
            you can deal with it.

            Jesus testified that hell was a real place and that it is a
            place of punishment and flames as follows:

            “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple
            and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was
            carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have
            mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in
            thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:19-31 KJV

            So, there you have Jesus Christ, the very son of God, giving
            his testimony concerning the existence of hell by giving an example of an individual who died and ended up in that place called hell begging for someone to be sent back to warn his brothers not to come to this pace and they were
            told basically that the proof has already been given, the testimony has been heard and the “trial is over” so to speak and they will have to refer to the record to learn the facts.

            Then you say:

            “So, until you can either produce Jesus or the authors of
            the Bible (who were men, btw) you won’t be even CLOSE to proving a thing in the Bible.”

            Like I said, the trial is over, Bob and no one is allowed to
            call witnesses back to cross examine them in any review of the case. You have the record of the trial and all the
            testimony that has been given if you do not like the results show from the record that the trial was faulty or wrong in any way. One of the witnesses was Jesus Christ; his testimony has been recorded and it was decisive and if you would like to show otherwise then do so by referring to his recorded testimony and examine it. It is not necessary to “produce Jesus” or the authors of the Bible (who were men that were inspired of God) in order to prove that everything in the
            Bible is absolutely true. That is just the way it goes, Bob. Evidence has been given from the Bible itself concerning
            the subject of the existence of hell and we are waiting for you to refute the evidence as it has been given. So, far you have done nothing more than avoid addressing it.

            They you say:

            “Besides, if rational society accepts you insistence that
            the Bible is true, why would we not then accept every other text that claims it is true?”

            Now that is a good question, Bob, and I am very glad that
            you were intelligent enough to ask it. All
            “texts” that claim to be true or inspired of God should be examined to see if they are in fact true and inspired of God.
            I will begin, as I have time, to offer the evidence that proves the
            Bible to be inspired of God and to be true for your consideration. And if you can find any other “text” that
            have similar characteristics as the evidence that I shall present concerning the Bible I would be happy to examine it. I affirm that no other text in the world has the marks of inspiration of
            God as does the Bible. You see, Bob, there is no “dilemma” here at all. All of these books have been brought into the world and one cannot accept any of them as being inspired of God until they have logical reasons to do so. And the majority of our rational society has concluded that the Bible is inspired of God and is therefore true upon examination of the evidence and they have rejected other text as having any of the characteristics that establish them as having come from God. Merely making the claim of inspiration is not sufficient but the evidence must show that the claim is valid and true. You and I have not even begun to discuss this subject. We have instead been rambling
            along responding to every ignorant thing that has popped into your mind to insult Christians.

            They you say:

            “Do you see where you dilemma is? If I suddenly said that
            the Bible is true just because it says it is, then I would also have to believe what the Koran and Torah say becau se they also claim to be truthful — can you see the dilemma here Lee?”

            Bob, I have never said the Bible is true simply “because it
            says it is”. If that were the only criteria I would have to admit that any text or any comment made by anyone is true simply because they say it is. Again you show that you do not even know who you are arguing with. Discuss these things with me, Bob, not some imaginary straw man that says ridiculous things that you can easily refute but examine the things I have actually said. Where have I said that the Bible is true just because it says it is true? The truth of the matter is that the Bible does not say it is true it just happens that all that it says can be
            established as being true. This cannot be said of the other texts you mention.

            Then you say:

            “So, I’d be happy to cross-examine Jesus Christ any time you
            can produce him. If he’d like my email address, I’d be happy to give it to him. (do you hear how ridiculous that sounds)? BTW: I’m sure that knowing Jesus, you’d know how to contact him, right? So, let him know that I’m willing to test his truthful testimony with some cross-examination. In fact, I would LOVE this opportunity because I’m willing to be fair.”

            I know you would like to have a “retrial” Bob so that you
            could “cross examine” our Lord Jesus Christ but you will have to “examine” the “transcripts” so to speak of his testimony to which I have referred you in order to prove that the outcome of the trial which proved Jesus Christ to be the very son of
            God and that the Bible is his word and that hell is a real place was faulty. And, Bob, if you are so incapable of examining his recorded testimony what on earth makes you think you
            would fare so well in a direct cross examination. Ha!

            If Jesus Christ appeared before you at all your entire position on everything would collapse upon you. But Christ did appear on this earth long before you were born and established with evidence the truth of his claims and he left sufficient evidence for any honest person to determine the facts and those are the ones of which you have shown yourself woefully ignorant. And I do not care if you are willing to be “fair” Bob. You cannot refute anything we have said thus far even if you use unfair tactics to do it.

          • Bob Judd

            Oh great Lee — so I’m sure you’ve gathered the minutes of the trial to present to me now. Can’t wait to read them.

            The entire crux of your argument lays on the fact that ‘because a certain percentage of people believe in the bible, it MUST be true’ — at least that’s what it sounds like you’re saying. Which means you still have ZERO evidence. You STILL have not produced Jesus Christ and if he’s supposedly still alive or God is, proof of their existence would be easy to prove. Yet still, 2000 years after the fact, not a SINGLE Christian has brought us any real legitimate evidence of their existences.
            You see, I DO believe there was a person named Jesus Christ who was crucified. In those days people were crucified on a daily basis. What hasn’t been proven is that he was the son of a supernatural being. That is the part that hasn’t even begun to be proven. And AGAIN, just because it says so in the Bible does not make it true. Most of the ancient writings I’ve delved in to and studied make similar claims and have miraculous stores — some were even the building blocks of the Bible where very similar stories appeared in different Pagan texts. That is the biggest clue that it’s made up adventures that even folks in those days knew was mythology. So, just as miserably as you failed at proving Hell existed or any of the stories in the Bible I mentioned, you still fail miserably in proving any of the nonsense you’ve erroneously set to live your life by. You are a living example of the hypocrisy and delusion of the average christian. Unable to come up with any logical or rational reason as to the truth of your scriptures. Just like every Islamic fool I’ve spoken with.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob you have said:

            “Oh great Lee — so I’m sure you’ve gathered the minutes of the trial to present to me now. Can’t wait to read them.”

            You do not have to “wait to read them”, Bob. The record is right there in your Bible or any Bible that you can find within your reach and it is easily accessible to you because the Bible remains the world’s bestselling Book and it is available everywhere, even in places where it has been outlawed by
            either Islamist or Communist. That was just my point, Bob. The testimony of Jesus Christ that I referred to is found in the Bible. It is the transcript that contains his testimony in this trial we have spoken about. And we have been waiting for you to respond to it. So, help yourself Bob and go to
            that wonderful book and read the testimony of Christ and come back in here and respond to it, if you like.

            Then you say:

            “The entire crux of your argument lays on the fact that ‘because a certain percentage of people believe in the bible, it MUST be true’ — at least that’s what it sounds like you’re
            saying.”

            I did not argue that “hell exist” because a “certain percentage” of people believe in the Bible. I was responding to your asking to “cross examine” Jesus Christ and I pointed out the fact that the “trial” over the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Christ was held in the court room of history and the outcome has been decided long ago and for that reason you cannot even call witnesses because they have already been called, examined and cross examined and the record or “transcripts” if you want to continue the
            metaphor are found in the Biblical record. I referred you to that testimony and you cannot even examine it, much
            less cross examine Christ in person. And my reference to the outcome of this trial was that the evidence has convinced the majority” not a certain percentage” of people that Christ is the Son of God was to imply that the outcome of the trial was not in your favor, not that the number or percentage of people convinced of the deity of Christ by it was proof of anything other than that the decision was on our side of the argument. And I have invited you to prove that the majority was wrong about it if you could but so far you seem incapable of comprehending that something cause the majority of folks in that time to forsake their false
            gods and renounce their atheistic philosophies and submit to Christ as Lord. Something changed their minds, Bob and it could not have been those weak straw men arguments that you accuse Christians of offering. Could it be that the something extraordinary happened in history here, Bob that cannot be explained without admitting the supernatural
            nature of the results?

            And Christ will enter again into history but he will return on the day of His choosing, not yours or anyone else’s. And you will not want to, nor will anyone allow or care that you should “cross examine” him on that day. The Bible is true for many reasons none of which involves what “percentage” of people accepts it as true. So, no Bob that is not what I am saying.
            I was saying I believe in the existence of hell, which is what we were discussing, because I believe that Jesus Chest is the son of God and that the Bible is God’s inspired word and in that inspired word Jesus Christ testified of the existence of hell. Now when we get around to discussing the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Christ the existence of hell will be a “moot point”. Unless we
            discuss these things in a logical order we would simply be engaging in vain babblings.

            Then you say.

            “ Which means you still have ZERO evidence. You STILL have not produced Jesus Christ}

            Jesus Christ has already been “produced” to the world once
            during the “trial’ of the court room of history and he gave his testimony and it is recorded in the Bible which is metaphorically speaking the transcripts of his testimony which you can examine any time you like. I have produced the evidence of his testimony that hell exists and you have not responded to that historical testimony at all, Bob. So
            that is not “zero evidence” it is a real argument from actual testimony of one who was “God with us” and what we have from you is still “zero response”.

            Then you say:

            “t and if he’s supposedly still alive or God is, proof of their
            existence would be easy to prove. Yet still, 2000 years after the fact, not a SINGLE Christian has brought us any real legitimate evidence of their existenc”

            This is definitely not true Bob. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and Christians have produced enough evidence to, against all odds against it, establish the church
            of Christ so overwhelmingly in the world that persons like you who believe in nothing are very much a small, almost insignificant minority. And that Jesus Christ is the son of God has been already conclusively proven. But you do not
            want to discuss this evidence from history that has converted thousands from paganism so decisively that the Romans, who called Christians “Atheist” because
            they did not believe in their pagan gods, that their temples had all been abandoned and those who were artificers in making idolatrous images had lost their livelihood has been far more convincing in the world than the whining of
            these little American atheist who can do nothing more than rail against God and waste their breath to insult his servants, You and I have not been discussing the existence of God and you have already admitted the existence of Christ and once we discuss the fact that he is “God” you will have no choice but to either deny the existence of Christ or admit that God exist. But so far we have allowed you to ramble along casting insults upon us and we have merely taken the time to show that you have no good justification for insulting Christians in any of their beliefs including their belief in a place called hell. We have been arguing over the existence of a place called hell and the Christian reasons for believing in it because you brought the subject up in your insulting tirades against us. I have shown already more than once that if one believes in God and that Jesus Christ was “God in the flesh” on this earth and that he testified of the existence of a place called hell then it is a valid and true argument that such a place does exist and to refute it you must show that the Bible is an unreliable source and that it’s testimony cannot be accepted. Thus far you ahve failed to do that. But, you want to change the subject and now you want to discuss the existence of God and Christ. We can discuss those
            subjects Bob, which is exactly what we are going to do, and you can respond anytime you like to our arguments, if you are in the least bit competent to do so.

            Then you say:

            “You see, I DO believe there was a person named Jesus Christ who was crucified. In those days people were crucified on a daily basis. What hasn’t been proven is that he was the son of a supernatural being. That is the
            part that hasn’t even begun to be proven. And AGAIN, just because it says so in the Bible does not make it true. Most of the ancient writings I’ve delved in to and studied make similar claims and have miraculous stores — some were even the building blocks of the Bible where very similar stories appeared in different Pagan texts.”

            It does not seem to me that you have actually “studied” very much about this subject, Bob, becasue, there is no evidence whatsoever that any “similar” miraculous stories in “pagan texts” formed any basis whatsoever for what is found in the Bible nor is there any real comparison of any significance that can be made between them.

            There is indeed a person called Jesus Christ who was crucified for you and me but you left out something very important, Bob. He was raised from the dead three days after he was crucified. And that is the proof that he is the son of God. But we have not been discussing the fact that Christ is God’s son. We have been discussing the existence of hell.

            Then you say:

            “That is the biggest clue that it’s made up adventures that even folks in those days knew was mythology.”

            Bob, your ignorance on this score is obvious. There is no mythology in the Bible in the sense in which you have used that word here and you have no evidence whatsoever
            that “people in those days” knew it was mythology.

            Then you say:

            “So, just as miserably as you failed at proving Hell existed or any of the stories in the Bible I mentioned, you still fail miserably in proving any of the nonsense you’ve erroneously set to live your life by.”

            I know you would like to believe that Bob, and that you probably do, but it is clear that we have offered evidence of the existence of hell based upon testimony from the Bible and you have not yet been able to prove that the Bible is or has ever been wrong about anything that it says and you
            most certainly cannot prove that it is “erroneous” for anyone to “live” their “lives by it”.

            I have proven the existence of hell from the testimony of Jesus Christ and you simply do not know how to respond to his testimony.

            Then you say:

            “You are a living example of the hypocrisy and delusion of the average christian.”

            Again you assert without proving your assertion to be true. There is nothing hypocritical about a person who first believes in God because of the many evidences of his existence in a well-organized world that did not make itself. “Every house is built by someone but he that built all things is God” Or since something cannot come from nothing therefore something always was”. And Christians believe that the “something” is someone called God. And Based upon the internal evidence given in the Bible, such as prophecies of events hundreds of years before they occurred, as evidence of God’s inspiration of that Book they believe the history of this God coming to us in the form of human flesh and was crucified, buried and raised again. And then, because of those beliefs they accept the testimony of this “God with us” Jesus Christ, that a place called hell exist. And since we have not discussed anything in the post to which you refer but the existence of Hell I cannot expect you to believe the argument because you do not believe all
            of the premises that go before that establishes it as true. And for that reason Bob, I will begin now to discuss all of those important premises in a logical order and you can follow my arguments as much as you like. But I will, as I have time take up each of these matters in order. But you cannot prove that there is anything hypocritical about the Christian belief or anything delusional about it. But the real delusion here Bob is that you actually think you can prove that God does not exist and that is impossible. But I will show that those who do not believe in God are without excuse because the evidence of his existence is overwhelming.

            Then you say:

            “Unable to come up with any logical or rational reason as to the truth of your scriptures. Just like every Islamic fool I’ve spoken with.”

            Bob, you forget that we have not been discussing this
            subject. We have been discussing the existence of hell and my argument comes from the Scriptures. I will now begin to discuss these things in their proper order so that when we come back to the subject of hell you will be better able to at least understand the overall argument. For If God exist and if he has intervened in history by coming in the flesh as a man and suffering on the Cross and was buried and raised again from the dead and he has communicated with man through
            the pages of the Bible, which was written by men whom he inspired. Then it is perfectly logical that since God is the one who made hell as a place of punishment for the wicked and if Jesus Christ is “God with us” then it is quite logical to believe that his tesimony concerning the existance of a place that he built is evidence that it does exist.

            But Bob, you are the one who wanted to discuss the existence of hell out of the logical order. Until all of
            these other things are discussed the reasons for the Christian belief cannot be honestly and objectively considered. But you are not interested in that kind of discussion Bob. All you want to do is call Christians hypocritical and delusional, without proving a word of it. And I have been merely responding to you Bob to show how you do nothing more than in a rambling fashion cast insults upon
            those who have good reasons for their beliefs.

            And the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible far exceeds
            that of any other book. But you and I have not even begun to discuss those things. All that we have done so far is
            to discuss your attacks upon the Bible wherein we have proven that you are woefully ignorant of its contents. And
            because of that ignorance you do not believe that it is inspired of God. But the real reason you do not believe that
            it is inspired of God is that you do not believe there is a God to inspire it. You see, Bob, we are going about this
            discussion that never begin with a coherent purpose but rather with your incoherent rambling insults against Christians. Now that you have been shown to be completely incapable of justifying those insults it is time to begin a more logical progression of the discussion of the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible and divinity of Christ and
            his resurrection from the dead. This is a lot of Ground to cover on an internet site where people like you prefer to
            just ramble around exchanging insults with folks. A deeper more serious discussion is not what you are interested in having. But we shall have it.

          • Bob Judd

            You’re an idiot. And making up lies isn’t going to get me to read the Bible or investigate because I’ve read it cover to cover at least 3 or 4 times and never heard any cross-examination whatsoever, which of course you didn’t provide.
            So, quit making even more of a fool of yourself. You KNOW in your heart that the Bible is false, but like every other brain-dead believer, you accept those lies as fact because you think it makes you a ‘faithful’ Christian.
            Good bye and good riddance!

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “You’re an idiot.”

            Prove it, Bob!

            Then you say:

            “ And making up lies isn’t going to get me to read the Bible
            or investigate because I’ve read it cover to cover at least 3 or 4 times and never heard any cross-examination whatsoever, which of course you didn’t provide.”

            The ignorance you have displayed of the contents of the
            Bible, your false claim that it did not even mention homosexuality which we proved to be a complete error on your part and your assertion that the ten commandments discussed the “parting of the Red Sea” which it does not mention at all and you ridiculous condemnation of the Bible for talking about a “snake that makes people take off their cloths” which is found nowhere in the Bible indicates to me, Bob, that it is entirely possible that you may not be telling the truth when you say you have read the Bible “3 or 4 times”.

            No lies have been made up, Bob. And I have not tried to get you to “read the Bible” because I know that you are afraid to face the facts contained therein, but you asked for the “transcripts” and I continued my metaphor by pointing to the
            fact that the Bible is the place where the testimony of Christ is recorded and since you seemed to be interested in reading the “transcripts” of his testimony and asked me to provide them for you I obliged your request.

            Then you say:

            “So, quit making even more of a fool of yourself.”

            I do not believe that I am making a “fool of myself”,
            Bob. I believe that I have been answering a fool who thinks that everyone on the planet is a fool but him unless they doubt the existence of God.

            Then you say:

            “ You KNOW in your heart that the Bible is false, but like
            every other brain-dead believer, you accept those lies as fact because you think it makes you a ‘faithful’ Christian.”

            I know for a fact that the Bible is absolutely true, and we
            have not really discussed it yet only to answer the few pathetic examples wherein you made a very weak charge that it was false which turned out to be based mostly upon your very own ignorance of its contents, but it does not take
            an honest person with average intelligence much effort to realize that it is divinely inspired. And you cannot prove that a person is “brain-dead” merely because he is a Christian and believes firmly in God and Jesus Christ his only begotten son and the inspiration of the Bible. If that were the case you would consider Sir Issac Newton, on of the greatest scientist in history, was “brain-dead” because he was a Christian. But what did he discover?

            “Sir Isaac Newton’s largest contributions were in the areas
            of science and mathematics. Newton discovered many of the laws and theories that not only furthered our understanding of the universe, but also gave future scientists the tools to discover how to enter space. He discovered gravitational force and established the three Universal Laws of Motion. By tying these discoveries to the work Johannes Kepler and his Laws of Planetary motion, he established classic mechanics the beginning of modern Physics. This
            was huge in many ways as he proved definitively the heliocentric model first proposed by Copernicus. He also was the first to propose a set of laws that described the motion of all things in the universe. This served as the basis
            for our understanding how the universe functions and why it is the way it is. For his time and even now this was a major breakthrough.
            Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/38643/what-did-isaac-newton-discover/#ixzz2dZaRBN3s”

            But Bob, he was one of those “brain-dead” Christians that
            you claim are in that condition because they believe in the Bible as the word of God and they Believe in Jesus Christ as God’s only begotten son. You have not contributed a fraction to the advancement to humanity that this giant Christian achieved. In fact, he is as well known for his theological thinking as for his scientific discoveries.

            And, if it all were “lies” as you claim you could not prove to save your life that I or any other Christian “accepts them as fact because we think it makes us a “faithful Christian””. In
            fact, we are faithful Christians because we love our Lord Jesus Christ who died to save us from our since and what makes us faithful is our personal submission to his Lordship and our specific obedience to his commands. And of course we would not so submit to him and obey him if we did not sincerely believe in him and all the facts related to him.

            Then you say:

            “Good bye and good riddance!”

            Oh, it is not going to be that easy for you, Bob! I will say goodbye for now because I have a few other things to do. But we are not finished just yet, Bob. Now that you appear to have exhaused your repertoire of baseless, shallow insults and we have not ony endured but actually dispenced with all of them I will now begin to present in a logical step by step manner the arguments for the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible and the Divinity of Christ and when I am finished you can say, “Good riddance” or if you like you say “good riddance” now and ignore all that I have to say next but, either way, I will have my say about these matters for all to consider for themselves as they wish.

          • Bob Judd

            You must think I’m insane if you think I would argue this with someone like yourself, devoid of any ability to think rationally. You have no logic in ANY of your arguments thus far other than saying ‘everyone accepted it so it was proven’, which is devoid of any reasoning. And instead of just saying ‘I have faith that it is true’, you must think I”m as stupid as you to blindly believe things just because they were included in the Bible.
            You also have NO CLUE about the Roman’s history by concluding that the reason they fled was because they suddenly converted, which is absolute horse crap. The truth is that those Pagans who converted did so under threat of murder as early Christians slaughtered most of Europe and then marched onward as conquistadors to convert the rest of the world who could see right through the delusional beliefs and who suffered and died for refusing to believe.
            Which is why any Christian today has blood on their hands for believing in such a genocidal and MAN-MADE invention.

          • Lee Saffold

            Bob:

            You have said:

            “you must think I’m insane if you think I would argue this
            with someone like yourself, devoid of any ability to think rationally.”

            I do not think you are insane, and I am quite certain that
            you will argue this with me because you definitely sense that my arguments are quite logical and reasonable. I will
            make my arguments on those matters and we shall see how long you can go without responding to them in some feeble way! Ha!

            Then you say:

            “ You have no logic in ANY of your arguments thus far other
            than saying ‘everyone accepted it so it was proven’, which is devoid of any reasoning.”

            I do have plenty of logic in my arguments and this explains
            the reason why you have ignored practically all of them. I explained in my previous post that my argument was not based upon “everyone else accepted it and so it was proven” as you claimed. But you ignored that fact as well. Just because you ignore my argument Bob is not proof that the argument was “devoid of reason” but instead it is an
            indication that you are “devoid” of the ability to form a reasonable rebuttal.

            Then you say;

            “ And instead of just saying ‘I have faith that it is true’,
            you must think I”m as stupid as you to blindly believe things just because they were included in the Bible.”

            I have never once argued that people should simply believe
            because “I have faith that it is true”. So again you ignore the arguments and respond to arguments that you would like for us to have made instead of the ones we have made because you cannot answer them. And, those of us who believe the Bible are not doing so “blindly” as you claim and which you cannot prove to save your life. Instead we believe the Bible because it has never once been proven to be wrong, it has been attested by miraculous powers including the many occasions where in it predicted events in
            history hundreds of years before they occurred and including having the acceptance of Jesus Christ who was proven to be the son of God by his resurrection from the dead as we shall show in detail at the appropriate time.

            Then you say:

            “You also have NO CLUE about the Roman’s history by
            concluding that the reason they fled was because they suddenly converted, which is absolute horse crap. The truth is that those Pagans who converted did so under threat of murder as early Christians slaughtered most of Europe and then marched onward as conquistadors to convert the rest of the world who could see right through the delusional beliefs and who suffered and died for refusing to believe.”

            I never said the Romans “fled because they were suddenly converted”. I said,”… something caused the majority of folks in that time to forsake their falsegods and renounce their atheistic philosophies and submit to Christ as Lord. Something changed their minds, Bob and it could not have been those weak straw men arguments that you accuse Christians of offering. Could it be that the something extraordinary happened in history here, Bob that cannot be explained without admitting the supernatural nature of the results?” the Romans did not “flee” to any place, Bob. They were converted in place and in a short peroid of time, but not “suddenly” and not until the Romans had killed large numbers of Christians including all of the apostles except the apostle John.

            Now with this little paragraph that you have produced is proof
            positive that you are completely ignorant of the history of the Rome Empire in the days of Christ. You want everyone to
            believe that this great Roman empire that had conquered the entire know world at one time and had crucified the Jesus Christ, the very son of God and ultimately killed all of the apostles of Christ except one was brought to its knees by a hand full of unarmed untrained disciples of Christ? Before the rise of Christianity to its current level of popularity it had no human possibility or capability by mere human power to compare with the strong Roman Empire under whose power it was born.

            If you actually believe that Pagan Rome was converted by Christians at the edge of the sword you are simply delusional yourself. No reputable historian would do anything more than laugh at your ignorance on this subject, Bob. Even Gibbon, a historian that did not favor Christianity in the least was unable to explain the victorious rise of Christianity over pagan Rome without the use of physical violence at all. Even he did not dare to accuse Christians of such atrocities. Bob, you sound so much like Nero who in is madness “fiddled while Rome was burning” as he strolled about in his
            garden whose pathways were lit by the bodies of Christians he had set on fire and used as lamps to light his way through the night. Do show us how Christians in the first century went forth as “conquistadors” to convert the rest of the ENTIRE WORLD that could “see right through their delusional beliefs”! Now that one is a laughable piece of pure ignorance, Bob. Do come back and show us a single
            reputable historian that believes that about Christianity in the first century. And you cannot point to a single person who
            was killed in the first century by a Christian simply because he refused to believe in Christ, not one. And you
            cannot prove from the writings of any single reputable historian that “early Christians” “slaughtered most of Europe and then marched onward to be conquistadors to convert the rest of the world”. The early Christians were the ones being
            slaughtered, fed to lions in the Roman coliseum and in fact eleven out of the twelve original Apostles met a violent death for preaching the gospel of Christ and converting people using nothing but the “sword of the Spirit” which was the
            word of God” (the scriptures of the Old Testament) in the early days before the New Testament was written. Even the
            apostle Paul, who at first was among the persecutors of Christians was converted himself, without the use of a sword, because, according to his own testimony, Christ appeared to him. In fact, his conversion can only be explained by the truthfulness of his testimony. And anyone who doubts his testimony must bear the burden of proving that his affirmation was false. No, Bob, no intelligent person
            who is in the least bit aware of history can do anything more than shake their head and laugh at your ridiculous unfounded imaginary assertion that “early Christians slaughtered the most of Europe” You cannot show how any “early Christian” converted anyone to Christ by “threat of murder”. Christ himself was killed by the Romans, all of the apostles but John was killed by the Romans and even John was exiled more than once in his very long life by the Roman government. Paul was beaten, flogged and ultimately
            killed by the Jews and Romans. Early Christians
            had no such power as you ignorantly grant to them and their teachings were contrary to the behavior essential to “slaughtering of most of Europe”. So, do try to come back Bob and show exactly when an early, first century Christian ever killed anyone because they did not believe in Christ. Your ignorance is incredible but I do not believe you are stupid, Bob, you are simply plain ignorant. You just have “NO CLUE” about history, especially the history of Rome and “early Christianity”, now do you?!

            Then you say:

            “Which is why any Christian today has blood on their hands for believing in such a genocidal and MAN-MADE invention.”

            No Christian today or anytime in our history has “blood on their hands” from believing and following the teachings of Christ. If you had to convict me of having blood on my hands for believing and following the teachings of Christ you could not do it if your life depended upon it. And you have already failed miserably to prove that Christianity was ever a “genocidal and man-made religion”. You are far too ignorant to even make a weak case for such nonsense.

            But, I will be writing about the existence of God, the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Christ over the next few weeks and you are welcome to respond as you wish. You are helping us tremendously to show that atheists are such because of their woeful ignorance of the facts.
            But to be fair to the more educated atheist that would never make the ignorant assertions that you have made about history and for that matter the Bible itself I must point out that you definitely are not really representative of those who oppose us intelligently.

      • Bob Judd

        Homosexuals don’t have to keep their sexuality secret, just as you don’t keep your sexuality secret. When Christians make bigoted statements, they should be prepared to have their mouth’s shut for them! I simply won’t stand by while they make their ridiculous and ignorant statements, whether it is ‘ordained by God’ or any other false supernatural myth. And while you may like to believe it’s ‘your job’, you are 100% wrong. Your job is to be faithful to your beliefs, but you certainly don’t have to share your nonsense with those of us who already know it’s preposterous nonsense. Besides, the proper place to make such comments is IN CHURCH where they belong. You certainly have the freedom to say anything you want, but don’t be surprised when someone kicks your butt for saying what you want. I would GLADLY make this same announcement to your entire church from the pulpit.

    • Bob Judd

      I don’t know a SINGLE gay person who announces they’re gay and I happen to know a LOT of gay folks and gay soldiers. We reserve those kinds of announcements for National Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parades, which you are cordially invited. Thanks for your comment though, it’s certainly logical and the Christians on this board truly need to read it.

  • Deanjay1961

    Service members don’t have the same rights as private citizens. The UCMJ is clear that speech disruptive to unit cohesion is prohibited. An officer who said Evangelicals have a tendency to be bigots would be similarly censored. Having to play by the same rules that apply to everyone else can feel like discrimination if you’re used to special privileges, but it isn’t.

    • Bob Judd

      Thank you! I wonder why most Christians can’t see your simple logic.

  • Al Klein

    Since Lev 20:13 refers to worshiping other gods (“lying with a man as one lies with a woman” refers to a man having sex with a male temple prostitute, which was done in some religions to honor their gods), and NOT to homosexuality (which is a preference, not an act, and which the Bible never mentions, let alone condemns), there really isn’t anything more here than a soldier disobeying a standing order and being disciplined for it. If she refused assignment, or refused to wear the uniform, it would amount to the same thing.

    And no, members of the military have no right of free speech or the right to practice their religion. You serve under the UCMJ, not under the Constitution. Since service is voluntary, if you can’t accept that, you don’t join. Joining and refusing to obey the rules isn’t on the menu.

    I wish Christians would stop inserting things into the Bible that were never there until it was mistranslated (as in some totally incorrect “translations” that claim 20:13 says “having sex with …”). And claiming that having to do what everyone else has to do is depriving them of their rights. Which rights? The right to violate the law? (The UCMJ is the law for servicepeople,) The right to ignore the rights of others? Grow up.

    • Bob Judd

      Thank you! I could never understand the reasoning of being ‘born again’, when all a person really has to do is GROW UP!

    • Lee Saffold

      Al,

      You have said:

      “Since Lev 20:13 refers to worshiping other gods
      (“lying with a man as one lies with a woman” refers to a man having
      sex with a male temple prostitute, which was done in some religions to honor
      their gods), and NOT to homosexuality (which is a preference, not an act, and
      which the Bible never mentions, let alone condemns),”

      You say that Lev. 20:13 refers to worshiping other gods and
      that “lying with a man as one lies with a woman” refers to a man having sex
      with a male temple prostitute” but you offer no proof that this is what the
      verse refers to. In fact, when one reads
      the context of this verse he can easily see that the condemnation is directed
      against specific sinful acts and a man having sex with a man (with no mention
      whatsoever of a temple prostitute) is listed among those sins.

      “And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD
      which sanctify you. For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall
      be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood
      shall be upon him. And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s
      wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer
      and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with
      his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall
      surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with
      his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have
      wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. 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. And if a man
      take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire,
      both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 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. And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his
      mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a
      wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath
      uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity… And ye shall not
      walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they
      committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.” Lev. 20:13-17, 23. KJV

      This passage is clearly talking about the people being
      required to keep God’s statutes and not imitating the many abominations of the
      nations around them and those who behaved in these wicked ways before them. Not
      all of these things were done with temple prostitutes but even if they were
      they were sinful, and abhorant to God even if they had been committed outside
      of the temple. Notice that homosexuality is included in a list of wicked things
      including bestiality. If a man having
      sex with a man was sinful only because it was done with a temple prostitute
      then what shall you say of bestiality?
      It is also in this list with homosexuality. Are you going to say that it was only wrong
      because it was done in temple worship of false gods and that it would be
      acceptable behavior otherwise? I do hope
      not. And in this list adultery is condemned
      as a sin but is it only a sin if committed with a temple prostitute? I think
      not. You see if one is consistent in the
      interpretation of this verse as if all that it condemns is only wrong because
      it was done with a temple prostitute but is perfectly holy and right if done
      without worshiping in an idolatrous temple with such prostitutes then any
      fornication, adultery, bestiality, or incest would be wrong only because it was
      done in such temple worship of false Gods.

      But the truth is that everything in this list is described
      as being inherently sinful and abhorrent to God, including a man having sex
      with another man.

      Then you claim that homosexuality is a “preference not an
      act”. This is ridiculous on its very
      face. Homosexuality is a preferred act. When men have sex with men it is an ACT as
      much as any other action a person might take.
      The act of having sex with men is preferred by homosexuals over the act
      of having sex with a woman. A man can choose to act in either way and the
      moment he choses on over the the other, then and only then does it become his “preference”. Indeed, I find it rather hard to understand
      how you can say that homosexuality is a “preference” while believing that it is
      not a “choice”. If you look up the word “preference
      you will see that it means, “that which is preferred; choice: His preference is
      vanilla, not chocolate.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prefer
      So, I agree with you that homosexuality is indeed a preference because
      homosexuals prefer the act of having sex with men over the act of having sex
      with women. It is indeed their choice or
      preference. It is therefore their preferred
      act.

      Now, you claimed that the Bilbe does not even mention much
      less condemn homosexuality. The following verses of scripture from the Bible
      not only mention homosexuality but they condemn it.

      Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
      kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
      adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
      drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And
      such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you
      were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians
      6:9-11 NKJV

      The New International Version reads, “Or do you not know
      that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
      Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex
      with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
      will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you
      were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord
      Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NIV

      Of course the King James Version says: “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, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
      revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed,
      but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
      by the Spirit of our God.” I Corinthians 6:9-11 KJV

      The word that is translated “homosexual” in both of these
      verses is the Greek term ἀρσενοκοίτης.
      Its meaning as give in Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon is as follows: ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoitēs) – “one who lies
      with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual”. Thayers Greek English Lexicon. So,
      these two verses prove not only that the Bible actually does “mention” as well
      as SPECIFICALLY condemns homosexuality.
      All of this proves that your above assertions are not supported by the
      facts. I am aware that you may need
      desperately to make it appear as if God’s Word, The Bible, does not even “mention
      homosexuality and therefore could not condemn it because you need by some means
      to try and justify it. But the facts
      just are not cooperating with you, now are they?

      In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the word “μαλακός” (malakos) – Soft, or
      soft to the touch is used metaphorically of those who are effeminate, a male
      who submits his body to unnatural lewdness”

      The Greek word translated “homosexual” in this passage is a
      metaphorical use of a term that literally means “soft,” and when referring to
      people, refers to males allowing themselves to be used sexually by other males.
      Again, lexicographers apply the term to the person who is a “catamite,” i.e., a
      male who submits his body to another male for unnatural lewdness—i.e.,
      homosexually (Thayer, p. 387; Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 489).

      “Sodomites” (“abusers of themselves with mankind” in the
      KJV) is a translation of the term arsenokoitai. It derives from two words:
      arsein (a male) and koitei (a bed), and refers to one who engages in sex with a
      male as with a female (Thayer, p. 75). Paul used the same term when he wrote to
      Timothy to discuss certain behaviors that are both “contrary to sound doctrine”
      and characteristic of the one who is not “a righteous man” (1 Timothy 1:9-10).

      Read Romans 1:18-32 for a passage that not only mentions
      homosexuality but condemns it strongly.

      Obviously from these passages alone, there are many others,
      not only does the Bible actually mention homosexuality it also condemns it.

  • the_antithesis

    Why is it that when a christian is “denied their religion” the case usually involves them being a bigot?

    • Bob Judd

      Nonsense! It’s the same for ANY bigoted religious belief, so that if an Islamic soldier spoke with speech that was bad for morale, they would also be reported and hopefully kicked out of the military just like the woman in this case. I personally think she should face a court marshall for making bigoted statements against other soldiers which is BAD for morale.

      • RAS0503

        Kick her out for her religious beliefs like Major Hasan???? They overlook this piece of crap because he is muslin, then he kills 13 people and wounds many more. I bet there is no danger this Caplain’s Assistant will never hurt anyone. This is a blatant attach on Christians, nothing else. Talk about bigotry…

        • Bob Judd

          NO, you FOOL! She should be kicked out for disobeying direct orders from a higher rank. Especially knowing that her statements would lower morale. She’s got PLENTY of her own free time for her ignorant biblical nonsense. Of course, I always thought they reserved CHURCH for that kind of BS.

          • RAS0503

            WOW!!! u r brilyunt!!! Ok, so if she said these things in church you would be down with that? I get strong feeling you think what she believes should not be uttered anywhere. Then where should you atheist be allowed to spew your BS? You seem to be of the opinion your kind can spread your BS anywhere, I think you should be limited to someplace dark and very warm… Let me think….

          • Bob Judd

            No, I wouldn’t be ‘down’ with it at all, but at least I would have the CHOICE to go and listen to such nonsense instead of as a soldier be forced to listen to someone’s preposterous nonsense presented as fact (which it is not). So, next time you want to start on another childish anti-gay tirade, consider the children who could unfairly have to listen to such hate-mongering and better yet. SAVE IT FOR CHURCH! You have a designated place to make such comments and we call it CHURCH. That way, the rest of rational and sane society don’t have to be offended by listening to your nonsense.

            Of course, I learned that at a very young age that it is a sin to proselytize or ‘evanglize’ which many ignorant folks also think is ok, yet most christians are lucky if they know what the word means.

          • RAS0503

            I guess you have never served in the military. I have and was NEVER forced to attend any type of religious gathering.

            “So, next time you want to start on another childish anti-gay tirade, consider the children who could unfairly have to listen to such hate-mongering and better yet. SAVE IT FOR CHURCH! You have a designated place to make such comments and we call it CHURCH.”

            Childish anti-gay tirade? Where did that come from? Hate-mongering? Really??? where did that come from? I like the response but try to stay on subject.

            those must belong in a different post because it does not go with the original subject line here.

            “Of course, I learned that at a very young age that it is a sin to proselytize or ‘evanglize’ which many ignorant folks also think is ok, yet most christians are lucky if they know what the word means.”
            A sin? Christians encourage it, you do not have to listen.
            What are you doing to stop the influx of the muslm belief system? Does that not bother you because if they take over the world or even the area where you live you would have to convert or be subject to execution. Sorry I got off the original subject. I am just interested.

          • Bob Judd

            As for what you say about atheism, you need to keep somewhere in the back of your mind that there simply IS NO church based on atheism since it is the LACK of belief and abscence of belief. Also, no 2 atheist will agree on most of what they form opinions on, so you can’t make the delusional claim that atheism is another kind of faith because it isn’t. And there is also not a belief that the are aligned and think the same on, except maybe the belief that your own god is nonsense.

          • RAS0503

            Why do non-believers have this problem with anything that resembles or sounds like Christianity? It’s like the liberals believe in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution as long as has to do with their free speech but want to limit the speech of those who have a different opinion (conservative) on politics. I am supposedly free to do as I wish, believe as I wish and say what I wish as long as it does not physically hurt anyone. You do not think as I do on this subject or you would have no problem with Christians. I would not try to convert you but you want everyone to not believe in a God. See, I don’t care if you believe in God or not… that is your choice. You can believe or not, I don’t care. Why do you care that I believe in God? How does it harm you. I know,

          • Bob Judd

            I don’t have the slightest problems with people who want to worship. You are of course free to do that, but that has nothing to do with my comments which was directed toward the soldier making bigoted comments about other soldiers, which was the whole subject of this article (in case you forgot). So, you can worship a BANANA for all I care and say it saved you from all of life’s problems, but trying to make this soldier a martyr of some kind is LAUGHABLE since it was HER who disobeyed orders and got in trouble for it. It just happened to be her religious bigotry that got her in trouble, which is why I made the point about Christians who may want to reserve their biblical discussions for CHURCH instead of on the job where people are sensitive towards other’s beliefs. Just as it would be wrong for me to go to work and insult Christians for being delusional. Even though I believe that, I would use good manners and reserve it for places like this. So, your delusional belief in God doesn’t harm me at all, the only person it is harming is YOU.

          • RAS0503

            What I have a problem with is she was brought into the Commanding Officers office and was reprimanded for a post in Face Book. She was not on a corner sharing her Christian beliefs with passers by or anywhere on base.

            From the article above.
            “So if you’re gay and in the military, share your lifestyle with pride”!

            “But if you’re a Christian in the military and express disagreement with the gay lifestyle, you’re “hostile and antagonistic,” and you will be punished. Sounds about right.”

            Why is it ok to express the homosexual lifestyle and not the Christian lifestyle?

          • Bob Judd

            First of all, THANK YOU for asking because it really does need explaining. She can express anything she likes, but as a SOLDIER, you’re representing the US, so that is probably why they didn’t like it. I personally could care less what she said in ANY forum, including her attacks upon gay soldiers, she would likely get slapped silly for saying stuff like that in front of the bull dykes in the military, so it really wouldn’t matter to me. The objection was that she apparently posted this in a way that would be antagonistic to her work place, which is why they asked her to take it down. If it were me, I’d allow her to leave it, but apparently the military doesn’t like people attacking others for immutable differences.
            So, if you have complaints about it, you probably should ask the military and I am not in the military.
            But let me also try to answer your question by asking you one. Do you think it would be ok for a soldier to use the word NI@@ER on Facebook? It’s also an attack upon someone based on immutable differences. Previous to Loving VS Virginia there were Christians all over the US who said it was wrong Biblically for a white to marry a black. Christians cried that allowing inter-racial marriage would ‘destroy the institution’ just like they said allowing couples to use birth control would also ‘destroy marriage’ before it. Do you think the court case that allowed mixed marriages was a travesty? It’s really no different from what is happening in this case.
            I’m really interested in your opinion here.
            Also, I think it’s important for you to know that equating homosexuality with ‘sin’ is NOT necessarily ‘expressing the Christian lifestyle’ like you say. There are thousands of Christians who are also gay and Pastors and a large percentage of Christians who believe that homosexuality was never mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the word ‘homosexual’ was NEVER used in those days. They had no word for homosexual love, only man on man rape, which is of course a sin because rape is a sin. So, really all they were asking her to do was to ‘CURB YOUR DOGMA’.

          • RAS0503

            Wow, where do I begin.
            First, I never said homosexuality was a sin. I have nothing against homosexuality. I have worked for, with and have supervised them. My experience with the ones I have known has been good. I know
            Second, on mixed marriages. I have no problem with this.
            A little about me. I am 66 years old, I grew up on what could be called the Mason-Dixon Line. During the civil war some went for the Confederacy and some went to the Union forces. I remember some people in my youth being prejudiced but was NOT brought up in a family that was not. In 1964 when I graduated, did I say it was a small town about 6,000 people, there were no mixed couples. I had no problem later when the mixed relationships began. I know of nothing in the Bible says this is wrong or a sin. I am ok with it.
            Third, I believe it wrong to say, post anywhere the word NI@@er. I think it is derogatory and should not be used in any form by any race including blacks.
            Fourth, I didn’t catch anything in the article about gay soldiers. That would be wrong too. I think it says in the Bible that men should not lay with another man. Something like that.
            Ok, the Bible. I am a Christian. I believe in a God that loves everyone, black, white, yellow or brown, no matter what sexual preference that they practice. I do not take it word for word in some areas. It to me is a way to live.
            If I missed anything let know. I am tired and am going to bed. I will look for your response.

  • stripeyunderpants

    Nobody seems to understand that, in the military, you do NOT have the freedom to do and say as you please. That’s not the point of being a soldier. You are there to learn how to kill people and destroy stuff, not to express your religious beliefs like you’re sitting on a church pew next to your grandma. Political speech is also restricted, as well, for obvious reasons. If you don’t like it, then stay out of the military. It’s really that simple.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Underpants) Now hear this. One does not abort his or her right to the human race just because they wear a uniform. This young Lady was not standing gaurd on hill #51 nor was she at GQ on a ship. If you don’t like what someone said on F/B tell them. Please, no fireing squad.

      • Al Klein

        “One does not abort his or her right”

        When one enlists, one DOES give up one’s right to say and post things that the military says one can’t say and post. It’s part of the terms you agree to when you join.

        Remember the commandment about bearing false witness? Isn’t it bearing false witness when you swear to not post certain things, then complain when, after you violate that agreement, you’re called on it?

        Or are Christians somehow above the law? (Remember, Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. Caesar’s law comes first, as far as Jesus was concerned.)

        • sickofliberailmedialies

          Do you also know that God said to call sin a sin and not to remain silent? Did you know the constitution forbids the government from preventing an individual (never says military is excluded) from expressing his religious beliefs? So what has changed? 5 years ago this would not have happened. Why? Did the constitution change? Did the law change? Did the governemnt throw away all rights of anyone who enlists? Can they do that legally? Truth is they can not legally do this but they can put people in positions to say it is legal and do it anyway. That is the only thing that has changed here.

  • marineh2ominer

    Christians and all other servicemen and women need to get out and spend ALL their time convincing their friends and family to NOT join the demonrat military , let the perverts have it , there is less and less worth giving your life for on this continent ..

    • Bob Judd

      FYI: Gays and lesbians have been protecting your freedoms since the military was ever conceived. The only difference today is that they don’t have to lie about themselves and keep secret the part of them that is most natural. So, equating someone’s sexuality as ‘sin’ is like saying it’s a sin to be left-handed or red-haired, so my suggestion to you is to take a college course in human sexuality and learn the FACTS and stop acting like a frightened little rabid rabbit! And if you don’t like our military, I suggest you pack your bags and purchase a one-way ticket to Iraq or Afghanistan and see how fun it is to live in the theocracy that you suggest the US should be. I’m sure they’d LOVE you. After all, there’s really no difference between extremist Islam and extremist Xianity.
      Be sure to send me a postcard! ;->)

      • sickofliberailmedialies

        Maybe you should live over there and learn some truths. Do you know that gays are put under house arrest? Did you know that many of those places it is a crime? Did you know that Christians fought for centuries for your freedom to say the disgusting things you are now?

        • http://churchofeuthanasia.org/ Bob Judd

          My ex is living in Somalia right now — he’s also taught English in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Emirates so I have first hand knowledge of what gays are up against at the hands of religious zealots — though it is a little bit more extreme than what is happening in the US right now, the reason the same things don’t happen in the US is because of legislation that protects us, which has NOTHING to do with Christianity, but has everything to do with activism! Our nation was founded upon RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, not Christianity though christians have fought to rewrite history as such. I’m glad to say that fundamentalism in the US is fast becoming synonymous with terrorism and in a couple generations, ideology like yours will be a crime! Thank you GOD!

  • kiteflyr

    This blather makes me question whether you have ever SERVED anyone or any thing other that YOURSELF! Self-righteous bigotry is a stick that can be swung in ANY direction.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      kite. I am so sorry but you no longer have a right to your opinion please remove your post.

      • Tim

        Not one person said that the woman in the article had no right to an opinion. Being a part of the military means you, in a way, represent the military. The same way you represent your country when you travel abroad. When she was told to take down her social media post she was given a legal order from a superior officer. That’s all.

        Upon refusing to remove her post she defied an order, committing insubordination. She is in trouble because she refuses to follow orders. Not for having a personal opinion, worshiping her chosen deity, or anything other than insubordination.

        Would all of you feel the need to come to the defense of someone who posted something along the lines of ‘Jesus was a false prophet, praise be to Allah.’? I don’t believe so. Stop seeing everything as a personal attack and realize that when you bad mouth other people’s lifestyles, religions, beliefs, orientations, or interests your comments say more about you than they do about them.

  • Jacobb Chapman

    FREEDOM OF RELIGION

  • sickofliberailmedialies

    No matter how you look at it the government and their lap dogs are in a full blown assault of Christians in the USA. The right to have a religious views is being stripped away from all Americans. At some point we will realize that this country is NOW what our ancestors fought against in order to have their freedom from the oppressive government that trampled their rights and tried to control their independent thoughts and opinions.

    This government is no longer for the people or by the people. It is no longer the country that was created in order to allow people freedoms that we all deserve. It is now the few who rule by force it’s people. By rules of a few who wish to silence and extinguish those who can think in any way but they do. They will force compliance just as it was done more than 200 years ago. History is repeating itself once again and the Christians are now once again the ones who are threatened. The ones who are removed from their jobs, their ability to earn a living , their freedoms. Christians are again the persecuted and reviled people by those who call themselves good while throwing out hatred and lies.

  • http://chrismartinwrites.com/ Chris

    Whether they are Christians or not, the men and women in the military should be respected for their sacrifice. Here is a short tribute I wrote. http://chrismartinwrites.com/2013/07/24/when-a-soldier-cries/