Liberal tolerance

screen-shot-2016-09-24-at-21-22-17



Categories: Extremism, Freedom of expression, Life in the West

275 replies

  1. It’s a fantastical image but not an accurate one. Businesses that have agreed to abide by public laws and regulations don’t have the right to force their religious beliefs on their customers by means of refusing service. This is why the State and the Faith are kept separate – and indeed, why they should be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • i don’t understand what is democratic about forcing someone to do something they believe is wrong…

      Liked by 2 people

    • moreover, i think [hope] you’ll agree that you cannot force a religous jew to bake a cake for a saterday wedding. his faith does not let him…
      this baker will gladly serve the gay couple a slice of cake, he just is not alowed to take a part in a ceremony he feels to be sinful… why is that even a debate. it not against the boyfriends its about the party.

      Like

    • I bet a liberal baker would refuse to bake a cake for the KKK and be supported by the left for doing so.

      Like

    • That doesn’t excuse using religion as an excuse to discriminate.

      Liked by 1 person

    • would you support a liberal baker who refused to bake a cake for the KKK?

      Like

    • I don’t think your statement accurately reflects the law. I can be a doctor making money by providing public service and still legally refuse to perform a legal act such as a voluntary interruption of pregnancy because it happens to go against my legally protected freedom of conscience.

      Thankfully the same thing is true of and taken into consideration in virtually all legislation around the globe.

      Like

    • Actually, the law doesn’t permit arbitrary discrimination. This is the case for many US states and for many countries too.

      Like

    • It’s dogmatic to approach the matter having already decided the validity of your position and the condemnation of the other’s conscience as arbitrarily discriminatory.

      Liberal tolerance par excellence?

      Liked by 1 person

    • A lot of you literally don’t seem to understand the law, discrimination, or anything that you’re talking about.
      If you own a business, you cannot refuse service to someone without it being discrimination. That means if you are Christian, and you own a bakery and say, specialise in wedding cakes, then you need to accept that you will have same-sex couples that will want a wedding cake. You are offering a service; not liking gay people violates that service.
      It’s no different to someone refusing any other service to any other person (like, for example, places that banned people of colour). It’s discrimination.
      If you own your own business, then you pick your opening hours. For a Jewish person, if they choose to not be open on a Saturday, than that’s their choice. That doesn’t mean they can’t supply a wedding cake for someone on the Saturday – it just means they may choose NOT to work the Saturday. As it’s their business, that’s their choice. However, not every Jewish person in the world uses Saturday as the Sabbath.
      Regardless, it’s irrelevant. A Jewish person owning a bakery either makes their cakes on Saturdays or doesn’t; choosing not to be open on a Saturday is not refusing a service.
      Paul, you are providing a false dilemma. You’re Kafkatrapping. You’re creating a no-win situation for Ben, whilst creating a win-win one for yourself. It’s bullshit. Use a real example, or shut the fuck up.
      The KKK is a hate group that believes in white supremacy. Sure, a person could bake a cake for the group – perhaps they support said group. Bakers have probably baked and sold thousands of cakes to white supremacists (whether they’re KKK members or not). However, the baker would need to know what was going on the cake. What is the indication that they’re a racist? A KKK member? A white supremacist? Are they putting “Power To White People” on their cake? What’s the giveaway? In the same way, Christian bakers would have baked and sold cakes to plenty of same-sex couples. They just might not know they have.
      Regardless, the government is not going to persecute a baker for not supplying a cake to the KKK, because the KKK has a well-documented history of threatening, abusing, assaulting and killing people.
      Also, the KKK doesn’t fit the definition of discrimination, because it’s not a religious system.

      “Discrimination:
      the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.”

      Furthermore, as the KKK is elite at practicing discrimination against others, so it would be incredibly ironic for them to bring a case against someone else. On top of which, the KKK is infamous for wanting to keep their identities secret, so I can’t imagine establishing a court case about discrimination would go favourably for them.

      In regards to doctors and abortions, it really depends on the type of doctor you are. Unless it’s an emergency procedure – and then you have to, because, you know, you took an oath – the place in which you work, and the profession that you choose, would actually reflect your religious beliefs. For example, if a doctor was Catholic (and pro-life), they could easily work at a Catholic hospital, where abortions aren’t offered. That situation, therefore, would never arise.

      Despite what shows would have you believe, there’s so many different fields of medicine. You need to be trained to perform an abortion – so that means the doctor would be choosing a specific line of work, knowing that abortions would be apart of their everyday life. The only way this would be different would be for emergency surgeons – but again, that’s looking at the Hippocratic Oath, and the idea would be saving the woman’s life.

      These situations are, therefore, completely different to a bakery refusing to sell a cake to same-sex people. If you own a bakery, you need to expect that there’s going to be certain requests. That’s your job. If you’re only a wedding cake baker, then that’s your description – it’s certainly okay to refuse birthday cakes, if that’s not what you want to be selling. However, it isn’t about ‘forcing’ beliefs onto anyone. It’s about supplying the goods and service you are offering.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. A better question would be, would you support anyone who entered into a public business, which is subject to public law, use their beliefs to arbitrarily discriminate against anyone, on the grounds of faith? What would be next? Christians refusing service to Muslims and vice-versa?

    Moreover, your example of the KKK is a false dilemma. The KKK endorses discrimination as a matter of practice, against gays, blacks and ethnic minorities. I don’t imagine they would look too favourably upon Muslims either. A gay couple who simply want to buy a cake is not comparable to an organisation that has historically engaged in violence.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Already answered – it’s a false dilemma. Will you answer MY question? A better question would be, would you support anyone who entered into a public business, which is subject to public law, use their beliefs to arbitrarily discriminate against anyone, on the grounds of faith? What would be next? Christians refusing service to Muslims and vice-versa?

    Liked by 1 person

    • No you have not answered! It is not a false anything.

      KKK walk into a known liberal baker and ask them to bake a nice cake with a lovely swastika on it.

      Baker refuses on principle. Goes against her beliefs.

      Would you support the baker?

      Yes

      or

      no

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Of course it’s a false dilemma. Shall I assume from your question your tacit support for the KKK and its discriminatory policies, which is not at all the same as a gay couple asking for a cake?

    I know what you’re doing. It’s a rhetoric trick. Not only are you not answering MY question, but you’re trying to set up conditions. If I answer that I would support the baker who refused service to the KKK, you’ll turn around and accuse me of hypocrisy. If I say I wouldn’t, you’ll accuse me of supporting the KKK. Hence why it’s a false dilemma. Let me ask YOU – would YOU bake a cake for the KKK? Or a gay couple? Or would you remove yourself from a position where your personal beliefs would interfere with your ability to do your job impartially?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. You are right – I’m not going to answer your question at the moment. I want you to answer mine first.

    It’s not a trick question. It is a real question involving real people in the USA. IT COULD HAPPEN.

    But it IS a test of your liberal principles. Let’s see if you apply them equally or not.

    FACT: There are many KKK types in your country.

    FACT: You have many bakeries too.

    It is totally realistic to ask what would happen if one of the former walked into one of the latter. If you reject this possibility explain why it is impossible.

    The latter refuses to serve the former.

    Do you still agree with your statement above that:

    “Businesses that have agreed to abide by public laws and regulations don’t have the right to force their religious beliefs [or political beliefs] on their customers by means of refusing service.”

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Of course it’s a trick question. We both know EXACTLY what you intend to do, whichever way I answer, which is why I am reluctant to play your game. This is about placing spin upon which answer I give, so you can do ‘HA!’ We both know this to be true.

    However, I will take your bait (and that is what it is), though I expect you to answer my question in return. I want your word that you shall do so before I give any answer. You should also be aware that I am archiving this discussion on my own site, so there is no room for conflation or confusion.

    Like

  7. I tell you what. As it’s now gone 11pm and I have work tomorrow, I’ll answer you tomorrow. I’m disappointed that you will probably not give your word and answer my question (I have to wonder as to why), but I obviously can’t force you to give your word. I’ll take your bait and play your rhetorical game, but as I said, it will be tomorrow.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. There is a difference between a consistent moral stance and arbitrary discrimination. For example, if “sin” is a criteria in the production/sale of dessert for a particular Christian baker—then they should have their customers have a “confession” before purchase. A consistent moral stance such as BDS or in the case of Muslims, not investing in/purchasing “non-permissible” economic instruments etc would not be arbitrary discrimination. Companies that restrict their production/sales to a particular segment of the market will have less market share—but this will also encourage more diversity of producers/sellers. Diversity of producers/sellers means more choices for the consumers and less monopoly/concentration of power in the few mega-corporations. Its win-win. One example is the halal market. The purchasing power combined with lack of products for Muslims has created many new entrepreneurs for this market. From fashion to food to travel and finance—it is growing.
    Even if there is a side-effect that some may abuse the freedom of choice to discriminate arbitrarily, I would promote diversity and choice as opposed to homogeneity….

    Like

  9. You wanted an answer Paul, here it is. I will say firstly, I am disappointed that you are using leading questions – it’s a rhetorical trick, and a pretty obvious one at that. You are hoping to generate a ‘win-win’ scenario for yourself. Unfortunately for you, this is not my first time around the block, as it were, and I can see through such tactics. I must also wonder at why you equate homosexual couples with the KKK – that is quite disturbing Paul, and I’ll be interested to see how you justify that comparison.

    In order to answer your question effectively, we must first examine the nature of your question. The question itself is a false one – what exactly ‘is’ a liberal baker? This is left rather vague.

    Moving on, I support anyone – liberal, Muslim, or Christian – who refused to endorse the KKK, across any platform. The KKK is a hate group. They have historically persecuted minorities – and right now have their eyes set on Muslims and homosexuals alike. http://www.ibtimes.com/alabama-kkk-recruiting-fight-spread-islam-2219087 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/08/13/the-kkk-issues-plea-for-members-to-kill-gay-people/

    I suspect you will now accuse me of hypocrisy, and I suspect you will not answer my question, which will be rather telling. I will nevertheless, continue with my own answer, and make a wider point.

    What the homosexual couple want is for a public business, which agreed to abide by public law, to uphold that law and fulfil their obligation under it, instead of practicing discriminatory policies. Is it not diversity and choice – it is bigotry, disguised behind religion, that motivates the denial of service in these circumstances – and it is in fact illegal.

    So where does it end Paul? Why do you believe anyone should be free to arbitrarily discriminate against anyone else? If you were to enter a place of business and be denied the service you requested, on the grounds of being a Muslim, would you then be asking questions about whether someone should serve the KKK a cake? Or would you take the issue more seriously?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Verdant,

    What is the line here? Do we give carte blanche to anyone and everyone to use any reason they can think of to refuse to do their jobs? Or do we abide by a framework of laws and rules that prevent anarchy?

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Reasonable tolerance is key! Allowing actions that are only rooted in the type of moral conscience we share is no tolerance.

    Here’s another scenario. Virtually the entire globe has laws against blood and tissue donations from men who have sex with men because of the high prevalence of disease amongst this part of the population. Is this a case of arbitrary discrimination against gay and bisexual men? Is it an acceptable policy, even a justified one? Or is it you might say another false dilemma?

    Like

    • It’s certainly not a comparable scenario to the one Paul is referring to. Businesses that seek to justify bigotry (and happen to be breaking the law in the process) aren’t acting altruistically. They are taking a religious judgement and imposing it upon their customers. The best example of this recently was the woman who would not only not issue marriage licences to same-sex couples, but also prevented her colleagues from doing so, in defiance of the law and her duties as part of her job. Was this reasonable tolerance? If that scenario played out with someone refusing Muslims service, simply because they were Muslims, would you find this acceptable?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I think you’re intentionally obfuscating the discussion. You wouldn’t engage the example, you insist on a dogmatic approach whereby you are right and the other a bigot, you falsely equate not making a same-sex wedding cake to denying service to gays or Muslims altogether.

      This is not a fruitful exchange. Best of luck.

      Like

    • I have to agree with you VS

      Like

    • Yeah, actually, it is a case of discrimination – and blood banks need to update their laws as a result. It was a law that was implemented when people felt that there was something to fear in regards to same-sex couples. However, we better understand the science behind it, as well as any diseases that may be spread – which are no different to straight couples. So yeah, in regards to blood donation, it’s discrimination. The law just hasn’t caught up with it yet. You should probably read about the news articles re the Orlando massacre, as they covered this extensively.

      Again, Ben is right. Substitute ‘gay’ for ‘black’. Or ‘Muslim’. Or ‘Christian’. Or ‘woman’.

      If the bakery is refusing to sell to those people, those groups, then yeah, we’re talking about discrimination. Is Ben the only one who is actually intelligent in this thread? Or are you all deliberately being obtuse?

      Like

    • >> Yeah, actually, it is a case of discrimination – and blood banks need to update their laws as a result. It was a law that was implemented when people felt that there was something to fear in regards to same-sex couples. However, we better understand the science behind it, as well as any diseases that may be spread – which are no different to straight couples. So yeah, in regards to blood donation, it’s discrimination. The law just hasn’t caught up with it yet. You should probably read about the news articles re the Orlando massacre, as they covered this extensively. <<

      This is just ideological nonsense that serves only to confirm itself.

      See in the link in my other comment actual scientific data published by the Centre for Disease Control showing the higher prevalence and rate of dissemination of certain diseases in the homosexual community (as well as heterosexual people engaging in risky practices).
      Some are only detectable after a while, hence the idea of requiring those at higher risk observe a sufficient period of abstinence before the donation.

      See also how the French ethics committee CCNE for instance has decided – as late as last year, pretty much unanimously and against the pressure of gay lobbying – to maintain laws against blood donations from homosexuals.
      It stressed that giving one's blood to someone else is simply not a right, nor is it justifiable if it presents a higher risk for the health of the recipient as is still the case despite the technological advancements in screening methods and their increasing affordability in rich countries.
      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3WECFNmNJ_wJ:www.jim.fr/medecin/jimplus/tribune/e-docs/le_comite_dethique_toujours_defavorable_au_don_du_sang_par_les_homosexuels__151328/document_actu_pro.phtml

      So it's great you are fighting for equality. Just make sure no excess of passion turns this noble goal into equality in disease.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. The example you gave is misleading, much like Paul’s original example. The fact is, being gay can lead to denial of jobs and even get you sacked in the US. Meanwhile, the idea that a business upholds the law instead of discriminating against whatever customer base it so chooses, is being criticised.

    Like

  13. I am also eagerly awaiting your reply Paul.

    Like

  14. If it was a plain cake and the gay person was not flaunting their immorality in our faces, then there would be no problem.

    The problem is that they force the bakers to put two plastic men on top and write in food coloring paste, “John and Larry, Love forever” and also forcing florists and photographers to go to their ceremonies.

    Liberalism today promotes sexual perversion, and has deep hatred against Christians and all who hold that homosexuality is a sin and so called “same sex marriage” is not even marriage.

    Liked by 2 people

    • So am I to take it Ken, that you agree with Paul, in that anyone should be free to arbitrarily discriminate, flouting the law in the process?

      Like

    • Do you understand what I wrote above? The new laws are wrong, and the lesbians and gays that took people to court and destroyed their businesses are evil. (bakers, florists, photographers) The could have found another place to do business at. The law is evil that forces Christians or other conservatives to celebrate their immoral weddings and evil lusts. It is the gay agenda that is full of malice and evil. Refusing to go to a homosexual wedding is a righteous act. Refusing to put two plastic men on top of a cake and refusing to write “Bill and Steve, love forever” is a righteous act.

      but if they just walk into a shop and buy something already made without any agenda, no problem.

      the gays that destroyed this lady’s life, they are the evil and unjust ones. period. https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/a-great-injustice-done-against-a-christian-by-the-gay-agenda/

      Liked by 1 person

    • You’re bringing in bigoted dogma, hidden behind your beliefs. You would support discrimination, yet expecting equal treatment in the eyes of the law is evil?

      I’m not sure I can take your posts seriously if this is your stance.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Nope; the current Leftist agenda to destroy Judea-Christian values is the most extreme form of bigotry.

      Not wanting to go and celebrate at a so called “gay wedding” is not a wrong kind of discrimination. To discriminate is to think and judge something as wrong, based on evidence and fruit. The homosexuals already have the freedom to do what they do in the privacy of their own homes. they had no right to bring out their disgusting behavior into the public square and seek to get the government to enforce their perversions. The gun to the head by the gays in the meme that Paul W. put up is right – that is what that homosexual agenda is – force and evil. The transgender agenda also. They are the new KKK and neo-Nazis.

      Like

    • No one is being forced to celebrate at gay weddings who doesn’t want to be there. This is complete rubbish. On the other hand, you can not only be refused service for being gay, but in parts of America you can denied a job (or sacked if later found to be) for being gay. There are parts of the world where being gay carries prison sentences and even the death sentence. Yet in the meantime, the zealots on the reactionary right complain about being expected to treat people equally…

      Liked by 1 person

    • yes they do; they are forcing them to go and celebrate their perversions at their ceremonies – the courts have already forced it and destroyed several businesses of florists, photographers, and bakers. You are sadly uninformed of the reality.

      Like

    • The irony is strong here. Have YOU been forced to attend a gay marriage? Face the facts Ken – a public business is not a religious institution. It receives backing from the government, which is representative of ALL the people, not just those whose lifestyles you happen to agree with. Laws exist to ensure everyone is treated EQUALLY, a point you appear to be struggling with. Or do you believe that arbitrary discrimination is a better way forward?

      Whilst you’re at it, maybe you’ll also consider this: did the Founding Fathers place any conditions when they mentioned freedom of religion in the Constitution?

      Liked by 2 people

    • They also should have never been allowed to adopt children. Many of them have mental and emotional problems. Those that are men or women but think they are the opposite have a mental and emotional disorder and are in rebellion against the way God created them.

      Like

    • It is the homosexual agenda folks that are the bigots and evil and immoral.

      Like

    • Ken Temple, it’s probably the fundamentalist mindset that’s detrimental. The mindset displayed by certain gay activists and certain missionaries like yourself.

      Liked by 2 people

    • If you believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam and that the Qur’an is the word of Allah, then you are a fundamentalist Muslim. (as Paul Williams is also.)

      Like

    • That is not correct Ken. You are wrong. Fundamentalism is a distortion of faith. Simply believing in the basic creed of Islam is not fundamentalist. This has been pointed out to you before. Why do you never learn?

      Like

    • If you believe in the fundamental doctrines of Islam and that the Qur’an is Allah’s eternal inspired Word, then you are a fundamentalist Muslim.

      Do you believe the Qur’an is Allah’s eternal word and perfect and without error?

      yes; then you are a fundamentalist Muslim.

      Like

    • No Ken you are totally wrong. That is not fundamentalist Islam just normative orthodox Islam. You are speaking out of ignorance.

      Like

    • Do you believe the Qur’an is Allah’s eternal perfect Word?

      yes or no

      Like

    • You fail to have intellectual capacity to distinguish between groups and ideas.

      Like

    • Ken, what’s up with this childish behaviour?

      Like

    • Darthimon i would not be surprised by Kens extreme views as you may be aware Ken has been trying to convince me of the moral goodness of the Israelite genocide, infanticide, and massacre of innocent camels.

      He has failed on that front. I doubt you will do any better in trying to overcome his homophobia, but i wish you well 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ken, someone needs to nominate you for the Darwin Award.
      Same-sex people don’t hate Christians. Some same-sex couples are Christians – including practicing ones.
      Likewise, some Christians don’t hate, and aren’t prejudiced against, same-sex couples. Some do.
      Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin. In fact, he was pretty clear about loving everyone. In fact, the whole part about Jesus is about his willingness to accept and love others – even those that were ostracised by communities. Perhaps you need to read about Jesus and the woman of Samaria – John 4:5-7.
      He accepted those that others did not. That was his message. It was about being equal.
      However, if you want to focus on Leviticus’ statements in regards to homosexuality, then I hope you haven’t:
      – Ever put ink on your skin
      – Marked your skin
      – Eaten shellfish
      – Masturbated
      – Worn more than one fabric
      – Watched porn, or any sex scenes in any movies
      – Cut your beard
      – Held a grudge (I guess you’re sinning here, though, cause you seem pretty avengy)
      – Or ever worked on a Sunday
      I also hope you’ve been careful with your haircuts.

      This means, with the exception of Ben, you’re either:
      a) Interpreting and accepting the parts of the bible you deem fitting. That means you aren’t following the word of god.
      b) That the new testament is, in fact, relevant, and you’re all a bunch of sinners because I don’t see many long-haired unshaven hillbillies and I’m pretty sure you’ve masturbated and had lust in your hearts. If the new testament is relevant, does that mean that Jesus, the son of god, mean nothing? Because it’s kind of the choice. Who’s most right? Leviticus? Or Jesus?
      c) You have to decide to throw out the old testament and focus on Jesus’ teachings and the new testament, because Jesus is more important.

      You people are ALSO ridiculous. You know who causes this trouble?

      The fucking people offering the service. You know what they have the option of doing? Lying, and saying they aren’t available for that day. It’s not all that uncommon. I booked pretty much everything a year in advance – the cake, the venue, the photographer, everything. We had to go through discussions of what we wanted, what our thoughts were .. if someone didn’t want to marry us, they could have easily lied. If you’re going to do a big song and dance about ‘Can’t bake a cake for gay people’, then it’s going to be easy to prove you’re discriminating. THAT’S what people are fighting against. They want the right to be treated as an equal.

      And that’s pretty damn fair. It’s no different to when women protested about being fired after they married or gave birth; they wanted to be treated equally. They deserve that right.

      Like

    • carlalouise89 – thanks for your are reasonable rant full of cursing and nasty language. real civilized of you.

      Jesus quoted Genesis 1 and 2 in Matthew 19:3-7 and said, “have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female?” and “the two will become one flesh”. Jesus clearly said here that marriage is only for one man and one woman. Therefore Jesus did indeed say that homosexuality is wrong. He also includes that in the lists of sins in Mark 7:20-23 and Matthew 15:18-20, “sexual immorality” ( Greek: pornea – includes all sexual sins outside and before marriage, and marriage is a man and a woman. Also, Jesus Himself spoke His word through His apostles (John 17:8), and the Holy Spirit inspired their writings, including the apostle Paul, and so Romans 1:18-28 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11 is also the word of Jesus and those passages clearly condemn homosexuality as sin. Also, Jesus pre-existed with the Father as the eternal Son and eternal Word (John 1:1-5; 17:5; Philippians 2:5-8), so the words of the Torah in Leviticus 18:22 and Genesis 19 are also the words of Jesus.

      Like

    • No problems, Ken! I can add in a few more fucks for you this time round, if you liked. I’m glad you fucking appreciate it! Lots of people are so uppity about swearing; in Australia, it’s just what we fucking do. It’s part of our fucking vocabulary. But, you know, ‘Straya.

      Actually, you’re misrepresenting what Jesus said. He was asked about divorce, and while he does talk about a man and a woman in reference to Adam and Eve, he’s answering a question about divorce. When he says that ‘they will be one’, that’s what he means. Oh, I forgot to add a fucking. Fuck.

      When you reference Matthew and Mark, they never actually once mention homosexuality. Would you like me to copy the pages? I have multiple versions of the bible, so name one, and I can type it out for you. Matthew mentions ‘sexual immorality’, but that immorality isn’t defined. More over, it could be assumed that, since they’re discussing adultery, that’s the immorality there was Jesus stated that even thinking about adultery was a sin.

      And …. then you’re going back to the Old Testament. So not Jesus’ words. Other people’s. You have to decide what you focus on.

      And I also noticed that you skipped over my questions.
      Do you masturbate?
      Have you had a hair cut?
      Cut your beard?
      Eaten shellfish?
      Mixed more than one form of clothing together?
      Had lust in your heart?
      Watched porn? Or sex in movies?

      ‘Cause Leviticus was pretty specific about those fucking things, too, but you seem happy about that shit.

      If we’re at it, we could talk about Adam’s first wife, Lilith, if you’d like. Not only am I well-educated in the bible, and its history, but I happen to be a fan of The Book of Enoch. I just find it so fucking fascinating that certain sections of Christianity allow certain scripture, don’t you? I mean, The Book of Enoch is a Hebrew text … but as Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, it was all once Hebrew as well, so that’s not really a surprise.

      It just comes down to what part of Christianity you’re a part of, and what your church decided to keep as their scripture.

      But hey, that’s fucking complicated shit, right?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, I think you clearly exposed your vile character and hatred and anger for all to see. you are incapable of civilized debate. bye bye.

      Like

    • You are the most fun person I’ve ever engaged with. I do hope you win that Darwin Award! Good luck!

      Like

    • carlalouise89 – you also don’t seem to know the difference between the laws of the OT that were temporary for Israel as a political state only, vs. the moral laws that are in still applicable today.

      Another problem is language – 2 men or 2 women are not able to get married. It is not a marriage, by definition. You are free to live together and make a contract and call it a secular civil union and go to the court house, etc. but it is not a marriage and never will be in the sight of God. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve and not Julie and Eve.

      The people who had and have hatred are those who in sinful anger cuss and rant as you did, and who took the businesses to court and sued them and destroyed their businesses and lives. They could have gone to another business (florist, baker, photographer) who would have been happy to do it for them; but instead they took out their hatred and sinful anger against them and destroyed their lives. That is the proof of sinful anger and hatred. The amazing thing no a days is all the atheists and militant leftists and homosexuals who cuss and use dirty language and violently riot in the streets and do damage to property, etc. like the leftist-anarchist, “occupy Wallstreet” folks who defecated on police cars, etc.

      Like

    • Oooh, you just love my sinful fucking swearing, don’t you? It’s just a big fucking sticking point with you, isn’t it?

      Joyous.

      Uhhh, no. Christianity didn’t create marriage. Surely you realise that, or are you one of those fundies that literally believe everything in the bible? Including the fact that the earth is like 7,000 years old, despite the shit obviously been cray? And moronic?

      Marriage was an institution long before Christianity.

      Also, according to the UN, human rights dictate that we are allowed to marry the person we want to. The UN doesn’t define a human right as marrying the opposite sex; it defines marrying the person you want.

      I have no problem with (fucking, shit, wanker, bugger, fucker – all for your benefit, I know how much you enjoy it!) with same-sex marriages not being performed by a church or religious organisation.

      I have a problem with bullshit people like you thinking you can impose whatever bullshit you want on others. We come from countries that have freedom from religion. That means same-sex couples get to marry who they want. They might not have a church wedding, because the church might not allow it, and that’s fine. But they should have the right to marry.

      Wow, I had no idea my swearing was inline with violent riots and shitting on police cars. My husband will love that. I’ll have to inform him of it.

      Like

    • the amazing thing now-a-days is all the cussing and dirty language of leftists and atheists and homosexuals on web-sites and blogs, reddit, etc. and the violent rioting done by leftists and anarchists and thugs.

      Like

    • Ken you forget the insults and foul language of fellow Christians even on this blog ie Sam Shamoun. Not a single Christian apologist will condemn him. Why do White and Wood stay silent?

      Liked by 2 people

    • I rebuked him for it.

      but he did not use that kind of language.

      Like

    • But why has no one else condemned his behaviour? It sure looks like the Christians tolerate evil in their own camp.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dr. White did rebuke him on one of the Dividing Line programs. I guess you missed that one.

      Like

    • Yes I did. What did he say?

      Like

    • It would take a long time to find that; and it was before this, that you also reported on YOURSELF. So you should not say that no one rebukes him, you even have the evidence in writing right here at your earlier blog post:

      https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/03/09/10594/

      Liked by 1 person

    • Yes you are right. But all the other Christian leaders are silent. Why is this?

      Liked by 1 person

    • I found it – beginning around the one hour and 4 minute mark – Ijaz Ahmad called in and later Sam called in and Sam admitted that Dr. White rebuked him several times on the differences of their methods. Their conversation goes to the end I think. There is lots of other info there also that shows Ijaz was not consistent either. But Dr. White is consistent.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Fuck shit bugger wanker fucking arsehole shit.

      Make you feel better? So happy to help. I need to let out my “sinful rage” so I can stop shitting on police cars!

      Like

    • @ Carlalouise89

      Do you see nothing wrong with telling ‘the f-ing people’ they should either take part in the celebration of what they hold to be immoral or they should lie?

      Like

    • @VS:

      Morally, if someone has a problem with gay people, I think that’s a fucked up moral issue of their own. I’ve worked in a Catholic school for six years, and the Catholic school I worked in was extremely supportive of same-sex relationships (and so is the Pope). Obviously, that’s slightly different to marriage, but in a moral sense, I don’t know why people give a shit about who someone loves. I really don’t. I know some people quote scripture, but like I pointed out, there’s plenty of things mentioned in the bible we ignore – especially when it comes to the old testament. Jesus was pretty clear about being loving and accepting, and I think if you’re coming from a Christian stand point, Jesus is pretty prominent. I feel that if you’re using Christianity as your religious moral compass, than you have to recognise as Jesus being the second most important ‘character’ (for want of a better word).

      Legally, I have no problem with churches refusing to marry same-sex couples. I believe that that is their right; the right to refuse, because it goes against their belief system. I know that some priests do perform same-sex marriages and are onboard with it all, but a lot don’t. And that’s okay. However, Christianity has no sole claim to marriage. In fact, my husband and I were married by a celebrant. I didn’t want a big wedding. I didn’t want any fuss. (We ended up having a medium sized wedding and some fuss, because my husband and his family liked that type of thing. I don’t care about weddings. I believe in marriage, not how much I spent on the day. Although, to be honest, not that it’s in any way relevant, I wish I’d been firmer on the issue. I feel like we wasted a lot of money, and all I wanted was a simple, small luncheon with twenty or twenty-five people and bang, done. But not relevant.)

      If religious people want to avoid discrimination law suits, then yes, lying is the best way. Once you put it out there that you are discriminating people, there’s going to be a reaction. It might not be every person – some people will be humiliated.

      But, like with everything, we so frequently see that eventually, people will fight back. They want equality. They want equity. They want to be treated alike.

      Honestly, I think it’d be best if bakers just got the fuck over it, and made the fucking cakes. I seriously don’t get why they give a shit. I mean, I can understand them being opposed to it, but you’re making a cake. Does it matter? Really? You aren’t there for the day. You don’t have to have much contact with the people. Your participation is to bake a cake – which is what they do for a living. Writing a few letters or putting two men or two women on the top of the cake shouldn’t be a big deal.

      But, when you make it one, there’s always going to be consequences. And you know what? Same-sex couples will win. It’ll be no different to people arguing that inter-racial couples weren’t allowed to marry and segregation and slavery. They will win, because it’s about human rights.

      Also, I noticed you wrote ‘f-ing’. I mean, I was fucking with Ken because he made a big deal about it, but it’s just the way I speak. I swear in all my blog posts. I’m Australian, it’s just part of our culture, I guess. I don’t think I really know anyone who doesn’t swear like a drunken sailor. However, as you didn’t mention it, and I noticed the way you wrote it, I actually am usually somewhat polite. I can’t make any promises (it’s so ingrained), but if you’d like, I can try and not swear in my reply comments to you. Just let me know. If it doesn’t bother you, that’s cool too.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oh, Ken, did you want to resume talking again??? Or will my fucks piss you the fuck off?

      Like

    • Only if you treat me to an Aussie Burger with a Beet-root, fried egg, and pineapple. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Carlalouise89

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate the long reply.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Carla,

      Do you support the plebiscite?

      Like

    • “They will win, because it’s about human rights.”

      Marriage is a privilege, not a human right. This is why it is defined to exclude some relationships, because not all relationships are equal.

      if it was a human right, then it would have to be applied to all humans e.g children, incest, gays etc but such relationships are harmful and not most beneficial to society and thus not recognised.

      Like

  15. Homosexual political activists are also a hate group – they hate Christianity and Christians.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Homosexuals who are the political activists and seek to change society, have to stifle / suppress their conscience by being busy with unrighteousness in their private debaucheries and public activism that seeks to destroy decent society, marriage, and civilization.

    “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness that suppress the truth by being busy in unrighteousness.” Romans 1:18

    Like the disgusting tactics of the gay activist Dan Savage.

    http://www.dennyburk.com/who-is-dan-savage-2/

    Like

  17. “homophobia” is just thrown out to try and shut down conversation. I am not afraid of homosexuals as people. I have led one to Christ and he appreciated it; and taught another guy in the Christian faith after someone else led him to repentance and faith in Christ.

    I ate meals with them and visited them in their homes; and they told me I was the first Christian who reached out to them and visited them and ate meals with them.

    We became good friends. the second guy eventually got married to a woman and had 4 children.

    They both confessed they were wrong and they even knew they were doing wrong even while doing their homosexual lifestyle before they repented and came to faith in Christ. The confessed they were suppressing their consciences.

    So, “patrobin” – you are wrong and take it back.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ken you seem to only have positive things to say about gay people with whom act according to your oppressive standards and those who don’t are labeled as flaunting their perversions.

      In truth you use your religion as an excuse to vindicate your bigotry. Own it.

      Like

    • No; the truth of gospel sets people free; and is the highest form of love and truth.

      John 8:31-36

      31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,

      32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

      33 They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”

      34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin.

      35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever.

      36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

      Like

    • Unless they happen to be Amalakites or LBGT. Besides the Gospel is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength and to follow his Torah. Which you most certainly do not do 😦

      Liked by 3 people

    • LOL – some of main passages on that issue are IN THE TORAH !!! Deuteronomy chapters 7 and 9 !!!!

      Ouch !!!

      Like

    • But i thought the genocide was a one time only thing. If i recall they were not included in the 613 commandments.

      Fail

      Like

    • It was God’s law from Moses to Solomon’s reign.

      the land promises and borders were fulfilled in 1 Kings 4:20-34.

      Never to be repeated or applicable again.

      Like

    • In one sense Ken, you are correct – homophobia is not the right word, for that implies fear. What you harbour is hate.

      In one of your earlier posts you decried the idea that homosexuality was being forced into peoples’ faces – well, I know of no gay Churches, I know of no gay people who canvas people to convert to homosexuality, I know of no gay people who knock on peoples’ doors to preach the Word of the Gay.

      Like

    • No; the highest form of love is preaching the love of God in Jesus Christ and His gospel. How dare you call my genuine concern for homosexuals “hate”. Christians do not hate homosexuals at all. Tough love includes telling people the truth and not giving in their childish demands.

      And you are also wrong in that they are constantly in the bias left wing news and media and liberal agendas by the propaganda of how Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama “changed their minds” and “evolved” about so called “gay marriage” – and the courts and TV Shows and movies are definitely shoving their debauchery and perversions in our faces.

      Like

    • I’m not wrong. You call them perverted. You expect them to hide away and you think they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. You support businesses being free to discriminate against them. That isn’t ‘showing concern’. You have also failed to address my point RE preaching and Churches, in favour of a whinge about supposedly biased media. Hate is the appropriate word

      Like

    • No; “hate” is wrong. You just use that and others use “homophobia” as a way to shut down argument and debate. I already proved that entering a shop and buying an already made plain cake is fine; but demanding that someone has to put two plastic men on top (a symbol of perversion) is wrong and force and the meme that Paul Williams put up is right.

      You and that agenda is demanding that we change the meaning of words of also.

      homosexuals cannot get married. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Genesis 1-2; Matthew 19:3-6

      Like

    • Marriage is not a Christian institution and you are supporting (as Paul is) the arbitrary discrimination of anyone, for whatever reason, by suggesting businesses are not held to rules. Do you believe it would right for a Christian to refuse service to a Muslim, or vice versa? What if someone refuses service to black people, just because they want to? This is the sort of society you would favour, by failing to hold businesses to a single standard.

      Like

    • Marriage is a Christian institution, and a creation ordinance – Genesis 1-2 – it is basic to all cultures in all history and is inherently only for a man and a woman.

      An electrical wire connection will not work if you force the wrong parts into the wrong socket.

      Plumbing will not work if you don’t connect the right pipes together.

      Male and Female were made to fit with one another, compliment one another.

      Many blacks have said it is such an insult to equate their struggle for civil rights with the gay rights movement of wanting the right to perversion and immorality and changing language and society and history.

      Like

    • Marriage predates Christianity (the concept of unions between people existed throughout Greek and Roman times, to say nothing of it outside Europe). It is wholly arrogant to claim marriage is therefore a Christian institution, unless you’re saying you regard Genesis as literally true (in which case we can add pseudo-scientific creationist dogma to your homophobia). Your false examples regarding wiring and plumbing strike me as an effort to dehumanise the discussion, ignoring the impact such discriminatory ideals has on people, and I see you have no answer to my point regarding wholesale discrimination, so instead you change tact and try to suggest blacks would be against the gay rights movement (which is false).

      You have still to address my point RE the ongoing denial of jobs (or dismissal from jobs) to homosexuals, for no other reason other than that they are homosexuals. Is this something a fair and just society indulges in?

      Like

    • the Truth of Christianity includes the Old Testament Scriptures, the Torah, the book of Genesis being the first.
      “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” = still a great truth and bears repeating.

      Conservative Christians have several ways of dealing with Genesis – there are several legitimate interpretations that do not affirm Darwinian Evolution – the days of Genesis may be long epochs or the first verse is a general statement and the days are days of arranging matter that was created in verse 1. The 3-4 basic views are 1. Young Earth – literal 24 days, God creating age within the first creation – as Adam and Eve were already mature, etc. 2. Day Age or Epochs, 3. Some kind of gap theory between verse 1 and 2 or John Sailhaimer’s view. 4. The Framework Hypothesis is another form of the days being long periods of time or epochs.

      http://creation.com/15-questions-for-evolutionists

      Like

    • Except that creationism as defined by Genesis is completely unverifiable as a scientific medium – and your argument about Adam and ‘Steve’ is just childish. It remains completely untrue that marriage is a Christian institution.

      Furthermore, your narrative assumes we must all abide by a very specific set of rules, in order to have certain rights. You still haven’t answered my points RE denial of jobs and rights.

      Like

    • the issues about denial jobs and rights would have to taken on a case by case instance – it is just too general to make a judgment on that. If the person is humble and not flaunting their homosexuality out in the open, there is no reason they should be fired, etc.

      Like

    • What defines ‘flaunting’? Do you know? Basically you’re saying ‘because of my belief system, you have to totally hide who you actually are, otherwise I’m going to be mean to you and deny you rights’. You’re also saying ‘my belief system should be the overriding one upon which everyone should be judged and upon which laws and rules should be made, regardless of other faiths and beliefs’. You’re not supporting equality – you’re supporting a theocracy, and we know how well they usually turn out…

      Like

    • I don’t accept the narrative of “this is who I am” – the whole transgender thing also and some people now thinking they are cats or dogs or babies who want to be in diapers and they are 40 year old men; or women cutting off their nose and ears and claiming they are a “dragon”, etc. They are all mentally and emotionally disturbed and in rebellion against the way God made them. I don’t believe in theocracy; but the Judeo -Christian ethical system is the best that goes with free market capitalism and Constitutional Republic and freedom of religion.

      I realize that the society (you being a classic example of this) no longer believes in God or morality or traditional values. But I will continue to speak the truth in love; and preach the gospel. I sincerely believe you are wrong, but I don’t wish you nor any homosexual any harm.

      Like

    • The bottom line is, you don’t have to accept anything – but you need to remember that no one is obliged to accept any of your narratives either. No one is obliged to follow your version of morality (and those who don’t believe in God still have morals, don’t make the mistake in believing otherwise). People fought and died for our freedom – they didn’t do this to see it overturned by a theocracy, and whilst you may claim to believe otherwise, it’s what your arguing for – I don’t object to Christianity. I don’t object to Islam, or any religion – but no single religion should take precedence over everyone elses’ rights – that path leads to nothing good, as we have seen throughout the world and throughout history.

      Like

    • you have no rational or logical basis for any morality or ethics. If we are just chemicals bouncing off one another, then anything goes; and you will see that in future, since all foundation for morality and ethics are being eroded.

      Like

    • Not true. We see demonstrations of empathy and compassion in the animal kingdom all the time. We are capable of reasoned thought and logic. Our observations of the universe have frequently contradicted the Bible. Evolution is an observable trait. Yet we still possess a sense of right and wrong. For example, I know it’s wrong to deny people rights on the basis of someone’s religious beliefs.

      Like

    • We are capable of reasoned thought and logic.

      Except homosexuality, transgenderism, and people thinking they are animals and getting plastic surgery to look like an animal; and some who want their arms or legs cut off – these thoughts are insanity and against logic reason.

      Like

    • You realise homosexuality occurs in nature right? By the way, it’s a clever attempt to conflate homosexuality and transgenderism with the other stuff you mentioned, but totally outside of the point.

      You want examples of morality from the Bible? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6120373/Top-10-worst-Bible-passages.html

      Like

    • All kinds of behaviour are found in nature that if practiced by humans would be condemned: cannibalism, rape etc

      Like

    • Are you equating homosexuals with rapists Paul?

      Like

    • lol, i think you understand perfectly well what i am saying

      Like

    • No, I don’t. Enlighten me. Are you equating homosexuals with rapists?

      Like

    • You seriously don’t understand my point? Here it is again: it is fallacious for you to appeal to ‘nature’ ie animal behaviour, as it contains many examples of unacceptable behaviour if it was done by humans. You can think of your own examples if you wish.

      Like

    • So you ‘are’ equating homosexuality with rape and cannibalism, by lumping it into the same category when you refer to unacceptable behaviour.

      Like

    • i have invited you to come other with other examples if you prefer. Don’t get hung up about this instance or that. You seem determined to miss my point.

      Like

    • Nope, got your point just fine. It’s clear that’s what you’re doing.

      Homosexuality clearly isn’t the same as rape or cannibalism – by lumping in a behaviour that hurts no one with behaviours that do, you are once again creating a false narrative. By that logic, heterosexual intercourse is unacceptable too.

      Like

    • The issue as I see it is this: you deny the existence of the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Therefore you do not acknowledge his will as expressed in prohibitions on certain behaviours.

      Jews, Christians, Muslims (and others) obey the commandants of our Lord. You do not. Further debate is fairly pointless until we sort out this most important of questions first.

      Like

    • I don’t necessarily deny the existence of a Creator. What I don’t believe is remotely just is for any religion to be the basis of policy for determining freedoms and rights. That mode of thinking will inevitably restrict rights to those who are supposedly righteous.

      Like

    • but my point is that you do not acknowledge the rights of our Creator to determine what is permissible and what is prohibited. You are a practical atheist. This is the fundamental problem.

      Like

    • Are we not allowed to determine things for ourselves? Are we irretrievably bound to the will of this creator, not free to make our own choices? If we assume you are right and there is a Creator, why did they create so many different creation stories and religions? Why would they harbour such anger toward the homosexual community?

      Like

    • If we are created by God, then we are not free to live our lives in defiance of his will. Or rather if we do, we must pay the consequences. Heaven or hell await us.

      God prohibits certain sexual acts (adultery, bestiality, homosexual acts, formication, rape etc). Even if you do not understand His reasons for the prohibition, we would be wise to obey him nonetheless.

      Like

    • The key thing is of course, ‘if’.

      And where the problem lies is when someone wields their beliefs to try and deny other people their rights.

      Like

    • Since God exists; and He does miracles; and is all powerful and pure; there is no good reason to not understand that God can create things with age already within them and that He can do the kinds of miracles described in the Bible. (parting of the Red Sea; Noah’s ark; the virgin Birth of Christ, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, etc.)

      Like

    • There are dozens of creation narratives out there. Each one will claim to be to utterly true. Upon which do we hang our hat and use to form a system of rules?

      The only fair means to represent everyone is for no single faith to be the dominant one. To do otherwise is to invite oppression.

      Like

    • they are perverted. homosexuality is a perversion.

      Like

    • Not everyone shares your views, and nor do they have to live just to make you happy.

      Like

  18. True Believers in Christ are the only ones who have been regenerated and given the ability to love God with all their hearts, soul, and strength.

    All others are enslaved to sin and unable to obey God.

    Like

    • But God has guided many others from different faiths with the same message of monotheism before and after Jesus. It is only pure arrogance of fundamentalism that asserts that they are the only ones who have God all to themselves. Heck you share a scripture of another religion but claim its followers are damned.

      Consider how Jesus taught the same message as Muhammad and Moses. Salvation via the mercy of God for all people. There can be no arrogance with that kind of proposition.

      Liked by 1 person

    • no; Jesus said,
      Unless you believe that “I am” [ meaning Yahweh], you will die in your sins.” John 8:24

      Like

    • NO Ken it does not mean Yahweh.

      Remember this?

      “I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.” John 5:30.

      Obviously Yahweh would not say that.

      God would never say that He can do nothing on His own.

      God would never say He was sent by someone (or something) else.

      God would never say He judges as God tells Him.

      God would never say that He is a just judge because He carries out some one else’s will.

      Like

    • Jesus isn’t God this is the most obvious truth.

      God cannot die = Jesus died
      God is not a man = Jesus is a man
      God is all knowing = Jesus is limited in his knowledge

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Jesus isn’t God this is the most obvious truth.

      God cannot die = Jesus died
      God is not a man = Jesus is a man
      God is all knowing = Jesus is limited in his knowledge”

      God can do anything he chooses – if he wants to incarnate into human flesh and remain simultaneously as father in heaven, then only the absence of such a being would make that impossible.

      In other words, if you deny god’s power to exist in however many forms he chooses, then you have to profess atheism. The idea of a god who cannot do godly things can only mean that god does not exist.

      Like

    • Can God become a married bachelor?

      Like

    • Paul Williams

      “Can God become a married bachelor?”

      Dude, deep, man,deep.

      Like

    • so that’s a yes I assume.

      Next: can God become Satan?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Can God act in opposition to his nature?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Patrice

      “Can God act in opposition to his nature?”

      Unfortunately that’s the trinitarian claim. Yep. End of understanding.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul Williams
      “so that’s a yes I assume.

      Next: can God become Satan?”

      No, it’s a non sequitur. Your question is stupid. Make a point.

      Like

    • Trey you claimed:

      “God can do anything he chooses”

      “If you deny god’s power to exist in however many forms he chooses, then you have to profess atheism.”

      So I ask you: “can God become Satan?”

      You reply: “No, it’s a non sequitur. Your question is stupid.”

      Explain to me why it is a stupid non sequitur.

      Like

    • Patrice

      “Can God act in opposition to his nature?”

      Another deep one dude.

      Like

    • less sarcasm more intelligent answers

      Like

    • Trey,
      Looks like Paul cornered you on that one!

      Like

  19. From the Torah, Deuteronomy chapter 7

    7 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, 2 and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction.[a] You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. 3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. 5 But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars and dash in pieces their pillars and chop down their Asherim and burn their carved images with fire.

    6 “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the Lord has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations, 10 and repays to their face those who hate him, by destroying them. He will not be slack with one who hates him. He will repay him to his face. 11 You shall therefore be careful to do the commandment and the statutes and the rules that I command you today.

    Like

  20. From the Torah, Deuteronomy chapter 9

    Not Because of Righteousness
    9 “Hear, O Israel: you are to cross over the Jordan today, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, cities great and fortified up to heaven, 2 a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know, and of whom you have heard it said, ‘Who can stand before the sons of Anak?’ 3 Know therefore today that he who goes over before you as a consuming fire is the Lord your God. He will destroy them and subdue them before you. So you shall drive them out and make them perish quickly, as the Lord has promised you.

    4 “Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out before you, ‘It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,’ whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. 5 Not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out from before you, and that he may confirm the word that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

    6 “Know, therefore, that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people. 7 Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God to wrath in the wilderness. From the day you came out of the land of Egypt until you came to this place, you have been rebellious against the Lord. 8 Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. 9 When I went up the mountain to receive the tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights. I neither ate bread nor drank water. 10 And the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken with you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly. 11 And at the end of forty days and forty nights the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant. 12 Then the Lord said to me, ‘Arise, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them; they have made themselves a metal image.’

    Like

    • Yeah, I know – do you dispute that that is Torah?

      and to love God with all one’s heart and mind was obedience to Torah, which for the Israelites in Joshua’s time and Samuel and David’s time, meant obeying those commands in Deut. 7, 9, (and carried out in Joshua and 1 Sam. 15) ?

      The Kingdom / Land promises was fulfilled in 1 Kings 4:20-34 under Solomon; no longer applicable.

      So, I don’t agree with modern Israel state that it can try and get back all the original Promised Land; but they do have the right to defend themselves against Hamas and PLO when they attack. Problem is the Muslims never accepted Israel’s right to exist and the 2 state plan; and still never agree to it. Especially Hamas, which has evil Hadith in their charter – “kill all the Jews until the day of resurrection”, etc.

      Like

    • cut and paste of Torah and it totally demolished your -you and others, patrobin, etc., arguments.

      Yes, it was a good and appropriate cut and paste of powerful texts of Torah.

      Like

  21. I actually follow God’s law more than you do.

    Romans 8:4

    true Christians are the ones who follow God’s law for today – the NT.

    Like

  22. @Ken

    I am curious, Ken, how long have you been a born again Christian?

    Like

    • Because the Lord opened my heart to respond to the gospel. See Acts 16:14

      Like

    • Were you in a Christian environment at the time?
      What was it that caused the Lord to open your heart?

      Are you aware of the historical background of Acts?
      Have you ever read the findings of the Acts seminar?

      Like

    • Yes, I know the historical background of the book of Acts.

      What is the “Acts Seminar” ?

      If it is like the “Jesus Seminar” liberal scholars like John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Robert Funk, etc. – they are not credible – just secular liberals with an anti-supernatural bias.

      Like

    • The Acts seminar found that basically the book of Acts is little more than fiction written in the early decades of the second century
      You can Google it if you are really interested in the historical aspects.

      So what was it that caused you to become a (born again) Christian?

      Liked by 1 person

    • No; Acts was written by Luke around 62 AD at the latest, based on internal evidence and the abrupt was it ends. If it was written later, there would have been more details as to what happened to the apostle Paul after 2 years under house arrest.

      The book of Acts is “God-breathed” Scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

      Like

    • 2 Tim 3:16 obviously does not refer to Acts but to the Jewish scriptures

      Like

    • 2 Timothy 3:15 is about the OT Scriptures, then he expands it to “all Scripture” in verse 16. He views all previous of his letters as Scripture and quoted from the gospels (Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7) on same par as Torah in 1 Timothy 5:18. Since 2 Timothy is the last one written by Paul before his execution around 67 AD, it includes all NT books, even in principle those that were written later, such as John, Revelation, 1-3 John, and those written around the same time – 2 Peter, Hebrews.

      It is by principle teaching that whatever is “God-breathed” is Holy Scripture on the same level as Torah and TaNakh. (the OT)

      Like

    • Wrong, I am afraid, and the Seminar has demonstrated this…with evidence.
      And there was nobody called ”Luke” who wrote this gospel in the first place. You know the gospels are anonymous so why
      suggest otherwise.
      Paul’s letters were used as the basis for Acts, not the other way around.
      Furthermore, Acts was cobbled together and Josephus is cited as one source.
      The ”Malta Incident” is as good an example as any to start off.
      Why do you think the story of the snake is simply a narrative vehicle to move the story along?
      Take a guess if nothing else?
      Let’s see if you know anything about herpetology.

      And you still. haven’t told me what it was that caused you to become re born ( and I don’t mean the bit about your god etc. What was happening at that time?

      Like

    • No, Acts was written around 62 AD and I reject that liberal theory.

      Like

    • There is NO conclusive evidence it was written in 62 AD and the vast majority of historians think a much later date is probable.

      Like

    • no, if it was later, why would the author not include the details after what happened after the 2 years in house arrest? Why not tell us what happened at either the trial, or release, and more travels and the re-arrest of Paul and execution later in Rome. (context of 2 Timothy)

      The omissions are too glaring for a later date.

      Like

    • Of course you do. Sadly this is what indoctrination does to people. I don’t suppose it would help if I posted links for you?

      Anyway, let’s see if we can at least enlighten you on the snake issue shall we?
      No venomous snake has ever been found on Malta. The only likely candidate in the story would have been the viper and it certainly does not live on the shoreline either.

      In the words of the Life of Brian.

      ”He’s ( Acts) making it up as he goes along.”

      And what next?
      Exodus was a literal event?
      Come on, Ken, you can’t be that naive or that blind to the evidence, surely?

      So, you are not going to divulge your testimony? Are you embarrassed or ashamed about something?
      You’re not doing time in the clink/joint are you?

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Paul Williams wrote:

    NO Ken it does not mean Yahweh.

    Remember this?

    “I can do nothing on my own. I judge as God tells me. Therefore, my judgment is just, because I carry out the will of the one who sent me, not my own will.” John 5:30.

    Obviously Yahweh would not say that.

    God would never say that He can do nothing on His own.

    God would never say He was sent by someone (or something) else.

    God would never say He judges as God tells Him.

    God would never say that He is a just judge because He carries out some one else’s will.

    If you want to use John 5:30, then you have to accept
    John 1:1-5
    John 1:14
    John 1:18
    John 5:17-18
    John 8:24
    John 8:56-59
    John 10:30
    John 17:5
    John 18:1-6
    John 19:1-7
    John 20:28

    also and put them all together in a theologically sound interpretation, which includes both the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the incarnation, pre-existence of the Son into eternity past, and the different roles in the economic Trinity.

    Like

    • Also, all of John 5:19-47 points to Jesus being the Son of God, God in the flesh, as He has the same authority and power and glory and honor as the Father. The whole passages shows the unity of the Father and the Son; that the Son is not some independent separate “god”; but in full unity with the Father and His power, glory, honor, judgement, authority, and ability to give life. The Father is greater in role in the economic Trinity – and the Father did not become flesh, so the manner of speaking is the only way to communicate both equality in essence, but difference in role and person.

      John 5:19-47 is a long passage and everyone should read all of it carefully and meditate on the passage deeply.

      Like

    • “God in the flesh, as He has the same authority and power and glory and honor as the Father.”

      Only that God in the flesh emptied himself of the same authority and power and glory.

      Like

  24. Let’s try to agree on some basics:
    Homosexuality is counter to physiology — one of the reasons it causes many health problems. In this sense, Ken is right; it is undeniably a perversion of otherwise functional and fully developed sexual anatomy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Homosexuality exists in nature. Homophobia only exists in one. How much of the psychological problems faced by homosexuals are the result of being continually condemned and ostracised?

      Like

    • I don’t think you understand.

      Physiology (i.e., the science of *natural* functions, as granted by Nature or God if you’re a believer) is counter to homosexuality. This means for example in the case of MSM, genitalia has simply no business in the digestive system.
      The latter is neither fit nor equipped to be penetrated by a genital organ, nor for fisting, or any other harmful practice. If this elementary aspect of nature is violated, health problems will arise (see: http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/std.htm ).

      If you have a problem with the way things are made, I suggest you take it to mother nature.
      If you want to believe it’s all about love, everything is in rainbow colours, and moral values are to be taken from the animal kingdom, well do so at your own peril. By the way, the bonobo happens to also engage in family orgies. And members of several other species are known eat their young.

      Like

  25. Verdant,

    The historical and ongoing persecution of homosexuals, the expectation that they deny a fundamental aspect of who they are, to the point where they are in steady conflict with themselves, is a situation unique to humans. You cannot compare our behaviour to that of animals in every aspect – we can find reasons to condemn monogamy as wrong if we do that.

    It’s pretty obvious that we are capable of empathy, as well as logic and reason, and compassion. We are capable of study and education. It is my view that, instead of creating a stigma over homosexuality because some conservative religious types object to it, we properly educate people (both straight and gay, for lack of proper sex education affects both).

    Like

  26. @Verdant,

    [quoteThis is just ideological nonsense that serves only to confirm itself.

    See in the link in my other comment actual scientific data published by the Centre for Disease Control showing the higher prevalence and rate of dissemination of certain diseases in the homosexual community (as well as heterosexual people engaging in risky practices).
    Some are only detectable after a while, hence the idea of requiring those at higher risk observe a sufficient period of abstinence before the donation.[/quote]

    There may well be reasons to treat blood donated from homosexuals more carefully than other sources – but what exactly does this mean in respect of the wider narrative of this thread, which is gay rights? The disease issue can be solved (for both homosexuals and hetrosexuals) with better sex education, which is sorely lacking even in parts of the USA (ironically due to religious doctrines).

    @Paulus

    [quote]Marriage is a privilege, not a human right. This is why it is defined to exclude some relationships, because not all relationships are equal.

    if it was a human right, then it would have to be applied to all humans e.g children, incest, gays etc but such relationships are harmful and not most beneficial to society and thus not recognised.[/quote]

    This is a classic example of the Slippery Slope Fallacy. A consensual relationship between two adults, of the same sex or not, is not harmful to anyone.

    Like

  27. It is not arbitrary discrimination in an unjust way, since homosexuals and lesbians cannot marry each other anyway. So called “gay marriage” does not exist. It harms the people themselves, since they are suppressing the truth of God within themselves, and it harms children and society – just the idea that it is “ok” and “good” is harmful to society, since it promotes lies and falsehoods. If they adopt or do some kind of invetro fertiliztion/ donation / use of a woman’s womb, etc. – it is a cruelty to the child – the child of a homosexual partnership will always wonder who his or her real opposite sex parent is. They have a higher percentage of depression and suicide and you will see this increase in the future.

    Liked by 1 person

    • So in other words Ken, you believe you have the right to impose your religious judgement upon homosexuals, irrespective of their beliefs, and discriminate quite happily against them. Gotcha.

      Liked by 1 person

    • All of history and all other cultures and all civilizations have already functioned on the basics of marriage between a man and woman and condemned homosexuality as an aberrant and perverted act and not marriage at all. But in modern society, they are free to live together and write wills for each other, contracts, etc. But they cannot call it “marriage”.

      Liked by 1 person

    • They can call it marriage if they so wish and there’s nothing you can do about it.

      Like

    • Except the freedom to speak out and disagree and make arguments. you can call a fish an elephant if you want, but it is insanity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • One could argue it’s insanity to live by rules formed from a whimsical deity too.

      Like

    • The Creator Almighty is holy, righteous, the Judge, eternal, Sovereign, Pure Love and truth and beauty and never whimsical.

      Like

    • If he is eternal then he does not die.

      Like

    • God has apparently decreed, for no reason, that we are to condemn homosexuality, and God has, according to the Bible, killed or permitted the killing of children. That is both whimsical and barbaric.

      Like

    • No; God is against murder and the killing of children and it is one of the ten commandments. That is why abortion is wrong and infanticide is wrong.

      Like

    • Deuteronomy 7 and 20. Look them up.

      Like

    • Those were temporary for Israel’s theocracy and establishment in the promised land, after 400 years of opportunity to repent (Genesis 15:13-18; Joshua), and only because of the degeneration of the Canaanites culture into the lowest forms of paganism, sex with animals, homosexuality in their religious worship, etc. Only those that defied and stayed were killed anyway. The command included to drive them out of the land. If they left, and many did – going to Lebanon; the Israelites were not allowed to attack beyond the promised land borders.

      Like

    • That sounds like a convenient set of excuses for killing children, who couldn’t possibly have been involved in any of the activities you mentioned. You’re excusing child murder.

      Like

    • “you can call a fish an elephant if you want, but it is insanity.”

      Ken, I know it is off topic, but the irony … You call God a Man and vice versa, remember? ….

      Like

    • No; we say the 2nd person of the Trinity, the eternal Son/Word, took on a human nature and is both God and man by nature. We don’t call the Father or the Holy Spirit a man. We don’t believe a man became God.

      Like

    • Same problem eternal beings don’t die

      Like

    • Burhanudddin

      And you call a man who married a 6 year old an example for all time. Go figure.

      Like

    • Trey your God impregnated his own mother

      Like

    • Burhauddin

      Your prophet married his daughter in law.

      Like

    • Trey you are a funny guy. You really want to play that stupid trolling game? How about your God killed his own Son? You worship a Zombie? Your God makes you drink and eat human flesh and blood?

      Like

    • Only Roman Catholics think they are literally eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is one that all the Reformers and Protestants were against and know to be a bunch of superstitious non-sense.

      Like

    • of course it was the prevailing view in the early church

      Like

    • Not true; Transubstantiation did not come about until the 800s – 1215 AD and beyond. Transubstantiation is not the same as “real presence”.

      see here: (even the “real presence” is disputed here in the early church period)
      https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

      Like

    • Read the article and see that it was not.

      Like

    • “Only Roman Catholics think they are literally eating the flesh and blood of Jesus. ”

      You are ignorant of early church history.

      They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans).

      The food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh are nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus. (Justin Martyr, First Apology).

      That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ. (Augustine, Sermons, 227).

      Like

    • The Ignatius quote is against Doceticism and nascent Gnosticism and the denial of the incarnation and denial of the crucifixion, “the flesh of Jesus Christ”, “which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”

      I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.
      Now, He suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved. And He suffered truly, even as also He truly raised up Himself, not, as certain unbelievers maintain, that He only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]. And as they believe, so shall it happen unto them, when they shall be divested of their bodies, and be mere evil spirits.

      Like

    • Reading Ignatius in context : Part 2
      see the others, parts 3, 4, and I think the final one is # 5. It has been a while since I watched and listened to these. They refute the RC argument that those quotes mean “Transubstantiation”. I am not ignorant of the issues; I already knew about all three of those quotes. But have you listened to all these and read the article I linked to?

      Like

    • “For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, “Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.” And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. (Smyrneans, 3)

      I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that ye also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I

      guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this. But if these things were done by our Lord only in appearance, then am I also only in appearance bound. And why have I also surrendered myself to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts? But, [in fact,] he who is near to the sword is near to God; he that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ. I undergo all these things that I may suffer together with Him, He who became a perfect man inwardly strengthening me.” (ibid, 4)

      Some ignorantly deny Him, or rather have been denied by Him, being the advocates of death rather than of the truth. These persons neither have the prophets persuaded, nor the law of Moses, nor the Gospel even to this day, nor the sufferings we have individually endured. For they think also the same thing regarding us.1004 For what does any one profit me, if he commends me, but blasphemes my Lord, not confessing that He was [truly] possessed of a body?1005 But he who does not acknowledge this, has in fact altogether denied Him, being enveloped in death.1006 I have not, however, thought good to write the names of such persons, inasmuch as they are unbelievers. Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to [a true belief in] Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection. (ibid, 5)

      They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of1019 them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. (ibid, 7)

      The Docetists did not believe partake in the Eucharist because they did not even believe that Jesus had a real body, but only “seemed” to have a body. (from Dokeo – to seem)

      Like

  28. And what would you say to someone who doesn’t believe in God and doesn’t feel their lives should be lived by someone else’s rules? Should they be forced to live by religious rules if they don’t believe?

    All rules are someone else’s rules.

    the same argument can be made that murder is not intrinsically wrong and evil; and already we are seeing others making their case for polygamy, marriage of father and daughter, son and mother, brother and sister, with animals, cutting off of limbs, and killing children who are “defective”, not only abortions, which are bad enough, but there are some intellectuals (atheists, skeptics, evolutionists, etc.) who are arguing for these things in academic journals, etc.

    You have no basis for saying that murder or stealing is wrong; since one can say, “I don’t believe in any rules at all” – whatever I say goes – like Neitzche’s “will to power” taken to the next level. (which is what Hitler did)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Lots of false dilemmas here Ken. Your argument in a nutshell is ‘obey the rules of my faith, irrespective of what you believe’. Well, the Bible features accounts of God commanding the killing of children and the wholesale destruction of cities. All it would seem, on a whim. It is inevitable that, if we take Genesis as literally true, there would have been incestual breeding going on once Adam and Eve started to have children. In fact, since Eve was made from Adam and therefore would have shared the same genetic history, the very first children were (if we accept Genesis as true) the product of an incestual relationship!

      So you don’t get to claim the high ground.

      Like

    • In fact Ken, it’s your argument – that anyone can arbitrarily discriminate – that leads to rules going out of the window.

      Like

    • It’s not arbitrary since it has been established as the norm for centuries, for millennia, since the beginning, since creation of Adam and Eve; a solid law-truth for all time.

      Like

    • Face it Ken. You wish to impose a set of rules upon everyone else, based on your belief system. In no way shape or form is that fair.

      Like

    • No; these rules have already been established as truth for millennia all the way back to the beginning.

      Like

    • All the way back to when humans first evolved?

      Like

    • There is no proof of Macro-Evolution. What Darwin observed is micro-evolution – change within kinds. (the variation of the finch’s beaks, etc.)

      Like

    • There’s plenty of proof. It takes a remarkably narrow mind to insist otherwise.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Quotes 2 and 3:

      Patterson, C., Evolution, The British Museum of Master Books, Natural History, London, 1978.

      3.
      Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979.

      Like

    • I wonder Ken, if you would be willing to venture to a site like Debate.org for a formal discussion on this (or any other) topic?

      Like

    • Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

      ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
      He went on to say:

      ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].

      Like

  29. During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

    ‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.
    ‘One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’—the late Dr Colin Patterson, formerly senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History

    ‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
    ‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6

    Like

  30. I apologize for sharing my thoughts on this topic, here. I couldn’t find a spot where it seemed to fitting. One type of proof or evidence for Christ’s divinity is hatred. It is striking but rarely, if ever, noted. The hatred generated by the mere mention of His name is amazing. Many people passionately despise everything to do with Him, even if they know very little about Him. He is a special target. Many enjoy going to great lengths to defame Him and those devoted to Him. No insult is spared. Nothing is barred when condemning Him. Nothing is too vile or too degrading. Mention “Bob Smith” in the context of supremely despicable conduct and you will not inspire the same degree of fury.

    To me, it reassuring. He foretold this phenomenon. “Whoever hates Me hates My Father as well. If I had not done among them the works that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have seen and hated both Me and My Father. But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated Me without reason.’…”

    Like

  31. How the f*** did we get from baking a cake to here?

    Liked by 1 person

Trackbacks

  1. Bakers, the KKK and False Dilemmas  – Coalition of the Brave
  2. The Quest for Freedom (Provided you Think as I do) – Coalition of the Brave

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: