Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself


DISCLAIMER: The blog author does not in any way hate or socially discriminate against homosexual persons or their civic rights.

In the following post, he merely points out the Scriptural basis for the rejection of homosexual behaviour in Conservative mainstream Christianity. Modern socio-cultural issues related to the issue are not adressed here.

The blog author also fully supports the civil rights of each person of any religion, lifestyle or politics to practise his or her beliefs without infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

However, he draws the line at churches, groups or individuals that make the claim of homosexuality being permitted or condoned by the Bible and Christianity – as they are in essence saying that every other church (which follows the traditional, mainstream and Scripturally-backed belief that homosexuality is a sin) IS WRONG, MISGUIDED AND HATEFULLY DISCRIMINATORY. This borders on libel and slander.

Although the blog author may not ‘understand’ the feelings and real-life challenges faced by homosexual persons, the following post does not make any claim to do so – the discussion that follows focuses only on Bible Scripture, of which the blog author believes that his understanding is adequate and correct in the case of the citations below.

———————————————-

OLD TESTAMENT – LAWS OF MOSES

  • The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old – surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens - Genesis 19:1,4,5,24. The story of Sodom from which we get the word sodomy (i.e. ass-banditry).

And yes, I am aware of the argument that “Sodom’s sin was about not showing hospitality, not about homosexuality”. See excerpt from this article in response:

Citing Mark Jordan’s The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, Kristof states as fact that “it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.” The true facts are that, long before the 11th century, a number of early Jewish and Christian writers picked up on the male-male sexual activity of the Sodomites as inherently degrading. In the 1st century (A.D.) alone, one can cite among others: Philo, Josephus, and, some critics to the contrary, Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-10 (on the last two texts go here, pp. 10-13, or here, section V.). Ezekiel, back in the 6th century B.C., knew the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-24), or a precursor document, and interpreted the Sodom story in part through the lens of the absolute Levitical prohibitions against male-male intercourse (18:22; 20:13). When Ezekiel 16:49-50 describes the sin of Sodom as “not aiding the poor and needy” and “committing an abomination,” it refers to two different offenses, as the list of vices in Ezekiel 18:12 makes clear when it distinguishes these two phrases.

The Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings), another work of the 6th century B.C., contains a parallel story to the story of Sodom; namely, the Levite at Gibeah (Judges 19:22-25). There can be little doubt that the male-male dimension of the threatened sexual activity factored prominently in the Deuteronomistic Historian’s indictment of the residents of Gibeah, given his apparent revulsion elsewhere in the History for the consensual homoerotic associations of the qedeshim (literally, “consecrated ones”), cult figures who sometimes served as the passive receptive partners in male-male intercourse.

Finally, to assume that the narrator of Genesis 19 would have been favorably disposed to an act of consensual male-male intercourse is absurd in view of ancient Near Eastern texts that held in low repute men who willingly consented to be penetrated by other men.

  • Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. - Leviticus 18:22
  • If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13
  • Judah did evil in the eyes of the LORD. By the sins they committed they stirred up his jealous anger more than their fathers had done. There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. – 1st Kings 14:22,24
  • Asa did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, as his father David had done. He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made. – 1st Kings 15:11-12
  • The king stood by the pillar and renewed the covenant in the presence of the LORD – to follow the LORD and keep his commands, regulations and decrees with all his heart and all his soul, thus confirming the words of the covenant written in this book. He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah. – 2 Kings 23:3, 7

It’s quite clear that for millennia, from the foundations of monotheistic worship of YHWH all the way up to modern conservative Judaism and Christianity, homosexuality has been SEVERELY frowned upon.

But in response to these very clear prohibitions, certain parties will argue that these 3000-year old laws are outdated and obsolete.

After all, modern Christians don’t follow the other laws such as not eating shellfish, observing the Sabbath on Saturday or stoning disobedient sons. (Explanation of why not can be found in this post.)

So why the particular discrimination against homosexuality when pork chop eaters get a free pass?

Let’s take a look at the New Testament then, which is where Christians get their doctrine…

———————————————-

NEW TESTAMENT – LETTERS OF PAUL

  • Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. – Romans 1:26-27
  • Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1st Corinthians 6:9-10

Ah, but even here there are protests…

Certain groups again will object that fundamentalist, conservative, bigotedly anti-homosexual groups incorrectly translate those words of Paul. They contend that what he really objects to are not general homosexuals, but male prostitutes in the service of pagan worship that were previously mentioned in 1st and 2nd Kings above. They go even to the point of sueing Bibles for ‘discrimination’ against homosexuals.

Though frankly, how doing something that the pagans were detested by God for doing can ever be considered acceptable and holy before God is a mystery to me.

And also, if the word rendered ‘homosexuals’ actually means ‘male prostitutes’, then why does 1st Corinthians 6 list BOTH TERMS side by side as separate sins? And how does this explain away all the various terms used to describe homosexual acts, such as a ‘man lying with a man’ in the earlier OT examples?

But rational and logical objections to overturning 2000 years of accepted theology and doctrine aside, where does this leave us if both Moses and Paul are disbelieved?

Why, there is only…

———————————————-

THE MAN HIMSELF – JESUS CHRIST

Let’s now look at some words quoted directly from Jesus:

  • “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  – Matthew 5:27-28
  • Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” - Matthew 19:5-6
  • “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” - Mark 10:6-9

Waitaminnit… There’s nary a mention of male-male or female-female action there. What am I going on about by invoking the Appeal to Jesus argument?

But take a closer look at what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5. He is proclaiming the same stand which truly conservative Christians hold today – that any sexual contact outside of marriage, whether full penetration or ‘just looking/touching’, is a sin in God’s eyes. Even intentionally thinking naughty thoughts is a no-no bad thing.

Then look at Matthew 19 and Mark 10. Here Jesus says that marriage, as ordained by God Himself, is between a man and a woman.

And no, in the Hebrew and Greek, ‘wife’ always means ‘woman’ and never refers to the submissive male partner in a homosexual relationship. Contextual references here and here.

Jesus’ words echo the original marriage ordination by God when He first created Eve to be Adam’s spouse in Genesis 2 (see later on below), and this is further echoed by Paul who repeats the same words in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and Ephesians 5:31.

Dig even deeper into those verses – Jesus says ‘Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate’. In context, He was directly referring to the act of divorce, which desecrates the holy union of marriage.

But isn’t that also what homosexual pairings do? Replace God’s original plan for male-female marriage? Separate the traditional, God-ordained marriage institution by taking it apart it, to be put back together according to liberal humanist principles of relative morality?

So here we find the dilemma for homosexual pairings – The Biblical example only permits sexual contact within the marriage context, and the marriage context only permits man-woman pairings.

Therefore, any sexual contact between two males – or two females – is considered adultery in God’s eyes. 

By contrast, a male having sexual contact with a female would also be adultery, unless the two were married – but following Biblical principle, two males or two females cannot be joined in holy matrimony before God’s sight.

Remember too that Jesus was a great social reformer of the time. Even liberals and nonChristians agree so, taking Him as a societal rebel (though usually selectively excluding His accompanying Judaistic Monotheism background and His call to personal sacrifice and holiness).

Jesus overturned the prevailing social-religious-cultural norms of discriminating on the basis of gender, race, social standing and physical condition.

He taught by word and example that all people are equal in the eyes of God – equally loved, and equally forgiven if they simply accept His offer of redemption.

So here is the crux of the investigation: If Jesus was such a thorough reformer, why didn’t He make any mention of accepting homosexuality as well?

Instead, he uttered specific words that were specifically in line with the standard views of the time - heterosexual relationships only, within marriage only.

If Jesus was really supportive and accepting of homosexuality as certain parties argue, wouldn’t Matthew 19 and Mark 10 have been the perfect chance for Him to make known God the Father’s will?

  • ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.’ – What Jesus did not say, not-Matthew 19 and not-Mark 10

But nope, not a peep from Jesus about demolishing prevailing 1st-Century era sexual-behaviour prejudices.

Could it be that Jesus DID NOT consider homosexuality to be holy and acceptable in God’s eyes? And thus, intentionally did not overturn the disapproving traditional attitudes towards homosexuality?

And if He did not update or correct the traditional Judaistic views on a certain matter, then we must assume that Jesus intended for those matters to remain in the status quo even after the move from Law to Grace.

Jesus taught that all people are equally loved and forgiven in the eyes of God – but He never condoned sin of any sort. Instead, He calls us to Leave your life of sin’ if we want to genuinely follow Him.

———————————————-

AND FROM THE BIG MAN IN THE SKY…

With His words about ‘becoming one flesh’, Jesus echoes God’s original plan when He first created humankind:

  • So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. - Genesis 1:27
  • For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh – Genesis 2:24

As the meme goes, ‘God made them Adam and Eve… Not Adam and Steve.’

If God originally intended homosexuality to be the perfect, sinless plan, then why did He not just make all life of one gender? (Or for that matter, three or four genders?) Or with both sets of ‘equipment’ on each body?

And before you get into that ‘permitted because of the hardness of your heart’ argument stolen from Jesus’ words on divorce, God’s plans did not get thrown out the heavenly window with the Fall of Man:

  • As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.” - Genesis 9:7 (God speaking to Noah after the flood), i.e. long after Adam and Eve’s sin

How can two men or two women ‘be fruitful, increase in number and multiply on the earth’ when they cannot even propagate their genes (which as many pro-homosexual groups contend are the SOLE factor influencing sexual preference)?

Or if God’s original plan was for homosexuals to fill the earth, then why did He not design men to be able to procreate with men? 

Compare:

SexPrefHered1

SexPrefHered2

The above is an example of an idiotic plan for filling the earth with a certain species, one that any fool can see is doomed to cause extinction within a single generation. 

And note that as the Hyper-Intelligent Designer who carefully planned out the entire universe and all life (at least, as fundamentalist Christians believe), God is not an idiot.

And if God intentionally designed humans to be homosexual, then why, of all things, would he design men in such a way that the most intimate act of love would have to involve sticking one’s most sensitive member into another’s orifice that is used for expelling filthy, smelly faeces out, not letting things in???

Not to mention to un-intelligent design mistake of the rectal walls being thin and easily torn by insertion of any objects, leading to bleeding and thus to the HIV infection rate being highest among gay men (60 times greater than for the general population) and 72% of HIV infections among 27,455 surveyed males being caused by homosexual encounters?

And that’s not delving into the lack of intentional biological design that allows penetration in the case of two women attempting actual intercourse.

———————————————-

IN CONCLUSION

Christianity is not the lovey-lovey, nicey-accepty, let’s-just-all-be-friends religion that shallow modern culture makes it out to be. (It is very lovey-nicey-accepty-friendy, but just not in the way modern culture wants it to be.)

Christianity is a relationship with a God who tells the factual truth then way it is – whether you like it or not, your opinion does not change reality.

And according to God’s word aka the Bible, the reality is that homosexuality is a sin-warped perversion of God’s original perfect plan.

That’s the way I see it, and from my exegesis and hermeneutics of the Bible above, that’s the way it is. (You can check out a more official analysis at Bible.org.)

Comments and arguments are welcome.

PS. See also this excellent piece by Prof. Dr. Robert A. J. Gagnon and this one by Prof. Kevin Lewis on the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, in particular as a refutation of the Newsweek propaganda about the Bible being pro-gay marriage.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

297 Responses to “Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself”

  1. sing lau Says:

    “And according to God’s word aka the Bible, the reality is that homosxuality is a sin-warped perversion of God’s original perfect plan.”

    Well stated, ‘good and faithful servant.’

  2. Shai-Hulud Says:

    “Or with both sets of ‘equipment’ on each body?”

    God has created individuals with more or less both sets of equipment- intersex (previously known as hermaphrodism). Of course the Bible has no mention about this… don’t know whether the Torah or Koran does. This is not a “Modern socio-cultural” issue.

    If intersex is treated, a feminising procedure is usually done. So if an XY with intersex features gets feminised, falls in love with a standard XY and decides to marry said person- a technically homosexual relationship will result. If these two individuals were Christians would you discourage their relationship?

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7324/1264

  3. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Shai-Hulud, this is a difficult question to address.

    What makes a male a male? Is it the personality, or the physical form, or the genetic code?

    Perhaps in such cases, to err on the side of caution would be best. i.e. Celibacy as prescribed by Paul in order to fully dedicate one’s time and self to the service of God.

    But just to clear up, God did not originally create or intend for intersex individuals. This is an effect of the mutating effects of sin which distort God’s original perfect plans. (Other effects include sickness and death).

  4. Mr Belimbing Says:

    Salam,

    To that, I say Ameen!

  5. Shai-Hulud Says:

    “What makes a male a male? Is it the personality, or the physical form, or the genetic code?”

    Good question. Personality/character will be influenced by genetics (and therefore phenotype) as well as environmental factors. The answer can’t be simply answered in a black or white manner. In strict genetic terms, it will come down to the X and Y chromosomes.

    “God did not originally create or intend for intersex individuals. This is an effect of the mutating effects of sin which distort God’s original perfect plans.”

    Possibly true, but God is sovereign… so we’ll have to wait to personally ask Him of that. Nonetheless, they are still God’s creations.

    The “mutating effects of sin” is an interesting thought. Biblical basis?

    I personally feel blaming illness/genetic disorders etc entirely on “sin” is dangerous as it can be very discouraging to one’s belief in Christ. Christians are diagnosed with terminal illnesses everyday… if Christ has died for their sins why would this still occur?

    On the other hand, if a person lives a “sinless” life (a good thing) by rigidly following rules there’s the chance of pride coming in. We can’t forget that God’s grace far exceeds our own effort. And we can’t forget God’s greatest commandents.

  6. Rick Brentlinger Says:

    Scott-

    You seem to have missed what the verses you quote so plainly say. The references are to shrine prostitutes using sex to worship the fertility goddess, NOT two men or two women living in committed, faithful, non-cultic relationship.

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html

    The Romans passage has to be understood in light of the historical and religious situation it addressed in first century Rome.

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html

    And concerning I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10, the word, arsenokoites, was NEVER used in ancient times to refer to two men or two women in committed, faithful, non-cultic relationship. I list the first 56 uses of arsenokoites during the first 600 years of church history, at this Link:

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html

    I enjoy your blog and appreciate your incisive wit and your love for God and truth. I think you need more prayer and research before you address “what the Bible says about homosexuality.”

    What you’ve posted so far simply quotes verses and assumes they mean something unrelated to the context they addressed when originally given.

    Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Rick Brentlinger
    http://www.gaychristian101.com

  7. Scott Thong Says:

    The “mutating effects of sin” is an interesting thought. Biblical basis?

    I go into detail about this hypothesis in my post, The Sin Theory of Evolution.

    Among the Bible verses I quote there:

    Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. – Genesis 1 : 29-30

    This was the original creation, with no bloodshed, death or competition (which is necessary for evolution to happen).

    Then because of sin:

    And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” – Genesis 2 :16-17

    Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned… – Romans 5:12

    To the woman he said,
    “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
    with pain you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’
    “Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat of it
    all the days of your life.

    It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field. – Genesis 3:16-18

    Thus sin brought death, pain and plant defenses against beign eaten.

    ————————

    I personally feel blaming illness/genetic disorders etc entirely on “sin” is dangerous as it can be very discouraging to one’s belief in Christ. Christians are diagnosed with terminal illnesses everyday… if Christ has died for their sins why would this still occur?

    Christ has cleansed us of our sins, but our bodies are still affected by the results of thousands of generations of sin affecting the human race. As Paul John say, we will only have glorified (perfect) bodies when we see Jesus again (Romans 8:23, 1 John 3:2).

  8. Scott Thong Says:

    But Rick,

    That focuses only on Paul’s letters and ignores the newer arguments I raised about:

    1) Jesus’ not overturning the sexual norms of Judaism,

    2) God’s not having originally intended for two males or two females to be joined as one flesh,

    3) Marriage between two males or two females not being legitimate (and therefore, any sexual activity not being holy).

    What explanations do you know of that refute these arguments?

  9. jule Says:

    the diagram kinda imply that, relationship is all about sex and reproduction..

  10. Scott Thong Says:

    The diagrams are from a post about the genetic descent and reproductive aspects of homosexuality, and are intended in this post about the Bible and homosexuality as an example of how homosexuality is not God’s original plan for procreation and reproduction.

  11. Rick Brentlinger Says:

    “Scott Thong Says: July 2, 08 at

    But Rick,

    That focuses only on Paul’s letters and ignores the newer arguments I raised about:

    >>>>1) Jesus’ not overturning the sexual norms of Judaism,<<<>>>2) God’s not having originally intended for two males or two females to be joined as one flesh,<<<>>>3) Marriage between two males or two females not being legitimate (and therefore, any sexual activity not being holy).<<<<

    I deal with the legitimacy of gay relationships on these pages:

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Mission.html

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

    http://www.gaychristian101.com/Marriage-in-the-Bible.html

    Scott- I admire and respect you and sense you have a heart for God’s truth. While we may never agree on these issues, I hope our discussion can be fruitful by giving us insight into different viewpoints.

    You are a blessing and I’m glad we are brothers by the awesome grace of God.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Rick Brentlinger

  12. Scott Thong Says:

    Rick, I find it odd that the post http://www.gaychristian101.com/Marriage-in-the-Bible.html seems to argue for different types of marriage based solely on Old Testament examples, none of which are practised by the modern church or Jews.

    And the only argument from the link that seems to advocate homosexual marriage is this one:

    6. Same sex marriage. The partnership of Jonathan and David is an example of same sex marriage in the Bible. Jonathan’s father referred to David as his son in law in I Samuel 18:21.

    I find this a VERY, VERY DECEPTIVE use of a verse taken out of context. It relies completely on the reader not bothering to check the Bible.

    Because if anyone did look at the passage, the context clearly states that Saul (Jonathan’s father) intended David to marry his daughter (Jonathan’s sister), and that is the reason David is considered to have the potential to be Saul’s son-in-law:

    20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

    22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’” – 1 Samuel 18:20-22

    It is also worth noting that nowhere in the Mosaic legal code, nor God’s proclamations, is partnership between two men actually recognized as a legal and binding marriage, which would be necessary to gain a ‘son-in-law’. (Even in the other ‘examples of alternative marriage’ the link cites.)

    As for the other presumed instances of man-man love being sexual in nature, I have not yet delved into the specific meanings of the terms used. But even if they do seem to indicate man-man love of a sexual nature, they do not constitute an advocation of homosexual marriage (nor even that such an attraction was ever physically consumated).

    Remember, just because the Bible records it, does not mean that God condones it – even for David, a man after God’s own heart (who by the way, also killed someone over his adultery with Bathsheba – also not condoned).

    Based on the flaws in the argument, I shall have to take the time to carefully look over the other ones too, apart from the fact that they are all pre-Christ examples.

    By the way, if one were to use the OT as a legitimate and non-superceded authority, wouldn’t the Mosaic laws then forbid homosexual contact on pain of death?

  13. Rick Brentlinger Says:

    Scott says: “Rick, I find it odd that the post http://www.gaychristian101.com/Marriage-in-the-Bible.html seems to argue for different types of marriage based solely on Old Testament examples, none of which are practised by the modern church or Jews.

    And the only argument from the link that seems to advocate homosexual marriage is this one:”

    But that’s just the point. I’m not arguing that all other types of marriage are necessarily legitimate today. I’m making the case that God blessed marriages different than the Adam and Eve marriage paradigm, therefore Complementarianism (the belief that God will only bless marriages like the Adam and Eve model) was not a belief of our pre-Christian spiritual ancestors, neither is it God’s truth for today.

    Scott says: “I find this a VERY, VERY DECEPTIVE use of a verse taken out of context. It relies completely on the reader not bothering to check the Bible.

    Because if anyone did look at the passage, the context clearly states that Saul (Jonathan’s father) intended David to marry his daughter (Jonathan’s sister), and that is”

    Again, you’ve missed the point. Saul very clearly says that David will be his son in law the second time. David was NEVER engaged to and NEVER married Princess Merab, Saul’s oldest daughter. The only relationship with a member of King Saul’s family that David has at this time is his relationship with Jonathan, I Sam 18:1-3.

    Scott says: “As for the other presumed instances of man-man love being sexual in nature, I have not yet delved into the specific meanings of the terms used. But even if they do seem to indicate man-man love of a sexual nature, they do not constitute an advocation of homosexual marriage (nor even that such an attraction was ever physically consumated).”

    As far as I am aware, gay people did not write the story of David and Jonathan. God the Holy Spirit insured that this incredible love story is preserved in scripture for us.

    God the Holy Spirit contrasts the essentially loveless marriage of David and Princess Michal with the love-match partnership of David and Jonathan.

    Four times the Holy Spirit describes the love between David and Crown Prince Jonathan as soulish love, love that springs from the soul. In Hebrew, soulish love is romantic, sexual love.

    In I Samuel 20:30, King Saul uses a vulgar, sexual Hebrew idiom to describe Jonathan’s intimate relationship with David. Saul was an eye-witness to their partnership for 15 years and from the Hebrew vulgarism he used, it is clear that King Saul regarded them as having a sexual relationship. Saul’s vulgarism refers to Queen Ahinoam (Jonathan’s mother) but as the NIV Study Bible note points out, Saul is not referring to Queen Ahinoam, he is referring to Jonathan.

    Scott says: “By the way, if one were to use the OT as a legitimate and non-superceded authority, wouldn’t the Mosaic laws then forbid homosexual contact on pain of death?”

    No, of course not because the Old Testament references which are alleged to refer to homosexuality are describing and prohibiting shrine prostitution in worship of the Canaanite fertility goddess, not a committed, faithful, non-cultic partnership between two men or two women.

    Genesis 34, Judges 19 and II Samuel 13 all discuss heterosexual rape. It would be grossly unfair to conclude from those chapters that all heterosexual partnerships are wrong because of three passages about heterosexual rape.

    Just so, it is grossly unfair to conclude from Genesis 19 (a passage about attempted gang rape) and from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (passages prohibiting shrine prostitution in worship of Ashtoreth, the Canaanite fertility goddess) that committed, faithful, non-cultic same sex partnerships are wrong.

    Crown Prince Jonathan and David could not have carried on their 15 year love affair without the willing cooperation of the soldiers of King Saul, Jonathan and David. Those God-fearing Israelite warriors enabled the Jonathan and David partnership for 15 years, until Jonathan’s untimely death in battle.

    Scripture cannot mean NOW what it did not mean THEN.

    The Levitical prohibitions which today are alleged to refer to all homosexual relationships, in reality, prohibited shrine prostitution, not loving, committed, faithful, non-cultic partnerships between two men or two women.

    Your brother in Christ,

    Rick Brentlinger
    http://www.gaychristian101.com

  14. Scott Thong Says:

    Again, you’ve missed the point. Saul very clearly says that David will be his son in law the second time. David was NEVER engaged to and NEVER married Princess Merab, Saul’s oldest daughter. The only relationship with a member of King Saul’s family that David has at this time is his relationship with Jonathan, I Sam 18:1-3. – Rick

    Here I give you the context from that passage again:

    17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

    18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my father’s clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” 19 So [e] when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

    20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

    22 Then Saul ordered his attendants: “Speak to David privately and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and his attendants all like you; now become his son-in-law.’ ”

    23 They repeated these words to David. But David said, “Do you think it is a small matter to become the king’s son-in-law? I’m only a poor man and little known.”

    24 When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, 25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’ ” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines.

    26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law

    There. Saul says that David has a second opportunity to become his son-in-law. By no stretch of imagination can this be taken to mean David was already Saul’s son-in-law when Michal was given to him in marriage.

    Besides, if David was already ‘married’ to Jonathan, why would Saul still need David to marry a daughter of his in order to ensnare David? If David and Jonathan were legally ‘married’, then the Philistines would already view David as Saul’s family and wage war against him (as was Saul’s plot).

    Or do you have clever wordplay to redefine the meaning of this passage?

    ———————–

    There are so many other questions I wish to raise… Such as, if God and the Bible really intended for homosexual relationships, then why are two men unable to procreate?

    Why didn’t Jesus clearly overturn the prevailing Jewish prejudice against homosexuality when He overturned prejudice against women, Samaritans, gentiles, lepers, tax collectors and even an adulteress?

    Why does Paul not refer to holy homsexual relationships, but only ever speaks of marriage between a man and a woman or the relationship between husband and wife?

    Basically, why are the only mentions of homosexuality in the Bible negative – even if they refer to shrine prostitution (why can’t homosexual shrine prostitution be included under general shrine prostitution, if there’s no big difference in attitudes towards homo- and hetero- sexuality)?

  15. Christ Was a Hindu Says:

    Follow the gourd!

  16. Scott Thong Says:

    Lol… I don’t recall any Hindu references in Monty Python skits.

  17. Christ Was a Hindu Says:

    Oh, there weren’t; I was just amused by the way the opening disclaimer snowballed into dogmatic argument.

  18. Ross Marshall Says:

    Ya know what?
    Jesus also said, least yee become like little children, yee cannot enter into the Kingdom. Now, did Jesus distinguish between homo and hetero children? Or did he distinguish between simple child like faith and the educated elite hypocrites of his days? Jesus talked about LOVE. he never condemned people who had LOVE, no matter what they were doing, as long as LOVE was the central foundation. he also said, if something offended you, chop it off, pluck it out, saw it off and wiggle your way into the Kingdom. There’s no record in history of the Bible where droves of Jews and gentiles chopped off their sex organs. There were some few who did – sorry for them! But, No mass sex organ removals. Science proves most children start out playing with each other – their own kind for IDENTIFICATION purposes – Jesus never condemned this. Was he ever observed chasening children for there homo-ness? Children are different than adults in that they do not judge like we do. Most start out with a CLEAR CONSCIENCE – = The real Definition of Baptism. They have a simple curiousity and bonding ability that we have lost. That’s why so many adult people return to their childhood to re-experiment in search for personal identity. A Man gets his emotional identification evenually from a female. If he cannot, he can and will try to get it from his own kind. He gets his personal identification from his male bonding with other man. No man “identifies’ with a woman! No woman ‘identifies’ with a Man. Yet, a man and a soul-brother can have emotional sharings, as well as two women. Emotions can go any way one wants, and it is good as long as there is LOVE involved. IDENTITY is a whole other thing. Procreation is a whole different matter. Not all relationships and marriages are based on procreation of children. Not are they soles based on identification. But ALL relationships have some degree of EMOTIONAL particulars.
    I think Rather than BIBLE BABEL BATTLES, Christians should consider the most simplistic approach: Just make sure you have LOVE or the Intent of LOVE, and not just for you own selfish purposes at the others expense.
    The truth just might well be that EVERYTHING IS A SIN:
    Remember the verse: “You were born in your Mother’s SIN”.
    As far as I am concerned, Even Marriage between a Man and a Woman is SIN – for the child is born in her SIN, through her SIN and by her SIN, and she gives BIRTH though the horrible pains of the sinful Flesh that’s eaten up with SIN. So, even though it’s HOLY, it is still a BIRTH “out of” and “in” SIN.
    But we have two other verses to combat this:
    1.) LOVE covers the (a) Multitude(s) (of) SIN. – Jesus or Paul?
    2.) All things are Lawful, but not all things are good for you. – St. Paul
    3.) “ALL” means “ALL”.
    4.) God is LOVE, if you know this you know God.
    It’s LAWFUL now that we can channel demons through a Palm reader, but it’s NOT good for you. It’s LAWFUL to do what you want to your wife or husband in bed – and you can’t defile the marriage bed? – such as anal stuff, but it anin’t all good for ya. It’s LAWFUL to eat shrimp, hogs, catfish, but it ain’t good for you. It’s lawful to have a homosexual Mate, but it “might” not be good for you – depending on where you live!? And what you do, and if you’re clean, and if you’re honest with your mate.
    Rather than USE the Bible and STRAIN it and SIFT it through our FLAWED REASONING powers, your built up house of straw logic, – walking by sight, and not by faith – why not approach it like a CHILD and use FAITH, HOPE, LOVE, and TRUST in that The Lord through the Holy Spirit will lead us each to a better fellowship together, “like children’, rather than the split divisions we have today. The Church is a DIVIDED HOUSE and it will NOT STAND as Jesus said. But He also said He would build His Church and the gates of ‘the unseen realm’ will not prevail against it. So, I assume that what we call the Church today is NOT THE CHURCH Jesus talked about. The TRUE CHURCH ( in the heart) is not divided nor separated, nor in conflict – only the pathetic MINDS that make it up are.
    I’ve spent 35 years pulling my hair out over this gay v. straight issue, ruining my life, shortening my breath and grinding my brain, only to find out GOD has never prompted me to do one thing about it, nor change one thing about it; yet he has pushed me in directions I would have never gone that have led to wonderful places, people and ministries of all kinds. What do you do with a gay person who you find crying in your arms asking you as a christian, “is it wrong to love another man?” What do you tell them? GO GET A DNA CHANGE? IF IT OFFENDS YOU CHOP IT OFF? Do you push them away and curse them and call them a FAG, QUEER, homo, a damnable abomination, unloved by God? No – I’ve had my fair share of that crap for 30+ years from the so-called ‘loving’ straight christian world – a world I want no part of anymore. A world that would allow a young gay boy or girl to blow their brains out, and then have the GALLish attitude to damn them to a false eternal hell for no other reason. yet, they themselves ignor the’ statement that THERE IS NO SIN THAT IS NOT COMMON TO “ALL” MANKIND”. He applied ALL sin to ALL people, whether they have done it, or thought about it, or NOT thought about it. He also said, IF you have even THOUGHT about it yourself, you might as well have DONE IT. So, I would say, that 98% -100% of the straight world is as guilty as all homosexuals in that they have at least THOUGHT about it once. So, this places them (98%? or 100%) in the same CAMP as the homosexual – if they want to JUDGE the homosexual. It judges them right back! They are no better or worse than the homosexual. This would also make us ALL hypocrites, right?
    I seriously believe now that GOD wrote the Scriptures, but the DEVIL translated it. And now we ALL fight over it. One reason is because we all like to hide under all the verses we can keep, and then throw into the face of others those verses we are not supposedly under, or judged by. It’s easy for a straight to curse and damn a gay person – but jesus looks at all people equally. All are straight. All are Gay; all are Bi; all are liars; all are thieves; all are murderers; ALL ARE SINNERS! ALl are equally every SIN in the Book, because we SHARE all SIN in COMMON! So, Mr. Straight JUDGE, if we all SHARE “ALL” SIN in common, then this makes you a FAG too! So, go look in the mirror and JUDGE YOURSELF. Same goes for hateful gay people who curse straight people. Seems there is only TWO differences: 1.) Love, 2.) Hate. BUT, why all the fighting over who’s right and who’s wrong?
    If it ( the translations) are so infallible, and thus should be so CLEAR in meaning as we suppose God meant it to be – sense God is not the author of confusion – , then why so many truly honest people with true integrity FIGHTING OVER it’s meaning ?
    Something is WRONG. I think we have replaced THE HEART with a pile of paper. replaced the Kingdom in the Heart, with a paper IDOL and we have all fornicated with the idolatrous worship of SELF-DOM, INTELLECT, and EGO. WE ALL have ended up replacing GOD with ourselves.
    I am so SORRY for Christianity today, as well as my pathetic self, it makes me first want to puke, and then want to die and go to be with St. Paul, who wished the same thing.

    ROSS

  19. simon thong Says:

    Ross, there is no instance of Jesus distinguishing between homo and hetero children. Neither was he seen chasening (sic) children for their homo-ness. You’re right, but that is neither here nor there. The Scriptures are silent about the matter. Thus, don’t makle that silence a Yes for any side.

    As for a CLEAR CONSCIENCE = The Real Definition of Baptism, that is not right. The real definition of baptism is initiation. In the case of CHILD baptism, the child has a clear conscience. In the case of an adult, it is hoped that he has a clear conscience but that is not the essence of the rite.

    You may have ended up replacing God with yourself, but there are many of us who know we haven’t.

  20. simon thong Says:

    correction: Thus, don’t make that silence a Yes for any side.

  21. Ross Marshall Says:

    QUOTE: Simon (The Magician) Thong: “As for a CLEAR CONSCIENCE = The Real Definition of Baptism, that is not right. The real definition of baptism is initiation. In the case of CHILD baptism, the child has a clear conscience. In the case of an adult, it is hoped that he has a clear conscience but that is not the essence of the rite.

    INITIATION! ? !? You sound like a Freemason?
    OK let’s play:

    St. Paul says, there’s only “ONE BAPTISM”. Eph. 4:5
    St Peter says, Baptism is… “a good conscience toward God”. 1 Pe. 3:21
    ( A good conscience is a clear conscience, not based upon the dictates of LAWS, dogmas, twisted theologies, nor mistranslated scriptures; or mis-interpreted verses. ).
    And what “rite’ are you talking about? No “rite” ever saved anyone.
    But people are ‘saved’ by GRACE ALONE, through FAITH “alone’, and not by the works of The Law or Ritual Ordinances: the washing of people, slaying of bulls and goats, sheep; front dunk, back dunk, double dunk, partial dunk, sprinkling, whether it be in a bowl, church hot tub, river or lake. It would be better and closest to the truth, that baptism is to be found in a shower with someone you know and love and would die for, and you have a good and clear conscience about it to, no matter who it is, or what society or the Lord’s of the Church say.
    It’s better to FOLLOW CONSCIENCE than your own REASONING and dogmas, or other people’s teachings – how can we all really be sure, unless we allow God to work through our Conscience? And those who STICK their NOSE too deep into the Letter of the Word, find themselves thinking ‘they’ have ‘eternal’ life in them – pages; and they don’t have it.
    It lays within the heart of every man: the light that every man is born with, according to St. John, and this ‘light’ being recognised as The Lord Himself. And the Light is versatile and flexable from person to person, according to God’s plan for the ages.
    So, you Literalists and Fudamentalists use the LETTER and RATIONALISE it all you want – to your own demise. It is YOU who have torn it apart and cannot put it back together! Whether KJV translation or modern, or otherwise. Scripture is a PUNISHER to those who read it with their MINDS and not by The Spirit; those who read it with the Rational Mind, and not read it by The Spirit; Those who look at The Letter, and not Look by the Spirit; those who see the Letter of the Word and not the Spirit of the Word.
    The absolute English equivalent to the Greek is:

    “…but OF-conscience GOOD inquiry (into) to GOD, THRU
    UP-STANDing OF-JESUS ANOINTED.”

    So, we see the following:
    Baptism is…
    Of a Good conscience (that is) inquiring (into) GOD, and this through the Up-Standing or Vicarious substitution for us by by the Holy Spirit, and all this OF Jesus Christ.

    So, now, who’s to DICTATE conscience? Man or GOD?
    Who’s to really say who’s Baptised and who isn’t?
    Let’s DEFINE it, and not ADMINISTER it…lest we become those who LORD IT OVER OTHERS.

    Ross

  22. Ross Marshall Says:

    EXACT QUOTE: 1 PET. 3:21

    “…ou sarx apothesis rhupos
    “…NOT OF-FLESH FROM-PLACing OF-FILTH

    “alla suneidEsis agathos eperOtEma eis
    “but OF-conscience GOOD inquiry INTO

    “theos dia anastasis iEAsous christos
    “GOD THRU UP-STANDing OF-JESUS ANOINTED
    (through ‘the’ resurrection) (Christ)

  23. simon thong Says:

    You’re right, Ross, to say that we are saved by grace through faith; this is the gift of God.

    Yet your definition of baptism is still wrong; it is not a clear conscience. Look at the verse again: the part we want is “There is also an antitype which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

    If baptism is to be defined, it is “the answer of a good/clear conscience toward God”. You left out the first three words and the last two words.

    Baptism is several things. It is an expression of repentance and faith (Acts 2.38, 41; 8.12f; 16.14f, 33f; 18.8; 19.2f). It symbolizes the sharing in the death of Jesus and in his burial (Romans 6.4; Colossians 2.12). It is an answer (or appeal) to God from a clear conscience (1 Peter 3.21) as you pointed out. It is also an act, a rite, an activity, a ceremony that some went through after conversion (Acts 2.38; 10.44-48).

    Thanks for putting in the Greek and the English translation; I do read NT Greek, own a Greek NT and and the Interlinear Greek-English NT. Taught it also.

    And the name is simon thong. Nothing need be added. I don’t take offence but my parents would not consider it appropriate to add to the name chosen by them for one of their children. It is said that, to make it easier to kill the enemy, labels were attached to them, to dehumanize them or demonize them: HUns, barbarians, gooks, chinks, slants, nips, commies, gwailos..No need to do that here. I’m not an enemy. Just another person, a Christian, writing in a blog (but a very special blog).

  24. simon thong Says:

    By the way, Ross, I’m not a Literalist and I’m not a fundamentalist. Definitely, I’m not raving mad at half the world. Did I touch the wrong button to set you off like that? A thousand apologies if I did.

  25. joseph Says:

    Hi
    interesting views from all..
    but i never wanted to be gay..who would choose this life of not kissing,holding hands in public,being spat on,beaten up..y,know all i do is love.

  26. Scott Thong Says:

    I can sympathize with you there, joseph. But to be Christian is to give up your own base urges for the higher calling of Christ. Therefore, even someone who has homosexual or zoophiliac or paedophilic urges can be a good an holy Christian, if only he rejects and rebukes these urges whenever they come… Which may be a lifetime of it.

  27. Cassidy Says:

    Now, I’m not christian, and I’m gay, so I don’t really care what you have to say on the subject but I’d like to point out that your “scientific” diagrams that show the “passing on of hetero/homosexual genes” are entirely untrue. Let’s start with the heterosexual diagram:

    It implies that if a heterosexual man and a heterosexual female form a union they must bear offspring, not true, either partner could be sterile or the female could be past menopause, the union does not inherently create children.

    You state that by the theory of homosexuality being a genic trait that the union of two heterosexuals creates heterosexual offspring (if they have them). This is also untrue, the proposed genic factors behind homosexuality are really unrelated to the sexuality of the parents (although the sexuality of the upbringers may influence the child to be more accepting or open of homosexuality), much in the same way that two parents with brown eyes don’t necessarily have a child with brown eyes- I’m citing myself here, having two brown-eyed heterosexual parents that gave birth to me, a homosexual blue-eyed individual.

    Now the homosexual diagram:

    Although the two partners may not be able to give birth to a child TOGETHER, their ability to bear offspring is not necessarily hindered inherently by homosexuality. In other words, a lesbian can be implanted and give birth or a gay man can donate the sperm and create a child that is genetically his although not with his actual partner, the child would in fact be his (now remember here that I’m not arguing your view on that action, simply the scientific possibility of it that your “proof” supposedly rules out). Therefore, the individual members of the homosexual relation could pass down their genetics.

    Another “scientific proof” that you have cited that is wrong: you state that competition is necessary to the theory of evolution, this is incorrect as although competition among animals may influence their evolution, evolution occurs even in an entirely controlled environment due to the scramblind of genes that occurs in the process of cellular reproduction. So, whether there was competition or no in your God’s original vision of the world, and whether it was meant to be controlled or no, in scientific application of the concept, evolution would still occur as the passing on of different genetic traits alters the overall prevalence of certain aspects of a species.

    Now, I really have to say that you who have been arguing over the “true meaning” of these biblical passages and draw entirely opposing views should really take a step back and draw conclusions from the true meanings of your actions, draw meaning from the pain sexual prejudice causes. And instead of trying to create an opinion based on what your bible says, create one on what you feel. It was not long ago that women had no rights because the bible denounced them as inherently sinful or that blacks were deemed as being marked by Caine. You have beliefs but I have mine, what you do not have the right to do is deem your beliefs more important, correct, or legally powerful, than mine. If you have a problem with homosexuality that’s your choice but leave me to not have a problem with it, because that’s my choice.

    (and if anyone wants to say something along the lines of well, if you support homosexuality should we allow pedophilia and polygamy as well, please don’t because the age of consent is an entirely different issue that has no pertinence and as for polygamy, I do believe that someone has the right to have as many sexual partners as they wish, their choice, however I don’t believe that from a legal standing they should have the right to pass on privileges allowed by legal marriage on to more than one spouse)

  28. Scott Thong Says:

    It implies that if a heterosexual man and a heterosexual female form a union they must bear offspring, not true, either partner could be sterile or the female could be past menopause, the union does not inherently create children.

    Yes, but the vast majority of heterosexual unions result in fertilization and pregnancy.

    Whereas 100% of all homosexual unions do not result in fertilization and pregnancy. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

    (I mean, just look at the 1 million abortions carried out worldwide every month. Disgusting, but it makes my point.)

    Although the two partners may not be able to give birth to a child TOGETHER, their ability to bear offspring is not necessarily hindered inherently by homosexuality. In other words, a lesbian can be implanted and give birth or a gay man can donate the sperm and create a child that is genetically his although not with his actual partner, the child would in fact be his.

    Hmm, I suppose my diagram is a little imprecise. Try the ones at this post instead. Better?

    But isn’t that cheating? Now we’ve wandered into bisexual heredity.

    I’m citing myself here, having two brown-eyed heterosexual parents that gave birth to me, a homosexual blue-eyed individual.

    You know about dominant and recessive genes? Your argument is basically stating that homosexuality is caused by recessive alleles, which is a valid argument.

    So, whether there was competition or no in your God’s original vision of the world, and whether it was meant to be controlled or no, in scientific application of the concept, evolution would still occur as the passing on of different genetic traits alters the overall prevalence of certain aspects of a species.

    Again, sorry if I was imprecise. I actually meant that without competition and death of the unfit, natural selection (which heavily influences evolution) would not occur, as every organism would survive to pass on its traits. Then again, I suppose those with traits best suited to mass reproduction at the expense of survival would be more prevalent in a no-deaths world.

    Now, I really have to say that you who have been arguing over the “true meaning” of these biblical passages and draw entirely opposing views should really take a step back and draw conclusions from the true meanings of your actions, draw meaning from the pain sexual prejudice causes. And instead of trying to create an opinion based on what your bible says, create one on what you feel. It was not long ago that women had no rights because the bible denounced them as inherently sinful or that blacks were deemed as being marked by Caine. You have beliefs but I have mine, what you do not have the right to do is deem your beliefs more important, correct, or legally powerful, than mine. If you have a problem with homosexuality that’s your choice but leave me to not have a problem with it, because that’s my choice.

    I explain why Christians must rely on the Bible for their moral code at

    As for your remarks about women and blacks, it is an old criticism that is now reused to justify homosexuality.

    But here is the large and critical difference: The Bible nowhere condemns women or non-Caucasians, and definitely nowhere near as much or as frequently as it condemns homosexuality (just look at how many examples I give in my post).

    Simply put, the sinfulness of homosexuality is Scripturally sound, whereas discrimination against women or non-Caucasians is most likely the result of the personal prejudices of certain people who then use skewed interpretations of the Bible to support their stance.

    In fact, this is the first time that I have ever heard the accusation that the Bible says ‘women are inherently sinful, blacks are marked by Caine’. It is Islam which says that women outnumber men 10-to-1 in hell (I forget the exact ratio). The mark of Cain was borne only by Cain himself, and in any case the Biblical narrative says that all humans died in the Great Flood except for Noah and his family.

    (On that note, perhaps you confused the blacks citation with ‘descendants of Ham’, which is an actual argument. It goes that Ham saw Noah drunk and exposed, and called his brothers to laugh at him. Ham’s descendants settled Africa, and thus all blacks are his descendants and share in his sin. This argument lacks any Scriptural basis as well, and in any case, Paul states that there is no gender or racial division in the fellowship of Christian believers.)

  29. Cassidy Says:

    No, I know nothing of these descendants of Ham, it’s a long-standing interpretation of the ambiguous mark of Cain that one possibility of its exact nature may have been that the colour of Cain’s skin was changed. And I realize you may look to your bible as a moral code but I must say I think that makes you somewhat mindless and cowardly as you’re too afraid that you will be punished by a god that may or may not exist to create your own moral code (okay, these are harsh words, I don’t mean them to be insultory but I can’t really find a better way to put it). Now, I don’t mean to identify you as one included in this group, but the major part of the world uses these interpretations to enforce supposed “religious freedoms”, they deny gays the right to marry for example. Now, in the modern world the use of marriage is to be able to pass on insurance policies, property rights, visitation rights, it doesn’t in any way require that it be carried out by a specific religious body, therefore because it spans across religions it isn’t necessary to be religious at all. Yet, many christians believe that their “religious freedom” is to not allow people to be in a same-sex marriage, while in truth the only extent of religious freedom is within the members of your own church and believers, it allows you the right to defy certain laws and commit certain acts, it does not give you the right to take away any legal standing of someone else, especially not someone not of your church. I believe you may believe that the bible proclaims that homosexuality is abhorrent, and, like in your case, believe that this denouncement of homosexuality matters. But what right do you have to say that someone else can’t, or shouldn’t, believe otherwise? Simply because there are less of us? That’s a majority taking away the rights of a minority, something the very constitution of the Unites States, a powerful document, is explicitly designed to prevent.

    And question, I actually strongly oppose abortion (if you don’t want the kid, just put it up for adoption) but what does that have to do with anything?

  30. Cassidy Says:

    Okay, I feel kind of guilty after writing that, I feel like I’m attacking you. I’m really not, this is simply a long-standing argument that I’ve had with many people before. I have nothing against you (I mean I don’t even know you) or your religion (many of my best friends are devoutly christian). I’m simply refuting the fanatic use of your religion to take away from people’s rights, I’ve had to see terrible things because of this, kids driven so far they have no choice but to drown themselves in the bath, women who’ve felt the support system go cold when it finds out her abuser is another woman, men who’ve died alone because their partner of twenty years wasn’t allowed into the hospital room.

  31. Scott Thong Says:

    It’s okay… But I’m glad you cleared that up. I often get foulmouthed trolls here, and it’s good that I didn’t mistake you for one and lay on the flame and mockery.

    On the topic of religious discrimination against homosexuals, I completely agree that it is wrong. The righteous Christian attitude is to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Jesus demonstrated this when he forgave the woman caught in adultery (John 8), but told her to sin no more. Rick Warren summarized it when he said that being homosexual is not a sin, only homosexual acts are (your mileage may vary). Sarah Palin practised it when she publicly opposes same-sex marriage, but voted in favour of keeping medical benefits for same-sex partners.

    Any Christian who heckles, abuses or denies aid to a suffering human just because of differences in beliefs – be they religious, political or sexual – is committing a sin.

    That said, my personal stance is that there is nothing wrong with homosexual acts as a private affair between consenting adults, but within the scope of JudeoChristian doctrine it cannot be accepted as sinless. To claim it is so is to reject Biblical evidence in favour of setting up one’s own religion.

    But what right do you have to say that someone else can’t, or shouldn’t, believe otherwise? Simply because there are less of us? That’s a majority taking away the rights of a minority, something the very constitution of the Unites States, a powerful document, is explicitly designed to prevent.

    In the realm of politics, the hard truth is that democracies are inherently unfair to a degree. For example, on homosexual marriage – 52% voters in California voted not to legalize homosexual marriage via Proposition 8.

    Homosexuals and their supporters of course disagree. They demand that the vote results be overturned in the name of fundamental human rights. They say it is trampling on their beliefs to ban homosexual marriage.

    But then, what about Barack Obama’s Presidency? Obama similary won 53% of the popular vote. Isn’t his Presidency trampling on the beliefs of those who did not vote for him? What about my minority right to have a McCain Presidency?

    The same goes for everything from economic policies to gun laws to abortion to banning displays of religion in public. For example, the US Presidents mostly believed in capitalism – is it thus tyranny for them to impose capitalism on the entire United States when many people believe that other economic models are the way to go?

    My point in rambling like this is: I don’t want to force nonChristians to adopt Christian morality or norms. But if I believe strongly that a certain philosophy or lifestyle is the most beneficial for people, then wouldn’t I try and make that my country follow that course – regardless of whether my belief stems from secular or religious roots?

    (A Short Pondering: Should a Christian Leader Impose Laws Based on Christian Standards?)

    So if I believe that homosexuality is inherent harmful – because as a Christian I believe that the Bible says so clearly, and the Bible is God’s word, and God as the one who created us should know what He’s talking about – then shouldn’t I act on that belief?

    Again, no one seems to get as emotional about other belief-motivated drives such as economic policy. Maybe closer with abortion and environment though.

    And question, I actually strongly oppose abortion (if you don’t want the kid, just put it up for adoption) but what does that have to do with anything?

    The abortion remark was not meant as an attack, merely as evidence that heterosexual unions result in enough viable pregnancies that 1 million babies can be thrown away monthly.

  32. Nathan Says:

    http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson167.html

  33. Scott Thong Says:

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/response-to-the-letter-to-dr-laura-on-homosexuality/

    http://www.win.net/ratsnest/archive-articles-4/fog0000000021.html

  34. Cherie Says:

    I know wonderful gay couples that had awesome straight children. And I had heard of this wonderful Christian couple who ended up with 6 of their children being gay. How do you explain that.

    Also, I only like to read Jesus’s comments in the bible, since that is the only truth I like to follow, and I did not hear him particularly say for men not to lie down with men. I think what matters to God is what is in the heart. Such attributes as Love, Forgiveness and Non-judgements ( judge not lest ye be judged, and may the man without sin cast the first stone)

    I do believe there are many christians who have been unfaithful, either in the flesh or in the heart. Many Christian leaders have been caught with their unfaithfulness, sometimes even with members of the same sex. Will they be condemned as much as you believe the gays will be condemned, or might they have a chance at redemption as many (christian) gay people would wish and hope for God’s redemption for a choice they truly did not feel they had.

    Coming from a straight, married, faithful, loving, forgiving and non-judgemental spiritual woman.

    God Bless

  35. Scott Thong Says:

    I know wonderful gay couples that had awesome straight children. And I had heard of this wonderful Christian couple who ended up with 6 of their children being gay. How do you explain that.

    Genesis, chapter 3.

    If genetics is all there is to homosexuality (‘a choice they truly did not feel they had’), how did 6 homosexuals come from a heterosexual pairing?

    Also, I only like to read Jesus’s comments in the bible, since that is the only truth I like to follow, and I did not hear him particularly say for men not to lie down with men.

    Jesus also never said for humans not to have sex with animals. Strangely, Bestiality Churches haven’t really been springing up.

    As I pointed out above, Jesus had an excellent chance to permit homosexual relationships by saying “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.”

    But He didn’t. We therefore must assume that He did not intend for the prevailing norm (only heterosexual marriage) to be overturned.

    I think what matters to God is what is in the heart. Such attributes as Love, Forgiveness and Non-judgements ( judge not lest ye be judged, and may the man without sin cast the first stone)

    But Jesus also tells us to love God, not just love mankind. And I am willing and ready to be judged if I believe I stand in righteousness.

    I do believe there are many christians who have been unfaithful, either in the flesh or in the heart. Many Christian leaders have been caught with their unfaithfulness, sometimes even with members of the same sex. Will they be condemned as much as you believe the gays will be condemned, or might they have a chance at redemption as many (christian) gay people would wish and hope for God’s redemption for a choice they truly did not feel they had.

    If they are willing to admit their wrong and repent, then they will be cleansed of their sin by Jesus’ blood.

    The argument ‘choice they truly did not feel they had’ is a cop out. What about pedophiles and zoophiles? What about compulsive kleptomaniacs?

    Coming from a straight, married, faithful, loving, forgiving and non-judgemental spiritual woman.

    And mine from a loving, forgiving but firm on what God has declared man.

    God Bless

    God Bless too!

  36. Lance Says:

    A document written by men, not gods or God, in a social context where women where valued less than property, beaten for not “submitting” to their husbands, in a text where the stoning of children is a part of the text without error…it is madness to come to these conclusions. Conservatives will believe anything they don’t have to think about themselves. This is the theology of Moses and Paul, not Jesus Christ. If heaven is where this kind of belief leads one, I’ll happily burn in hell with those who at least had a sense of what Love is.

  37. Scott Thong Says:

    Lance, dude, I think you’ve got Moses-era Judaism and modern Islam mixed up with Christianity here…

    But I’m sure you’ll find tons of selfless ‘love’ from those atheist champions of happy innocent fun time cuddling – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Che Guevara – down there.

  38. Steven B Says:

    Happy that I happened across your post here, you make some interesting points.
    Personally, I am NOT homosexual. I do have a question, though.
    How could/would it be poissible for a homosexual who TRULY believed in Jesus to be condemmed? Are you stating that homosexuals who are saved will no longer be homosexual?

  39. Scott Thong Says:

    Well, let me use myself as a tangential example.

    I have a problem with anger and a bad temper that seems to run in the family. I TRULY believe in Jesus, but that doesn’t mean I automatically no longer have a bad temper. True, it may be dampened, but sometimes I still lose my temper.

    But whether or not I am naturally prone to anger, the important thing is how I choose to react to the fact – do I give up and give into my temper with the excuse that I was born with it? Or do I recognize that Jesus is not pleased by my anger, and therefore try my best to resist it?

    If I continued to fling my temper around at every provocation, do you think that Jesus would accept my behaviour – even as I claim to follow Him? Or would I be showing contempt for His gift of grace and the Holy Spirit?

  40. Cherie Says:

    Did you ever think that the bible might be a little outdated at this moment concerning these issues when you look at the world today. Procreation was very important in those days, but what about now. The world is in bad shape because there are so many of us. They say the best thing you can do against global warming (unless you refuse to believe there is such a thing of course) is to not have children. Evolutionary (unless you choose not to believe in that either of course) I think gays are saving the planet by not procreating, and instead adopting many unwanted and needy children. The biggest things I remember Jesus saying: to not judge, lest ye be judged. To not worry about the splinter in your brothers eye, but instead, worry about your own log. To love my neigbor as myself. When I concentrate on these things, I believe I make a good difference in the world. We can pick the bible and Jesus’s words apart all day long and “interpret” it the way we see fit. I choose to not worry so much about the Old Testament ( that is why they came up with a New, because the Old was somewhat outdated. I think now the bibl

  41. Steven B Says:

    Hmm.
    But if the thought is as the deed in God’s eye, and you are still having the anger in your thought, is thet not the same as you continuing to “fling your temper around at every provocation”?
    In the same way, if a man has love and desire in his thoughts for another man, does that not become equal to his having a actual relationship with another man?
    Because we ARE all sinners and cannot overcome our fallen nature, how then could it be said that ANYONE who believes in Jesus as their personal savior and the only begotten Son of God (no buts, ands, or ors) could be condemmed for their actions? By Jesus’s own words, even Judas will be in Heaven, forgiven for his sins, and what could anyone else do that could POSSIBLY be worse than actually betraying your God to his enemies?

  42. Scott Thong Says:

    Steven B, at every instance when anger appears, I have to resist it instead of giving in to it.

    Or use a closer example – when I see a sexy gal, or develop a crush on a woman (I am married), I choose not to keep glancing at the girl or encourage the crush. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the desire – but as I said before, it is my response to the emotions that counts.

    Um, not sure where Jesus says Judas will be in heaven – though He does say that to one of the crucified thieves who believed in Him.

  43. Scott Thong Says:

    Cherie…

    1) Whether the Bible is ‘outdated’ or not does not factor into my discussion – I merely am debating the status of homosexuality within Christian doctrine itself. Within that context, God’s stated purpose of marriage was procreation. For the record, I am neutral on the issue of gay marriage.

    2) On global warming, see Climategate and this list (especially the weather section).

    3) ‘Love thy neighbor as yourself’ is oft quoted, however that is only half of the entire quote. The other half that is often conveniently left out is ‘Love the Lord thy God’ – which requires that we have a proper understanding of what pleases God, thus my post on whether homosexuality is accepted by God.

    4) Jesus tells us not to judge hypocritically (lest ye be judged, log in own eye, constantly pointing out the Pharisees’ bad behaviour). But Jesus also condemned unrighteousness (trashing the temple sellers not once, but twice!). Put it this way: Do we make a good difference in the world if we refuse to ‘judge’ robbers, rapists and murderers? Do we love our neighbor by not worrying about the splinters in the criminals eyes rather than come to the victim’s aid? I believe the Old Testament covers such non-action under ‘watchmen who doesn’t sound the alarm’ – and notes that the lax watchman will be held responsible.

    5) On the Old Testament, as Jesus said, He came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. My stand is (as I describe in the Jesus’ words section) that anything that Jesus didn’t give new direction on, we should follow the old direction. Or do we toss out ‘Thou shall not murder’ which Jesus never directly addressed?

    6) Funny how the most outspoken save-the-earth-and-humanity-ers are the biggest wastrels… (Al Gore, Hollywood celebs)

    7) What do gays adopt for? Not to generalize, but this case was frightening. And what about those who seek out surrogate fathers or mothers so they can still have a genetic child?

  44. Cherie Says:

    Hi Scott,

    I do believe what we ultimatelly “choose” to believe is just that, a personal choice ( often something we have been taught as children, not chosen ourselves ) I think the more one is willing to research all factors in history, religion and science, both the pros and the cons, than one is capable of making a fair analysis.

    Just for the record here too. I am not gay, I am not an atheist or any other religion. I once considered myself a good God fearing, bible believing Christian, until I allowed my higher self (my Christ consciousness) to guide me, instead of a very old, man written (even though often God inspired) book, that has been changed, with important papers left out of it. I studied many other religions and saw the good (and not so good) in all of them. What I ultimately came to conclude is that religion in general lies at the root of much suffering in the world, mostly because it devides us. Since my higher self assured me this was never the intend of such souls as Jesus or Buddha, I chose to stop labelling myself as a Christian, but accept all, and I will spend the rest of my time on earth to working on myself.

    I am a big believer in the Universal Law of Cause and Effect, or what comes around goes around (some may call it Karma) This is not a punishing Law, yet a unbiased reality. An example might be that if you jump off a building you will fall and injure yourself, maybe even die. This is not your punishment, simply the effect to your cause of jumping off. The same with our actions. If I see someone attacking a child, and I jump in, or call 911, and the person gets arrested, it is the effect to their cause of “choosing” to harm a child. So I am not saying to turn a blind eye to what I perceive as being wrong.

    Wrong to me is anything that effects others for the negative, and I should do what I can to preven this from occuring. To me, two men or women wanting to love eachother (in any way they choose) does not effect me or anybody else, and should not be judged. I became a vegetarian years ago because I learned of the bad ways that some animals were tortured to death. I believe that when Jesus told us to love others, he did not stop at humans, I believe we should love all life, and the earth itself, as we wish to be loved. Whether global warming is a reality or not, I do not think we should have the right to treat this world without the respect it deserves, because it is the Earth that allows us such a beautiful way of life.

    Do I know that these kind thoughts and deeds will get me into heaven. I choose to believe that it does, because doing kind things feels right to my higher self, wereas judging others (gays, races, countries) does not. Every time I want to judge somebody, I take this as an opportunity to work a little harder on myself, and I believe that if we would all busy ourselves more with doing good, rather than pointing fingers, this world would truly be heaven on earth. Lets stop pointing at what the Muslims, gays, Mexicans, should or should not do, lets do what WE can, and then at least your world will become a better place.

    I do not know why I started receiving your post yesterday, but I thank the Universe (God) that I did, as I hope those that are open to love can learn a little from this.

    Love

    Cherie

  45. Scott Thong Says:

    Agreed, Cherie, in that we should closely examine all the factors before deciding what to believe in. For me, ‘faith’ has to be based on reason – like, if you have faith in your best friend to hold your house keys for you because she’s proven trustworthy for many years. ‘Faith’ for me is not blind – like, you don’t hand over your bank account number to just anyone who claims to be a charitable millionaire.

    Good analogy of karma to ‘unavoidable cause and effect’ – in fact, I use the exact same examples to argue that hell is an automatic effect, not the whimsical choice of punishment by a malicious God.

    I agree that we should try and avoid negative effects from happening to ourselves and others. However, I feel that our understanding of the very complex and interlinking chains of cause and effect is very shallow and shortsighted. Applied to the issue of homosexuality, how much do we really know about how it impacts the psyche of the child and other threads of social fabric? For example, statistics show that the lack of a father leads to much higher crime rates – what happens when there’s only two mothers, or two father?

    After all, if we go by nature (and by extension evolution), a child is clearly meant to come from the union of a male with a female. You hinted that you believe in evolution – but doesn’t it strike you that two males or two females cannot produce offspring, and thus cannot pass on their genes as evolution intends?

    Thus, if I believe that the all-knowing and all-wise God has revealed His advice for us through the Bible, I therefore ought to follow the Bible’s recommendations on various issues of life. Btw, Jesus encouraged kindness to animals (e.g. donkey fallen into pit on Sabbath), but only to a certain extent – human life is more important by His standards. Several times He actually aided the catching of fish, the eating of fish, and once even cooked fish for Peter.

    I also believe strongly that we should try and preserve this planet – in deed, the Bible states that we are ‘stewards’ of the Earth, meaning that we don’t own it but are merely taking care of it until God returns to claim it. So we should be keeping it in the best condition possible. Also, God set us as rulers over all animals – but that means we should be good and just rulers, not tyrants.

    Although global has superficially raised overall environmental awareness, sadly it is a big distraction from the real environmental issues like deforestation, clean water and non-greenhouse gas pollution (just look at Beijing’s sky!). Think of the 8 billion Euros spent by just Germany in just one year to reduce CO2 emissions, and how many Africans could have been provided with water filters instead with that kind of money. Think of all the concerts and conferences where celebs fly in on private jets from across the world to tell people to use less resources, and how much more could be achieved if their attention were focused on any other issue. Think of all the foodstuff poured into biofuels – did you know that tropical deforestation surged after Western nations put biofuel mandates in place, because the huge demand made planting biofuel crops extremely profitable? They had to think up another story – that cleared peat bogs release trapped CO2 – in order to reverse that blunder.

    I am pro-species preservation, anti-deforestation, anti-whaling, support weaning off fossil fuels, would like to see efficient electric vehicles, wish I could afford to buy a hybrid car… But I am strongly against wasting any more time on the wasteful nonsense related to global warming, especially now that the past 11 years have recorded no warming and the Sun is entering a low activity cycle.

    I commend your attitude of seeking to do the best you can according to your conscience – Paul in his letters explains that this is one way that God convicts humans of His existence. However, I believe that no amount of good can cleanse one of previous bad and make one ‘perfect’.

    It is like how a single drop of black lead-based paint will make pure water no longer pure – even if you add gallons more water (good deeds) until it looks clear again, it is still contaminated by the lead paint and no one should drink it. According to Christianity, this is what would happen to the perfectly pure heaven where no evil is found if anyone who had even the slightest tint of evil at any time in their life is let in – purity becomes no longer 100% pure.

    The only solution is to soak up all the black paint and remove it entirely – but according to Christianity, only Jesus can and has offered to do this.

  46. Mad Bluebird Says:

    Just disproves all what was said in that issue of NEWSREEK which is just another left-wing news rag

  47. Nancy Says:

    Your argument that Christ did not mention homosexuality means that he did not want to change the old law is ridiculous. Sodomy was the use of small boys by older males, not consenting adults. What about females? Only males are mentioned in the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible. Christ talked about the laws that he believed. What about the high divorce rate in this country – according to the Bible, then, ALL of these who remarry are living in adultry. There are many more of them than there are homosexuals. Should we not have laws then forbidding divorce and forbidding remarriage of these people?

  48. Scott Thong Says:

    I maintain that Jesus had a very good and precise opportunity to redefine marriage to include same-sex unions, yet He did not. Why do you feel it is ridiculous?

    Perhaps the OT doesn’t mention lesbian acts specifically, but the NT does (Romans 1:26). I thought most critics attacked Christians for sticking to OT standards for homosexuality?

    As I explained, whatever sexual activity is forbidden except between a married couple. Since two men or two women cannot be married, the issue of pederasty/lesbianism is already settled.

    What about the high divorce rate in this country – according to the Bible, then, ALL of these who remarry are living in adultry. There are many more of them than there are homosexuals. Should we not have laws then forbidding divorce and forbidding remarriage of these people?

    How many divorces are caused by one party either engaging in an adulterous affair or getting a divorce in order to pair up with new partners? As Jesus said, ‘except for marital unfaithfulness’ – and even stricter, ‘whoever even looks with lust in the heart’ has adulterous intentions.

    Well if you ask me, everyone should undergo a mandatory 6 months of Biblically-based pre-marriage counseling before being married. And premarital sex should be banned, natch – instant reduction in teenage pregnancies, abortions and all STDS especially HIV/AIDS.

    But let’s see someone run on a platform like that without the ACLU making a ruckus about ‘freedom of religion’.

  49. Cherie Says:

    Good stuff, good stuff, but here is something I have recently thought off.
    I hope we can all agree that life today is very different from life 2000 plus years ago. To go ahead and procreate was necessary, and for that you needed man and woman. Since neither really could live without the other in those day, you needed something to keep them together, hence marriage was created.

    I hope we can also agree that these days man and woman can live without eachother on many different levels, also, we are quite over populated in the world. It has been said that if the whole world lived on the same level economically as the US we would need 4 earths to sustain us food wise, fuel wise, not to mention loss of oxygen and hardly any healthy drinking water available.

    Sounds to me that gays and lesbians might be a God send, willing to adopt children that would otherwise be a part of the system going from home to home. Assuming you think that being raised in a gay home is unhealty for a child, can we please agree that being raised in foster care can be just as unhealthy in many cases.

    I know Christians do not believe much in evolution or Darwism, but might it be possible that the reason there are so many gays in the world today is actually a way of evolution to keep up with pollution and the damage so many of us are inflicting onto our beautiful planet.

    I do not say these things are so, just another way to ponder and look at it. Lets not condemn that which only one book says we should, when it has so much to do with judging, something Jesus most certainly did not want us to do. So I say to you, go out and sin no more, treat others the way you wish to be treated (including animals and trees) and leave the judging to God, who in his great wisdom and Love is probably more upset of the killing in wars, the starvation of many children than what two consenting adults might be doing.

  50. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Muslims believe evolution or not..all are from God. Not a single thing happened, took place or goes off without God permission or His knowledge.

    However..in the process of evolution..we (muslims) like most Christians..do not believe man is evolved from..or originated from monkey.. because we peoples of Abrahamic faiths believe …as revealed by scripture..is from Adam and Eve..

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Sounds to me that gays and lesbians might be a God send, willing to adopt children that would otherwise be a part of the system going from home to home. Assuming you think that being raised in a gay home is unhealty for a child, can we please agree that being raised in foster care can be just as unhealthy in many cases.

    We can’t compare the best-case-scenario of one option against the worst-case-scenario of another. For example, it would be lopsided of me to compare a famous foster family that has raised a dozen kids against a monster like Frank Lombard.

    While some homosexual couples are willing to adopt orphans, others seek out surrogate fathers or mothers in order to be able to have their own genetic children, which derails the whole argument of reducing the birth rate.

    I hope we can also agree that these days man and woman can live without eachother on many different levels, also, we are quite over populated in the world. It has been said that if the whole world lived on the same level economically as the US we would need 4 earths to sustain us food wise, fuel wise, not to mention loss of oxygen and hardly any healthy drinking water available.

    Well, I personally think that some in the US overconsume – and as a Chinese person, I can tell you that Chinese are no better if they can afford it (and soon 1 billion people in China will be able to!).

    However, if the whole world adopted the kind of innovation, hard work and freedom that the US is supposed to be known for, I’m positive that new ways to grow more food, clean and endless energy and efficient water-purification/recycling can be made a worldwide reality. We’ve already seen it before with the Green Revolution (the agricultural one, not the environmentalism one) and Singapore’s NEWater initiative, as well as the US Navy investing in Polywell clean fusion energy research.

    Note also that population alarmists have been warning about overpopulation and resource shortages for decades, and been proven wrong every time – including John Holdren, current Science Czar to Obama who lost his wager that resources would be running out.

    I know Christians do not believe much in evolution or Darwism, but might it be possible that the reason there are so many gays in the world today is actually a way of evolution to keep up with pollution and the damage so many of us are inflicting onto our beautiful planet.

    I’m pretty sure that’s not how Darwinistic evolution works, Cherie…

    I do not say these things are so, just another way to ponder and look at it. Lets not condemn that which only one book says we should, when it has so much to do with judging, something Jesus most certainly did not want us to do. So I say to you, go out and sin no more, treat others the way you wish to be treated (including animals and trees) and leave the judging to God, who in his great wisdom and Love is probably more upset of the killing in wars, the starvation of many children than what two consenting adults might be doing.

    Personally, I do not see anything wrong with what two consenting adults do in the own privacy as long as no one is hurt. In fact, as I state at the beginning of this post, my whole purpose is to merely explain the Biblical point of view regarding the matter of homosexuality.

    As to what Jesus said regarding judging, sinning no more, and loving our neighbor, I had earlier prepared several answers in this post.

  52. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Cause and effect..as Cherie put it..ad believe by many people. I ‘m learning about it.

    Can we say ‘not a single thing took placed..without cause and effect ?”

    The movement of stellar object in the space, the ‘rebirth of a “new” star some thousand light yrs away would have certain “cause and effect” ?

  53. Cherie Says:

    Thank you for your response. I take all your views with love and consideration, and although we probably do not see eye to eye on most issues, you are a child of God, and I see your “intent” as one of concern and desire to educate.

    First, you must understand that all I say and suggest comes from the truth that I see. In this I do not ever wish to come across that I KNOW anything for certain. I certainly do not have all the answers. I like to offer different ways of viewing things that are being seen as wrong in our society. I have traveled alot in my life, and been exposed to many different religions and many different Christian views. The thing I see is that everybody believes with good intent, and that all religions at their original core have Love. What messes religion up is the radical views many hold and the believe that theirs is the one and only way to God. In doing this, it is man who condemn his fellow man, not GOD. See, wether you say GOD, ALLAH, KRISHNA, JEHOVAH, it does not matter, you are still speaking about the same GOD, yet some religions bite into their righteous thinking of theirs being the only God. and if you don’t say the correct name, you are already doomed. This seems so agains what Jesus wished for us to believe. I see religion as dividing not connecting, and since we all came from the one source of GOD/LOVE, does that not seem counter productive to the word of God.
    Another thing about me you must understand is that, although I value the Bible for its incredible stories and morals, I do not see it as the one and only book of truth. I think Jesus and God’s word has come to many since the making of the bible, so to disregard any other teaching and hold on to a 2000 year old book as the end all be all, seems kind of silly. So if you quote the bible to me, it does not hold the same value to me as it does to someone who believes that that is the only book of truth. You may quote all you like, but I like to live according to the lessons of Jesus, not necessarily all the books in the bible. They are often quite confusing, and seem to be able to be interpreted in too many ways, hence the many different Christian religions. The bible is conservative to the ultimate degree. What always amuses me is the female polititian who claims to be conservative. How is this even possible (or the black politician for that matter, does it not state somewhere in the bible that we are allowed to have slaves) so, does this mean that EVERYTHING in the bible will FOREVER hold true. If you work on Sunday, you must admit you go against the bible. If you have gotten a divorce you have gone against the bible. If you eat more than you should, you have sinned against the bible. And isn’t a sin a sin. May I therefore suggest that if you are a man loving another man, you may in fact be a sinner, but no more than the glutunous amongs us, and there certainly are lots of those. Did Jesus not say to not judge, to not look for the speck in your brothers eye. So even if the bible says man should not lie down with man, should we not consider that the speck in our brothers eye, and busy us with the log in our own eye (mainly the judging part of it) There are many inconvenient truths in the bible that many of us rather not busy ourselves with, yet we like to throw stones at those that do things we think they shouldn’t, cause it is something that is easy for us not to. What right do we have to condemn the woman who was brutally raped in her home and opted for an abortion because to have the child would distroy her health and her life. Is the life of that mother worth less than the life of the foetus. I am just saying, again, stuff to ponder before we point that finger. Your site is your passion. I can appreciate and respect that, yet shouldn’t you be busy being a perfect Christian in the sense that Jesus would want you to be (not the church or the people) and for as far as going on and procreating. Is our planet able to sustain people infinitelly, as suggested by your response to clean fuel etc making it possible. This is an finite planet, and to think we can go on and procreate as the bible and the pope would want us to ( no birth control, what would 10 plus kids per family do to the planet). Whoever believes in the bible literally believes in a faritale for as far as I can see. Then again, I will never claim to know the truth, I only hold on to my faith which tells me it is all about LOVE)

  54. hurryupharry Says:

    The video someone doesn’t want you to see

    Harry’s Place has been playing a cat-and-mouse game with someone over the last two days to bring you this video of the homophobic lunatic Abdul Karim Hattin speaking at the East London Mosque.

    The video has been removed from YouTube three times, each time reported to YouTube for “breach of copyright” or “terms of use violation”.

    We can’t be bothered to fight with YouTube and explain that it is neither of these. It is legitimate criticism regarding a matter of public concern… so we’ve hosted the video privately.

    In his address at the East London Mosque, Mr Hattin has a section of his PowerPoint presentation called “Spot The Fag”, which is – he says – a “game I like to play”.
    http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/03/05/the-video-someone-doesnt-want-you-to-see/#comments

  55. Cherie Says:

    Hi Scott,

    It has been awhile but I just wanted to share an amazing movie I saw today at church. The movie was called “for the bible tells me so” and I encourage anybody to watch it with an open heart.

    In the movie we were once again reminded not to take the entire bible literally, because if we would one must know that in Leviticus it also states that eating shrimp is an abomination as well as wearing wool with linen. Obviously the bible was written in a different time and not everything should be taken literally, otherwise we should be allowed to sell our daughters into slavery and be stoned to death for working on the sabbath. So, if we wish to take the homosexual stuff litterally because we desire to follow the bible to the letter than we must also do it with each passage.

    Much brutality has happened due to the condemnation of gays by Christians hiding behind the bible. What do you think Jesus would say about that.

    Again, if you wish to get the full picture on homosexuality and the bible watch the movie.

    With love

    Cherie

  56. Scott Thong Says:

    In the movie we were once again reminded not to take the entire bible literally, because if we would one must know that in Leviticus it also states that eating shrimp is an abomination as well as wearing wool with linen. – Cherie

    Agreed, but not on those verses. Those verse ARE meant to be taken literally by the Jews in Moses’ time. They just don’t apply anymore for various theological reasons – and mostly because Jesus Himself overturned those directives (such as by commanding Peter to eat the unclean animals presented to him in a vision).

    Again as I state above, Jesus had many excellent chances to overturn the ‘prejudices’ against homsoexuality – but He didn’t. And in fact, the rest of the New Testament repeats the ban on homosexuality several times.

    So if you want to argue that homosexuality is allowed when Jesus didn’t mention it at all, you also have to accept that Jesus condones slavery because He also never mentioned it at all – He never overturned the Mosaic laws on that subject either!

    Make sense?

  57. Ron Says:

    Jesus on slavery:

    “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few.” (Luke 12:47-48)

    Paul on slavery:

    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5)

    “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2)

  58. Cherie Says:

    Hi Scott,

    Thanks for the reply. I see your points and understand how they can be viewed as the complete truth. For the sake of Love and Peace on earth I would still suggest you watch this movie. It will be guaranteed to open your heart if you allow it too. I do not know to which extend you might allow that to happen. One mother in the movie had to see her lesbian daughter kill herself because of her hatred and selfrighteousness against homosexuals. It took the death of her beloved daughter for her to learn more about gays to begin to understand it, and eventually she actually became a voice for the. All families in this movie were very strict fundamentalist Christians who ended up with gay children, something that was never taught or allowed, yet happened. Please don’t let this happen to you or others. You could do so much good with this site in the world by allowing your heart to open, watching this movie and than discussing the loving parts of the bible, and all the good that Jesus taught

    Namaste

    Cherie

  59. Scott Thong Says:

    I understand Cherie, and in no way does the Bible or do I condone hatred or cruelty against homosexuals. But how some people behave does not make a doctrine right or wrong – just because devil worshipers have been burnt at stake by Christians in the past, does that mean that devil worship is now permitted by the Bible?

    We have to take all the parts of the Bible as a whole – the ‘loving’ parts (Jesus will save all who believe in Him and repent, no matter their past sins) and also the ‘wrathful’ parts (those who continue to live in sin will be condemned, or at the very least earn a lesser reward in heaven).

    The Bible does tell us to warn our brothers/sisters gently if they are doing wrong – it is what we must do if we really love them, in order to save them from judgment.

    Finally, don’t get me wrong – from a humanistic standpoint, I see nothing wrong with two consenting, mature adults of the same gender being in romantic/sexual love. But I believe that God through the Bible says that this is not what He intended, and so that is also my stand.

  60. Cherie Says:

    Okay Scott, than lets tell the gay person one time gently that they should consider a different lifestyle because God does not approve, and than move on with our lives, and leave them to theirs. I cannot tell you how many obese Christians I see judging gays, or abortion, or anything they can find that the bible sees wrong, but somehow they have conveniently forgotten the passage about gluttony. How often should it be suggested I pester them on what the bible says. If I started a campaign against the many fat and obese about the bible because God does not approve, and start websites and walk around holding up banners saying gluttany is one of the deadly sins according to the bible. This would affect and hurt many Americans, yet I don’t think many of them would change, because they would hide behind the fact that obesity might be a disease, that obesity runs in their family, and they simply can’t help themselves. ( yeah, obesity runs in their family now, but lets go back 100 hundred years and see if obesity could be found in their family). We can take the bible and do soooo much judging according to it, yet I still do not believe that was the message Jesus was trying to bring accross. Of course you can look at gays any which way you like, God gave you free will after all, but is that not concentraing on the splinter in your brothers eye, so that you do not have to think much about your own demons.

    Scott, I am not saying you are a bad person in anyway, and I understand you started this conversation not in order to hurt gays, all I am asking you is to step away from the bible and just go with your heart. Your heart tells you what is right, because it has a direct line to God. In your heart, do you feel hammering on about the wrong of homosexuality is the right thing to go, or do you maybe feel that last part you wrote me would be the kinder way to go, and just be done with that subject, look at your life and see where you can better it. Lets help make the world a better place by being better Moms and Dads, better wifes and husbands, better neighbors. Lets help those that need help, lets volunteer and fill up our days with so much service and our minds with so much Love that there is no room for worrying what a fat person may put in their mouths, what a black person, or mexican, or chinese person may or may not be doing, and what gays and lesbians are doing.
    God Bless you Scott and Namaste (the light in me salutes the light in you :>)

    Cherie

  61. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay Scott, than lets tell the gay person one time gently that they should consider a different lifestyle because God does not approve, and than move on with our lives, and leave them to theirs.

    A good suggestion, but I would add on continuing to remind them gently if they persist in their ways.

    but somehow they have conveniently forgotten the passage about gluttony.

    Given that Proverbs has some words to say about gluttons, but it’s far less (three verses) than what is mentioned about homosexuality or murder.

    all I am asking you is to step away from the bible and just go with your heart. Your heart tells you what is right, because it has a direct line to God.

    That is a very dangerous route, Cherie. How many people have abandoned their spouses and children because they ‘know in their heart’ that running off with that young girl is right? Does this mean that God now condones their adultery and divorce and neglecting of parental duties?

    But I will take your suggestion to go on living without always hammering on homosexuality… In fact, that is what I already do.

    Posts on homosexuality make up less than 5% of all my blog’s posts (70 posts with the phrase ‘homo’ in them, whether positively, negatively or neutrally, out of 1484 posts total). The only time I ever discuss the topic these days is when a commentor raises the issue – such as you have semi-regularly.

  62. Cherie Says:

    Hi Scott,

    Okay, I think we have gotten to the point where it is clear we will have to agree to disagree. You keep sticking with your bible that is a couple of thousand years old, written with many revisions, with things left out and put in over the years. I will stick with my heart, my prayer to got and meditation, through which I feel I receive the word of God. How do I know this because when I open up my heart, it has NEVER let me astray, no even if I wished it would give me a different answer (leaving my marriage, giving up on my healthy lifestyle, returning gossip when it has been done to me) my higher Chirst self always returns to the words spoken by Jesus. To love my neighbor as myself, to not judge, unless I wish to be judged, to forgive and forgive and Forgive, for father they do not know what they have done, etc,etc. I leave the judging up to God and try to live the best Christian life I can live.

    It was a pleasure conversing with you, and I hope some of my words stuck.

    Namaste

    Cherie

  63. Scott Thong Says:

    Now you’re wandering into really dangerous territory. Why does the age of the Bible matter? Does it mean that just because ‘Thou shall not murder’ and ‘Thou shall not commit adultery’ are 3000+ years old, they no longer apply to modern life?

    What exactly do you think has been revised or left out? Just the parts you disagree with personally? If you doubt the inerrancy and accuracy of the modern Bible, how do you know whatever you know about ‘Jesus Christ’ and what He said wasn’t also changed or falsely included? If we cannot trust the Bible as the sourcebook for Christianity, then where exactly is our Christianity from – whatever we feel like?

    What if I open up my heart, and it tells me to seduce that 8-year-old schoolgirl? Am I wrong? Can you tell me I am wrong based on anything other than what your ‘higher Christ self’ tells you? But my own ‘higher Christ self’ tells me it is right, so who wins out? You can’t use the Bible either, as you don’t know what parts are real and what parts are added on. Who knows, maybe the part about how God loves those who sleep with pre-teen girls was revised out? That is the trouble with subjective feelings, if we don’t have any objective source to fall back on (the Bible).

    If we leave all judging to God, then we must leave ALL judging to God – including murderers, rapists and bigots. You can’t even judge me – which is what you have been doing, have you not? You are non-judgmental and all-loving, and I am not, poor me, it would be better if I could be more like you… Am I accurately describing here?

    Don’t get me wrong – I don’t take any offense to anything you have said. But I feel your attitude towards Scripture and doctrine is incomplete and incorrect. Remember, Jesus talked plenty about the dangers of unrighteousness, sin and hell (and hypocrisy!) – not just about forgiveness, love and salvation.

  64. Cherie Says:

    Hi Scott, I do sense I have upset you and appologize for this. When I speak of my higher Christ self, of course I know that if I though “It” told me to rape an eight year old, it would not be my Higher Christ self, but the devil on my shoulder (ever seen the cartoons with the Angel vs the Devil) that is what I mean. I think EVERYBODY deep down knows right from wrong, they just chose not to listen. I don’t believe the murderer or rapist believed they were doing the “right” thing when they committed their sin, they just choice to do whatever they pleased.

    When I speak of the 2000 year old bible I mean precisely that. Did you know that in those days it was concidered sinful for the male to waste his sperm, because procreation was so important. They were trying to build their cities. They needed laborers, and so yes, they needed mens seed. So in those days homosexuality was a crime agains the nation, because the seed could not be reproduced between two men. That is the age the bible was written in. Look at our finite world now. We abuse it and over crowd it, thinking it will give us anything we want forever. It simply can’t work that way anymore. You are wrong, I do not judge you, as I know that is not my place to do. I found your website, and believe you wish to either educate people on the sin of homosexuality, or aggravate the situation by putting fuel on the fyer. So, like you, I am hear to show people a different way of looking at the picture. We have all been “taught” to believe and think a certain way. I have been lucky to have traveled the world, seen many countries, customs and religions, and seen that they are all fine for the people who chose to live them. The problem in the world is the intolerance, the judgement on what ever is different. When I say God shall judge, I mean that God shall judge. Of course there is the law of cause and effect, so for those who chose to commit crimes there are consequences. I have just never seen where being gay is committing a crime. A bible does not keep people from living in sin, there are too many pastors that have proven that. It is our heart and our willingness to do the right thing. It is unfair of you to say that that might lead you to raping an 8 year old, I don’t even understand how you get to that argument.
    Again, sorry to have upset you. Go pray, meditate, and listen to your heart, your soul and to God, not your Ego, and you will see what I mean.

    Cherie

  65. Simon Thong Says:

    Cherie knows so much about the laws, rules and regulations of the Jews as found in the Old Testament. I’m sure she knows about the rules and regulations found in the New Testament. If those were what others threw at me, I would also react. Yet, to turn away from those is to reject the non-substantial. And to turn to the inner self is not a viable option.

  66. Scott Thong Says:

    Cherie, I don’t feel I am upset by your remarks. I am merely trying to point out why I think your worldview is incomplete.

    For instance, you say that everybody deep down knows right from wrong, but just choose not to listen and instead do what they please. But if I say something is right and you say something is wrong, how do we decide who is correct? Without an objective standard (i.e. the Bible) we will simply argue all day, because our opinions each carry equal weight.

    I will try out an example, please answer me this: Is having sex with a dog wrong if it really, really seems to like it?

    No using the Bible on this one, just your opinion. Tell me what your view is, and I will demonstrate my point from there.

    —————————–

    On the ‘wasting sperm’ thing, I admit that long ago this might have been the interpretation of the lesson of Onan. But the modern interpretation is that his sin was refusing to provide a child to carry on his dead brother’s name, which is a spiteful thing to do (especially after enjoying his dead brother’s wife!). Hence the divine punishment, not for ‘wasting sperm’ but for being a jerk.

    Yes, the interpretation might have changed. But that is the interpretation, not the Bible itself. There is a huge difference!

    —————————-

    I get your argument that we are overcrowding this world (and I can suggest many ways to overcome that), but that is a very poor argument in favour of homosexuality. Because in practise, homosexual couples don’t refrain from adding more humans to the planet. Many seek out surrogate mothers or fathers to give them children who are the genetic offspring of one of the homosexual couple. The desire to have a child who is like you is so overwhelming, surely that says something about how God or nature meant couples to be?

    —————————

    My 8-year-old rape argument was not serious, I just chose the most shocking example in order to prove my point. And my point was, if we can’t rely on the Bible, how can we conclude what is right and what is wrong? By feelings? By opinions?

    You say you have traveled the world and seen many customs and religions. Then you know that in some Muslim nations, preteen girls (8-year-olds included) are regularly married off to old men – and of course sex follows the wedding. They consider is right, so can you argue that it is wrong? They can always shoot back, that they believe you know it is right in your heart but choose not to admit it!

    See? Without a solid basis to rely on, we get nowhere. Feelings and opinions are not solid, everyone has different views.

    ————————-

    And yes, I admit that different views include not respecting what the Bible says. But at the very least, I expect Christians to take the Bible as their basis.

    And that is what I have been trying to get at – sure, I openly admit that people are free to believe whatever they want, and think right and wrong of whatever they want. But my point, plain and simple, is this: Christians should base their beliefs on the Bible, and the Bible says homosexuality is wrong (for whatever reasons).

    And if any ‘Christian’ wants to ignore the parts of the Bible they disagree with, then why be ‘Christian’ at all? Declare themselves nonChristians, and then they can freely toss out every single part of the Bible they dislike!

    That is my stance.

    I apologize if I have seemed belligerent or argumentative, but it is my firm belief that Christians should believe in the Bible wholeheartedly, else they have no reason to be Christians at all (and everything we know about Jesus is from… The Bible!)

  67. Cherie Says:

    “And if any ‘Christian’ wants to ignore the parts of the Bible they disagree with, then why be ‘Christian’ at all? Declare themselves nonChristians, and then they can freely toss out every single part of the Bible they dislike!

    That is my stance.”

    Goodmorning Scott,

    I have really enjoyed our conversations.I don’t scare away from people wiht different (even opposite) views, and am glad to see you are the same way :>)

    With this bottome statement of yours I could not agree MORE :>) and that is why, about 10 years ago I had to turn away from the Christian “religion” Although I still concider Jesus Christ my Lord, I no longer hold much value to the religion (and Bible) itself.

    See I was baptized Luthern as a child. Written out of the church by my mother because she was a Christian Scientist (also Chirstian) than baptised again in my 20′s as pentecostle. This religion did not allow woman to cut their hair (says so in the bible) or where pants (says so in the bible) although we lived in North Dakota at the time. When I was baptized and “failed” to come out of the bathtub speaking in tongues, I was told Jesus was not yet in my heart. That I should go home and pray and Pray, until I would start speaking in tongues. So, more depressed than ever, I went home and prayed, prayed, PRAYED, to allow God into my heart (although I knew he was) After three days of prayer, I saw a light that came into my heart and FELT the presence of our Lord. I was so happy and called the church. They told me that seeing loving light was “weird” and that I should continue my prayer until I could speak in tongues. Interestingly enough, the week I was baptized in church was also the week I turned away from church and religion.

    In the following years as a flight attendant, I often spoke to passengers about religion, and some “tried” to get me back to their churches. I remember speaking one time with a Mormon and one time with a Jehovahs witness. Both these gentlemen were so adement in telling me that theirs was the only way to God, that to chose any other way would get me straight to hell, and they each had the bible passages to back it up. Again, I saw the division of even the Christian Church, never mind religion in general and was reassured that I made the right decision to pursue Christ by myself.

    Than one day, some years ago I had a profound dream in which Jesus himself came to me. He very kindly stated that “they are all right” and “they are all wrong” and “you are the light”. Out of this I understood that persuing any religion can be right, but that all are wrong in thinking theirs is the only way. The statement “you are light” of course meant to me that we are all children from God. Of course many might say that that might not have been Jesus, but having been raised and baptized Christian and always followed his teachings (which stand apart from many other parts of the bible for as far as I see it) I Know it was Jesus.

    Scott, this is just some of the reasons why I feel the way I feel. I do not know how much exposure you have had outside the bible and Christianity. Not heresay, or things you read about, but truly speaking to people of different religions. Watch 30 days on the green channel about a Christian man who agrees to live a Muslim life for 30 days (and trust me he does not do that lightly, and has issues with it, but does see the love and purity of that religion when practiced appropriately, not like the fundamentalist terrorist do).

    Today I go to the Unity (Christian) church, because I do love the social aspect of religion. OUr church obviously stands for One-ness, not Separation like so many churches. We like to see every human being as having the light of God in them, although sometimes so far hidden (hence the arguement about what is right or wrong, the farther that light is hidden, the more the Ego leads the person into wrong decisions) We read from the bible, yet do not take every part litterally as we do not believe it was meant to be taken litterally. Take Adam and Eve alone. Where did the rest of humanity come from when they were only left with one son who went out and found his wifes (where did they come from) Why don’t we question these things. We conveniently don’t think about it, but rather go after lets say…..gays.

    Gotta go, you have a very blessed day

    Cherie

  68. Scott Thong Says:

    This religion did not allow woman to cut their hair (says so in the bible) or where pants (says so in the bible) although we lived in North Dakota at the time.

    I’m lost… Which verses are these?

    When I was baptized and “failed” to come out of the bathtub speaking in tongues, I was told Jesus was not yet in my heart.

    I know which verses are used to apply this one, but the Pentecostal interpretation is highly disputed. In fact, they are more like three examples than actual commands.

    Again, I saw the division of even the Christian Church, never mind religion in general and was reassured that I made the right decision to pursue Christ by myself.

    A sad truth about the Christians is their seeming lack of unity… But decisions to pursue Christ by themselves is exactly how the different denominations came about!

    On that note, Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not considered mainstream by most Protestant Christian denominations.

    Than one day, some years ago I had a profound dream in which Jesus himself came to me. He very kindly stated that “they are all right” and “they are all wrong” and “you are the light”. Out of this I understood that persuing any religion can be right, but that all are wrong in thinking theirs is the only way. The statement “you are light” of course meant to me that we are all children from God. Of course many might say that that might not have been Jesus, but having been raised and baptized Christian and always followed his teachings (which stand apart from many other parts of the bible for as far as I see it) I Know it was Jesus.

    As this is your personal experience and testimony, I cannot tell you that it was or wasn’t Jesus who spoke to you. In the same way, I cannot conclusively say that someone who claims ‘Jesus appeared in a vision and told me that Jesus and Paul and the devil are one and the same entity’ did not really see and hear Jesus. Neither can you, no matter what you may think about his Jesus = Paul = Devil idea.

    I can only tell you objectively that Jesus said Himself in the Bible, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) which seems to exclude any path but Jesus.

    We read from the bible, yet do not take every part litterally as we do not believe it was meant to be taken litterally.

    Well, not all of the Bible is to be taken literally, but some of it certainly should be taken literally. Do you take everything to be non-literal?

    For instance, Genesis 1:1 – do you believe that God literally created the heavens and the earth?

    How about ‘Thou shall not murder’, is that literal? If you do, why not the verses that are in opposition to homosexuality?

    Take Adam and Eve alone. Where did the rest of humanity come from when they were only left with one son who went out and found his wifes (where did they come from) Why don’t we question these things.

    Well, I have questioned this issue before, and have various theories. God could have made more people, or Cain married a sister which was all right as sin hadn’t taken much of a toll on DNA yet and it was long before the time when incest became formally illegal (Moses’ era). The simple fact is, the Bible doesn’t say anything about where Cain’s wife came from. Anything I suggest is pure conjecture.

    We conveniently don’t think about it, but rather go after lets say…..gays.

    Actually, Christian apologists (such as at http://www.carm.org) deal with all sorts of hard questions continually. I regularly debate with Muslims and atheists in the comments here, and discover new answers as they pose questions I hadn’t heard of before.

    The Bible never says that those who cannot answer where Cain’s wife came from are sinning, but it clearly states that those having homosexual contact are sinning. Perhaps that is why more Christians seem to take issue with homosexuality than Genesis 4:17.

    ——————————

    I suppose my personal stance is the opposite of yours. You view the Bible as merely an optional guide, and put more weight in your own feelings.

    Whereas I know how I personally feel about certain issues – I don’t see anything wrong with two consenting adults of the same gender having a sexual relationship. I even can argue for permitting premarital sex, sex with animals, suicide in certain cases, harvesting the organs of dead people whether they or their families agree, and legalizing prostitution! (Out of curiosity, how would you feel about those things?)

    But I make the conscious decision to submit my own personal feelings to what the Bible says. It doesn’t matter if I feel it’s ‘fairer’ or ‘more loving’ to allow the above things. What matters is what the God who created us says is the correct thing to do.

    For if everyone follows their ‘own heart’ on the issues, then there is truly no unity. No longer will it be Christianity, but the Religion of Me.

    But neither can I say that those who hold certain views are necessarily unsaved. I have blogged on this difficult question before, here is the most far-out example:If I believe Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, but also genuinely believe Jesus was a 40-foot radioactive Buddhist monk, am I saved?

    if you would care to take a look at it, do share your views about http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/is-such-a-person-saved/

  69. Cherie Says:

    One question for you Scott, you are speaking of the Pentecostal “interpretation” of the bible. When the bible leaves so much room for “interpretation” it is really setting people of for division, not a very nice thing to do in my book, for division in its worst part ands up in WAR. About the part of the no cutting of hair and the wearing of skirts, trust me, I did not believe it either, so it was shown to me, and I saw it with my own two eyes in the bible. However, I cannot remember which verse. Your arguement yesterday about gluttony being mentioned less often than the sin of homosexuality was a pretty weak one, I hope you agree.

    Well, lets than agree that my personal relationship with Christ is of the religion of me which states that I can do anything I want as long as I do not hurt others or myself and that all my actions are followed by consequences (some call this karma) With this idea in mind, I chose Only do do kind things to others as I hope this will result of a good life for myself now and after I pass on. It is possitive discipline I suppose, whereas the bible often gets people to oblige through fear, punishment and intimidation. If you have ever trained animals or raised children as I have, you should know that you get them to do alot more good by rewarding their good behavior rather than punishing their bad. Of course their are consequences to the bad behavior, but when you Concentrate on the good, that is what you get back, and that is what my “religion” as you say is all about.

  70. sezwho Says:

    I love WAR – war against poverty, war against zealots, war against disease, war against war, war against royalty, After every war there is a boom.

  71. Scott Thong Says:

    One question for you Scott, you are speaking of the Pentecostal “interpretation” of the bible. When the bible leaves so much room for “interpretation” it is really setting people of for division, not a very nice thing to do in my book, for division in its worst part ands up in WAR. – Cherie

    But don;t you see, Cherie… The very ‘follow what the heart says is right’ is what causes Christians to have widely differing interpretations of the same verses in the Bible!

    About the part of the no cutting of hair and the wearing of skirts, trust me, I did not believe it either, so it was shown to me, and I saw it with my own two eyes in the bible. However, I cannot remember which verse.

    I can guess which verse the no-cutting-hair one is:

    And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. – 1 Corinthians 11:5-6

    Note that the rerefence is to being shaven bald – which was a shcoking thing for women in the culture of that time. Cutting hair a bit shorter is not the issue.

    But the skirts one completely escapes me, as honestly trousers were not a common item in Biblical times – even for men.

    Your arguement yesterday about gluttony being mentioned less often than the sin of homosexuality was a pretty weak one, I hope you agree.

    Put it this way – Jesus warns us over and over about hell, chides the Pharisees over and over about hypocrisy, advises us over and over about money. Wouldn’t you feel He was trying to impress upon us the importance of those subjects He kept on repeating about?

    So when both the Old and New Testaments keep mentioning how homosexuality is unacceptable, while seldom mentioning gluttony, don’t you think the Bible is putting more emphasis on one?

    Well, lets than agree that my personal relationship with Christ is of the religion of me which states that I can do anything I want as long as I do not hurt others or myself and that all my actions are followed by consequences (some call this karma) With this idea in mind, I chose Only do do kind things to others as I hope this will result of a good life for myself now and after I pass on.

    Cherie, it is the same here with me! It’s just that I view certain things as being sinful in God’s eyes (through what I read in the Bible), and

    Take smoking for example. Would you try and advise someone to stop inhaling nicotine – even if he thinks he is fully in control of his habit, and got really angry and hurt by your meddling? Or would it be the better thing to warn him gently, because it will end up hurting him in the end?

    Many actions seem right to the human mind, but God already stated what He views as right or wrong. Doing what is wrong will surely result in harm to the doer, both in this life and the next. It is thus my duty to warn them off the path to hurt and ruin.

    My motives are the same as yours – only our methods and judgments differ.

    If you have ever trained animals or raised children as I have, you should know that you get them to do alot more good by rewarding their good behavior rather than punishing their bad.

    Cherie, have you ever raised children or had a cat? Have you ever taught Sunday School class with several screaming brats running around and kicking over furniture?

    Yes, reward has its place, but so does punishment.

  72. Craig Says:

    I am neither a Christian nor a homosexual, but I have always found it strange that so many people attempt to fit Christianity around their sexual choices, when it so obviously disagrees with them.

    The last part of your post is interesting though, claiming that God is too intelligent to have created homosexuals. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of species. If all life was created by God, then his plan obviously involves homosexuality.

  73. Scott Thong Says:

    You misread the last part of my post, then.

    My gist is that yes, God did create all life. However, the current world we see around us is not God’s original perfect plan. Things like pain, suffering, death and yes – homosexuality, are all deviations from God’s perfect plan caused by human rebellion (i.e. sin).

    Read up on Genesis 3:16-19 again (even if you aren’t Christian) and note how childbirth pains, thorns, tiresome work and death are all introduced for the first time as a result of human sin. Contrast against the preceding chapters where God creates one man to be with one woman (not two men or two women).

  74. Craig Says:

    Perhaps I misunderstood the last part of your post. I understood you were saying that human homosexuality was a perversion of God’s original plan resulting from man’s sin. I didn’t, however, realise you were also applying this to homosexual behaviour in other species. As animals are – presumably – incapable of sin, I figured that their sexualities must be in accord with God’s plans.

    Is your claim, then, that human sin has perverted all life on earth away from God’s original designs?

    I do recall childbirth pains etc. being visited upon us as punishment for Adam and Eve’s transgression: although not a Christian, I do find religion fascinating, and have studied the bible somewhat (although I certainly don’t claim to be any kind of expert).

    I actually agree with you that the bible seems to be fairly clearly against humans engaging in homosexual behaviour. My query was solely with other species. Why would God have created so many species with homosexual ‘desires’ (insofar as that word can be applied to other animals) when he was so against it in man?

  75. Scott Thong Says:

    I believe that is the mainstream stance, that animals cannot sin (as they have no sentience). However, Christianity says that human sin affected everything – including plants. It’s like a nuclear bomb – man builds it, man detonates it, but every life form suffers the fallout.

    So no, God didn’t intend for animals to have homosexual desire, just as God didn’t intend for animals to kill each other. I mean, come on – what could possibly be the purpose of two male animals mating?

  76. Craig Says:

    Establishing and reinforcing heirarchy within the group, bonding and group solidarity, and of course simple pleasure.

  77. Jason Says:

    I will start by saying that I am completely heterosexual. With that said I do think that if Jesus were against homosexuality he would have made more of a point to make it known especially since 2000 years later we are still arguing about how he felt on the subject. Finding verses on marraige and blah, blah, blah about men and women being married and how being a male prostitute or being with one is bad is really stretching the issue. If homosexuality were such a major issue Jesus would have made it much more CLEAR how he felt about it. Aftall if GOD himself came down to make a point I do think GOD would make that point and leave no room for argument about where GOD stood on the matter. DUH?? GOD is GOD. GOD would be able to effectively communicate such simple matters to all.

    Question: If the bible is really the word of GOD and everyone is supposed to know it and read it to know GOD, then why did GOD wait another 1,500 years to invent the printing press? Did GOD drop the ball on that one? Or maybe it is just a bunch of fictional stories written by MAN?

    Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe religion is just an ancient form of government? What better way to control the masses than to make them fear you? What better way to control the minds of others than to make them believe in something you cannot prove!

    FEAR sells.

  78. Scott Thong Says:

    I will start by saying that I am completely heterosexual. With that said I do think that if Jesus were against homosexuality he would have made more of a point to make it known especially since 2000 years later we are still arguing about how he felt on the subject.

    If homosexuality were such a major issue Jesus would have made it much more CLEAR how he felt about it.

    You have a point in that perhaps homosexuality was not a major issue with Jesus – He was more concerned about the dangers of hypocrisy and pursuit of worldly gain.

    However, note too that Jesus never ‘made more of a point’ against pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, parent-child incest, etc. By your reasoning, would that mean that Jesus condoned these practices?

    I hold to my opinion that Jesus made His stand on sexual relationships simple and clear – the ‘old ways’ of the Jews stand. One man, one woman in a marriage, and no sex outside of marriage. It’s pretty hard to argue that Jesus supported anything other than that.

    Aftall if GOD himself came down to make a point I do think GOD would make that point and leave no room for argument about where GOD stood on the matter. DUH?? GOD is GOD. GOD would be able to effectively communicate such simple matters to all.

    Sadly, God made it pretty clear that humans are given complete free will – including the choice to interpret His directives according to our own arrogance. So no matter how clear the Bible is on matters on earthly matters such as homosexuality, or spiritual matters such as Jesus being the only way to salvation, there will still be people who think they know otherwise.

    Question: If the bible is really the word of GOD and everyone is supposed to know it and read it to know GOD, then why did GOD wait another 1,500 years to invent the printing press? Did GOD drop the ball on that one? Or maybe it is just a bunch of fictional stories written by MAN?

    That’s actually the closing number of Jesus Christ: Superstar. Why didn’t Jesus come 2000 years later when radio and TV can reach the whole world?

    Or why not wait another 1000 years till instantaneous telepathy communications devices are the norm? Even better right?

    In fact, some critics argue the opposite: Why wait thousands of years after human civilization began to send Jesus, while in the meantime so many otehr religions popped up? Or why wait even one day after Adam and Eve sinned to send Jesus to save humanity?

    One line of apologetics argues that the time that Jesus came was already optimal – the Romans had connected most of the known world by road and writing.

    Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe religion is just an ancient form of government? What better way to control the masses than to make them fear you? What better way to control the minds of others than to make them believe in something you cannot prove!

    FEAR sells.

    Of course I have thought of that – and I believe that many ‘religions’ are in fact sociopolitical tools to establish authority. So too with ‘non-religions’ like Communistic Atheism. I just happen to think that Christianity is the genuine deal, that unfortunately was co-opted and misused by certain groups as a despotic tool.

  79. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    You miss my point. The bible is how many pages?
    Would GOD not want to make the word of GOD easy and simple to understand? This I think would make for more followers and “SAVE” more souls. Cletus from Podunk Alabama may not understand all of this 1,000+ page book, but if Cletus be lucky he may find good preacher to explain weekly to him what GOD really meant in this epic saga….unless of course preacher not so good and have his own agenda and easily distort the word of GOD.

    GOD WOULD HAVE MADE A MUCH SHORTER BOOK FOR CLETUS.

    There are verses in the bible which say that is is okay to kill your children if they disrespect you. Do you agree this is okay?

    I do find that the more a person believes in Christ the less like Christ they tend to behave.

  80. Scott Thong Says:

    You miss my point. The bible is how many pages? Would GOD not want to make the word of GOD easy and simple to understand?

    Dude… The Bible is translated to hundreds of languages, multiple styles of English including modern slang, Ebonics and lolcat-speak, done in audio-tape and animation versions – what more do you want? That telepathic transmitter that will arrive in the next 1000 years?

    Next you’ll be asking why God made it so blind+deaf+limbless, illiterate, IQ 40, and also simultaneosly comatose people can’t understand the Bible.

    You want hard? Go read the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts locked up in museum displays. Maybe then I’d acknowledge ‘how hard God is making it’ to understand His word.

    And I bet if the Bible were only one page long, like a mini-tract or advertisement flyer, you’d be complaining how sparse and lacking details God’s alleged word is. Honestly, I think you’d be criticizing no matter what the Bible, God or Christian doctrine is like.

    Cletus from Podunk Alabama may not understand all of this 1,000+ page book, but if Cletus be lucky he may find good preacher to explain weekly to him what GOD really meant in this epic saga

    And the preacher is what, if not yet another means by which a layman can understand the ways of God? Someone spends years of his life to study the Bible – including in the aforementioned Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to understand the nuances of the original presentation – and pores over sermon outlines for hours every week, just so that someone who pops in for 10 minutes on Sunday might catch the barest glimmer of understanding. And you still consider it hard?

    Whose fault is it if someone won’t make the barest effort to comprehend something countless Sunday School kids already know by heart? Or if someone spends hours trolling the Internet’s Bible-bashing sites for choice verses taken out of context to mock Christians with, but who has never actually read the Gospel of Mark as a narrative of the life of Jesus?

    If your culture produces individuals who need to be explicitly warned that you aren’t supposed to stick your hand into the whirring blades of a lawnmower – and can still sue the lawnmower company because he was too lazy to actually read the giant warning sticker – I’m afraid you have more serious problems than higher theology.

    There are verses in the bible which say that is is okay to kill your children if they disrespect you. Do you agree this is okay?

    If I were an Israelite wandering the desert with Moses, yes I would agree it is okay. As I am actually a non-Jewish person living in the grace of the New Testament, I think it has been superceded long ago. By the way, it doesn’t say that parents can kill their children – it’s up to the elders and the entire town to decide if he deserves the death penalty. Not really much different from elected judges and a jury of peers really.

    But seriously – name me one instance of someone actually believing they are supposed to do this as a good Christian, let alone went ahead and carried it out.

    I do find that the more a person believes in Christ the less like Christ they tend to behave.

    Do describe how Christ is supposed to have ‘behaved’.

    You mean like calling the leaders of the day snakes, hypocrites and devil-spawn?

    Or vandalizing an officially permitted marketplace – twice no less?

    Or telling people off for merely thinking about doing sinful things – let alone arguing for the complete opposite of what God clearly stated with an attitude of condescension and smugness?

    I do find that the more a non-believing person thinks he knows what Jesus really was like, the less he has actually read about Jesus in the Bible itself.

  81. Cherie Says:

    Hi Jason,

    Nice to see your discussion on hear with Scott. Finally I see some arguements I can relate to. As you can see, it is all about what Scott thinks and believes, just as we all do. As you can see, I have taken on many “discussions” as well. You can not convince a bible believing Christian of any other way than how they were taught (brainwashed) by parents and church to believe. You are right about the fear that rules, because by going again their teachings they face Hell, so of course they cannot move away from their thoughts. I personally like the more free thinking person who reasons themselves through the verses of the bible and comes to their own conclusion as you have done.

    Cherie

  82. Simon Thong Says:

    Jason Says:
    October 26, 10 at 1:46 pm You miss my point. The bible is how many pages?
    Would GOD not want to make the word of GOD easy and simple to understand?

    What is it that you are complaining about, that the Bible is too difficult to understand? What is it that YOU don’t understand? One verse is enough if you want to believe: For God loved the world that He gave his only-begotten son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3.16).

  83. Simon Thong Says:

    Jason Says:
    October 26, 10 at 1:46 pm
    I do find that the more a person believes in Christ the less like Christ they tend to behave.

    And how would you know what Christ is like?

  84. Simon Thong Says:

    Cherie Says:
    October 26, 10 at 9:19 pm
    You can not convince a bible believing Christian of any other way than how they were taught (brainwashed) by parents and church to believe.You are right about the fear that rules..

    I had no church or parents to brainwash me. I came to faith by myself. It is not fear that motivates me. It is rational thought that motivates me.

    And you are not as free thinking as you would like to think you are.

  85. Cherie Says:

    Peace brother, projection and perception. Look into the Course in Miracles, words of Christ, very powerful. Deals purely with Forgiveness.

    You cannot make a non-bible believing person believe that the bible is the only way to Christ, just as I cannot make you believe the Course is the way to Jesus Christ. The difference between the course and the bible is that it does not busy itself with what others do wrong, merely with what we can do to set our own minds straight.

    Of course, merely by responding to these pages do I allow my ego to guide me rather than my mind. I do not believe I ever suggested I am anywhere near perfect (cause I am NOT) yet I see the value in my teachings over that over Christianity because it does not condemn.

    With that I should say that if you chose to keep holding on to the thought that being homosexual is wrong, and people keep chosing to teach that to their children, who will chose to bully those that are, to the point of suicide, murder etc, than you are allowed to do so with your own free will.

    All I have ever done is suggest we do not do this and let other live in Peace with their choices, as you wish to be left alone in Peace with your Choice to believe in the bible and be a Christian.

    Namaste

  86. Jesus H. Christ Says:

    Sure, homosexuality is an abomination.

    But then again, so is eating shellfish, wearing blended fabrics, planting mixed crops, trimming the corners of your beard, getting tattoos, and talking to women during their period.

  87. Scott Thong Says:

    Sure, homosexuality is an abomination.

    But then again, so is eating shellfish, wearing blended fabrics, planting mixed crops, trimming the corners of your beard, getting tattoos, and talking to women during their period. – Jesus H. Christ

    If I were a Jew following Moses around the desert, yes, they would be.

    As it may be, I am nonJewish Christian living in the age of grace as exemplified by the teachings of Jesus Christ… Who happened to clearly state that:

    1) Marriage is only between one man and one woman,
    2) Any sexual activity outside marriage is sin.

    Which Paul then reaffirmed multiple times.

    Silly polemics, always mixing up Old Testament Jews and New Testament Christians! It’s not really your fault I suppose, that’s what happens when you rely on attack sites for your information instead of reading the Bible for yourself.

    And also:

    Kristof adds, again sarcastically, “a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).” To compare the significance of the prohibition of male-male intercourse to the prohibition against wearing a garment made of two different materials is highly tendentious and shows an extraordinary lack of hermeneutical (i.e., interpretive) sensitivity to the witness of Scripture. The penalty for wearing a garment made of two different fabrics was probably just the destruction of the fabric (compare Deuteronomy 22:9-11). Moreover, the prohibition of cloth mixtures was not absolute. Mixtures of linen and wool were enjoined for some Tabernacle cloths, parts of the priestly wardrobe, and the tassel of the laity.

    (Note that the cloth-prohibition involves a prohibition against mixing different things, not things that are too much alike.)

    Paul does not consider the hairstyles and veiling to be a do-or-die issue. No warning is given regarding possible exclusion from the kingdom of God for those who disregard this “custom,” unlike the one that he issues regarding same-sex intercourse (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). His ultimate concern is that Corinthian women and men not attempt to disregard all marks of sexual differentiation in attempts to exercise prophetic gifts. There are overtones of concern here for a slippery slope leading to homoerotic practices or at least the appearance thereof. Kristof confuses the cultural accoutrements of Paul’s concern for homosexual practice for the

  88. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    Fact: While religion may not be the #1 cause although very good arguments could be made to that point it is most definitely one the greatest causes of suffering, death, rape, murder & genocide in all of human history.

    There are many things in this world to find abominable, yet you choose to harp on where a man chooses (consentually) to put his penis.

    Murder, rape, robbery, assualt, theft, extortion, genocide, pollution, and yet you want to focus on gays. You would like to focus on the behavior of consenting adults who do you and others no harm in their own privacy.

    Jesus befriended a prostitute and told all around to throw stones if they were without sin. Why do want to throw rocks? Are you better than the rest of us? Maybe you should start to look at the world from the inside instead of the outside.

    And on another note I do not care if the bible is long or short since you mentioned it, but if GOD wrote it, then everyone would be able to understand it and the words within would not contradict from chapter to chapter and verse to verse. GOD would have already known that the book would be translated into multiple languages and dialects and would have planned for that, afterall GOD is all knowing. MAN however did not plan for that. MAN wrote the book. MAN screwed it up. MAN lied for his own agenda to control the world and YOU.

    NOW MAN UP and remember these three lines.

    I sought my soul, but my soul I could not see.
    I sought my God, but my God eluded me.
    I sought my brother, and I found all three.

  89. Scott Thong Says:

    Fact: While religion may not be the #1 cause although very good arguments could be made to that point it is most definitely one the greatest causes of suffering, death, rape, murder & genocide in all of human history.

    I’ll see your religion as one of the greatest causes, and raise you the far deadlier result of removing all traces of religious prohibitions as seen in the past 100 years of history (hint: Soviet Union, China, Khmer Rouge).

    There are many things in this world to find abominable, yet you choose to harp on where a man chooses (consentually) to put his penis.

    Slander. I have to date exactly 1554 posts on my blog, of which only 73 posts contain the term ‘homosex’ whether in a negative, positive or neutral portrayal. That’s a whopping 4.7% of all my posts – and you accuse me of harping on the issue?

    Whereas you come here and you comment exclusively on the issue, but I am supposed to be the one harping on about it?

    Jesus befriended a prostitute and told all around to throw stones if they were without sin. Why do want to throw rocks? Are you better than the rest of us? Maybe you should start to look at the world from the inside instead of the outside.

    Jesus also told the woman caught in adultery (not mentioned anywhere she is a prostitute), “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

    With your obvious distaste for religion, your knowledge of Scripture is expectably lacking. I suggest you actually read the material you intend to bash before trying to play lay-preacher.

    And on another note I do not care if the bible is long or short since you mentioned it, but if GOD wrote it, then everyone would be able to understand it and the words within would not contradict from chapter to chapter and verse to verse. GOD would have already known that the book would be translated into multiple languages and dialects and would have planned for that, afterall GOD is all knowing.

    You have cite what exactly you think are the contradictions. The Bible is not a new book – with 2000 years to the New Testament alone, critics have been attacking it for that long, and Christians have been successfully defending it for as long. Whatever contradictions you allege have not been strong enough to dislodge the Bible in these 2 millenia.

    And again, you keep saying that the Bible is sooooooo hard to understand. But that doesn’t seem to be a problem with the vast majority of those who read it, Christian or otherwise. See, you managed to excerpt the part where Jesus tells us not to be hypocritical in our judgment – and without actually opening the Bible to read the passage for yourself! Was that so hard?

    MAN however did not plan for that. MAN wrote the book. MAN screwed it up. MAN lied for his own agenda to control the world and YOU.

    Again, this has been slung at the Bible for 2000 years. Still hasn’t stuck.

    And I would say instead, MAN’S PRIDEFUL NATURE rejects God’s ways and convinces himself that MAN knows best. (See how well that turned out under atheistic communism…)

    NOW MAN UP and remember these three lines.

    I sought my soul, but my soul I could not see.
    I sought my God, but my God eluded me.
    I sought my brother, and I found all three.

    You know, pro-homsoexuality advocates like you always come to my blog with guns blazing and righteous fury.

    But pray tell, where do I even recommend that homosexuals not be permitted to carry out their personal decisions? Did you even read the first five paragraphs of this page, which I specially included as a disclaimer?

    Go and do it, then re-read the entirety of my post (which I bet you skipped in your haste to attack this ‘homophobic’ author), and tell me exactly where I bash homosexuals, or want to ban gay marriage, or say homosexuals are depraved or evil or sickos.

    PS. By the way, MAN UP is a sexist and homophobic phrase implying that ‘real men’ only act in a certain, stereotypical, traditional/religious, ‘macho’ way which is responsible, mature and reputable.

    (You must be one of those homophobic gay bashers I hear so much about.)

  90. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “Fact: While religion may not be the #1 cause although very good arguments could be made to that point it is most definitely one the greatest causes of suffering, death, rape, murder & genocide in all of human history”

    Someone from ‘British Aerospace Ltd’ says that..

    No religions=no suffering, rape, murder, crime ?

    No religion=no problem in this world?

  91. Simon Thong Says:

    I sought my soul, but my soul I could not see.
    I sought my God, but my God eluded me.
    I sought my brother, and I found all three.

    This sounds so impressive but does it work? Soppy philosophy.

  92. Cherie Says:

    It could if we all came from a place of Love, Tolerance and Open-mindedness.

    If we chose to keep holding on to the thought that being homosexual is wrong (because the bible says so, but then again you have ignored alot of bible quotes brought up on this site, that speak on wrongs, things we conveniently forget), and people keep chosing to teach THAT to their children, who in turn will chose to bully those that are homosexual ( not as a choice), to the point of suicide, murder etc,( why would anyone chose that) just please be aware that you are contributing to hate and suffering in this world. With the way Jesus spoke in the bible, which one would sadden him more, Homo sexuality or judging to the point of causing harm.

  93. Simon Thong Says:

    Throughout the whole discussion, it seems to me that the author of the blog was NOT judgemental. Indeed, he may very clear his stand:

    By Scott Thong

    “DISCLAIMER: The blog author does not in any way hate or socially discriminate against homosexual persons or their civic rights.

    In the following post, he merely points out the Scriptural basis for the rejection of homosexual behaviour in Conservative mainstream Christianity. Modern socio-cultural issues related to the issue are not adressed here.

    The blog author also fully supports the civil rights of each person of any religion, lifestyle or politics to practise his or her beliefs without infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

    However, he draws the line at churches, groups or individuals that make the claim of homosexuality being permitted or condoned by the Bible and Christianity – as they are in essence saying that every other church (which follows the traditional, mainstream and Scripturally-backed belief that homosexuality is a sin) IS WRONG, MISGUIDED AND HATEFULLY DISCRIMINATORY. This borders on libel and slander.

    Although the blog author may not ‘understand’ the feelings and real-life challenges faced by homosexual persons, the following post does not make any claim to do so – the discussion that follows focuses only on Bible Scripture, of which the blog author believes that his understanding is adequate and correct in the case of the citations below.”

    That is his aim in this blog. By the way, you imply that you know what Jesus said in the Bible, and you imply that you know the meaning of judgemental. If you did, you would not be writing such things about this blog author.

  94. Scott Thong Says:

    Indeed, I do believe I’ve pointed out before that accusing me of being judgmental is, itself, an act of judging.

    Cherie also assumes the worst-case scenario (children indoctrinated to bully homosexuals to the point of suicide) if we continue to insist that the Bible does not accept homosexuality.

    If I were to use the same extreme sort of examples, I could argue that Christians accepting homosexuality would cause homosexuals to engage in orgies during church services, in front of the Sunday school kids no less. (This is not unprecedented.)

    Cherie, why do you only focus on homosexuality? Why don’t you campaign to dispel the ‘intolerance’ of Christians towards polygamy, incest and bestiality? After all, those are also things we believe the Bible forbids. Isn’t it a bit biased for you to only support one of those four sexual choices?

    Do you support the right of mature adults to willingly choose polygamy, incest or bestiality? If you don’t, aren’t you similarly judging to the point of causing harm? Won’t your children bully those that are polygamists, incestuous couples and zoophiliacs to the point of suicide, murder etc.? Just please be aware that you are contributing to hate and suffering in this world.

    And what did Jesus say about what ‘saddens’ or ‘pleases’ God?

    For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. – Matthew 12:50

    “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” – Mark 12:29-31

    How can anyone claim to love a person, yet all the while ignoring that person’s wishes – even to the point of arguing that what that person really wants is the exact opposite of what he is saying?

    Dad: Hey son, I love you. Be a good boy now and live a decent life.

    Son: I love you too dad, that’s why I’m gonna run away and be a drug addict!

    Dad: That’s not what I said, son!

    Son: Yup dad, thanks for agreeing to let me get hooked on crack! You’re the best!

    Mum: Junior, your dad didn’t mean that…

    Son: Mum, you are a hater, a bigot, and a drug-o-phobe. Which would sadden Dad more – my becoming a junkie, or your judging me for it? Just please be aware that you are contributing to hate and suffering in this world.

    How can a child claim to love his parents if he constantly engages in self-destructive behaviour, despite his parents’ constant advice, pleas and tears?

    If you will note, loving God is the greatest commandment; loving mankind is only the second greatest.

    You cannot claim to truly love God if you reject His ways.

    Why does God not accept homosexuality? Why does He insist that only those who believe in Jesus can be saved? Why does He have such a horrible, cruel place as hell where unbelievers must suffer for eternity? Why does He allow any suffering at all? Why doesn’t He just save us all right now?

    I can only say, God knows best – He knows what He is doing. And He tells us what is best in the Bible. We can either choose to accept it, or reject it. But I for one will not stand for twisting it beyond its intended meaning.

    You can be homosexual, I have no problem with that. You can be homosexual and Christian, even that is okay – as long as you accept that your condition is not acceptable in the long run. Just don’t try and argue that Christianity accepts homosexuality as sinless and permissible. Not only do you have no foundation to stand on, you are insulting every church, denomination and Christian who does not hold the same point of view.

  95. Jason Says:

    Scott and Simon,

    Please stop qouting the bible as defenses to your arguments. It is a work of fiction and yes I have read it. I grew up reading it and being inundated by the insanity of it, but before the age of 12 realized it was all a bunch of lies intended to control the minds and fears of the masses. It is easy to defend fiction by creating more fiction. It is much easier to sell a great lie than it to sell a small one.

  96. rotfl Says:

    Saudi judge says he committed illegalities under the influence of genie who spoke through him

    “Genie interrogated before ‘Magic Committee,’”
    http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010102085727&archiveissuedate=20/10/2010

  97. Simon Thong Says:

    Dear Jason,

    It is NOT a work of fiction. Many people have read it, so the fact that you’ve read it means…what? Just what are you saying? That you’ve read it and think it’s fiction and the rest of us have to concur? Well, I’ve read it and studied it and believe it’s God’s Word, so why don’t you agree with me?

  98. Jason Says:

    Please Simon.
    Do you have proof that it is not fiction? It was written by at least 40 authors in 3 different languages on 3 different continents over approximately 1,600 years.
    Jesus is not the first or the second or the third person in recorded human history who could walk on water and heal the sick. The story is “old hat”.
    History is written by those who win the wars and the first thing most conquerers do when they win is burn the books of those they have just conquered.

  99. rotfl Says:

    This scene is a microcosm of how liberals seek to silence the opposition by censorship and leveling personal attacks while avoiding the issues at hand. It further elucidates their ignorance of the issues, their bad habits of changing the subject during the debate, and their wild self-constructed fantasies of the world at large. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  100. Simon Thong Says:

    Please Jason,

    Let me turn the question the other way around: can you prove that the Bible is fiction? Given the the fact that, in your own words, it “was written by at least 40 authors in 3 different languages on 3 different continents over approximately 1,600 years”, isn’t it a better explanation that one guiding hand wrote everything through such a vast span if years and over so much territory? And who could live so long except God, who was, who is and who shall be?

  101. Scott Thong Says:

    Jason,

    Work of fiction? Really? You say you realized at 12 it was ‘all a bunch of lies’. Why, what research did you do that made you come to that conclusion?

    Real research proves how, for example, passages in the Old Testament (e.g. regarding the Decree of Cyrus to send the Jews back to Israel) and New Testament (the details of Jesus as found in secular, non-Biblical archaeological sources) are historically accurate.

    Die-hard Bible bashers and atheists/agnostics Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell actually did the research with the intention to bash Christians even harder. But in the end, they found they were logically and factually convinced that the Bible is true.

    In fact, your citing the many different authors is an argument FOR the genuineness of the Bible. Dozens of authors, over three continents and thousands of years, in three languages, under the rule of different conquering empires, who never met or even imagined others would write for the same compilation – what an amazing coincidence that they ended up following the same themes!

    And no, the later authors didn’t change the older texts – as surviving manuscripts from 300 BC read the same as ones dating from 1000 AD.

    And I only cited Bible passages because you were misinterpreting them, not as an argument for non-Biblical issues (come on, I’m more objective than that!). So please, blame yourself for bringing up Bible verses.

    You could be right that it’s much easier to sell a great lie than a small one. To me, the great lie is that the Bible is a made-up book of lies and fantasy.

  102. Cherie Says:

    Just so you know, I am a Christian and go to church every week. It is a loving Christian church that does not concentrate on the doom and gloom and judgement, but talks only of the love of God for us, and our Oneness and Unity that shoul never exclude anybody.

    I believe consenting sex between adults is okay. I do not believe the animal (beastiality) would consent, nor the child in the incestual relationship. I am not opposed to polygamy and have heard enough people in polygamist relationships that seem quite happy with it, and just like homosexuality I do not make it my problem.

    All of the above arguements can be made both ways. You Scott, wholeheartedly and literally believe in the bible as written by God, others don’t. You believe in Hell, others don’t. Until we die there is no prove that any of us can claim.

    http://www.unityhouston.org/

    My beautiful Christian church even showed an incredibly moving movie called “for the bible tells me so” about what the negative inpact of church can do to families of homosexuals. Of course like many christians I have met you too might come up with a reason to let me know how my church is not the right Christian church to go to, which is ultimately what I believe hurts Christianity. The judgement of everybody and anything who does not precisely agree with the ideas that your church proposes.

    All I want is for people to live and let live and worship from Love, if this is too a judgement, than I guess I am guilty.

  103. Simon Thong Says:

    I go to a church where Hell hasn’t been mentioned for years. We hear of and preach the love of God. It is a loving church that focuses on personal spiritual growth and the sharing of the Gospel. The bible is the foundation of our faith. We don’t condemn anyone. But we believe that there is right and wrong. We know love because He first loved. God in Christ defines what love means. Without that starting point, God’s love for us, how would we know true, real love? Love would then mean anything you like.

  104. Cherie Says:

    I have been watching an interesting show called 30 days, where people are put in other peoples shoes opposite of what they believe ( vegan vs meateater, prochoice vs prolife, border patrol vs illegal immigrant, atheist vs Christian, Christian vs Muslim, Christian vs homosexuality) needless to say, very interesting educational show.

    What interested me the last time I saw the Christian vs homosexuality was that the woman could not accept under any circumstance the fact that a loving gay couple who had addopted and fostered many unwanted children would rather see these children lost in the system than raised in a loving home. There were some kids who had been left in the system never to find a home. As adults they expressed the loneliness and big desire to find a family, and how tough life was without family, yet the stance of the Christian woman was that she preferred these kids not get a home than to be put in with a gay or lesbian family.

    Do you think that is what Jesus would prefer too? I think to hold onto the bible at any cost and under any (modern) circumstances seems silly to me, and as a Christian I rather hold to the truth of the loving words of our lord Jesus (judge not lest ye be judged, forgive, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself) than to hold onto the verses that sound hatefull and judgemental. Then again, that is just me…….

  105. Jason Says:

    No Simon…I can’t prove that the Bible is fiction.

    I also can’t prove that I have never walked on the moon. I can’t prove that I did not invent bubble gum. I can’t prove that I have never been atop Mount Everest. I can’t prove a negative.

    There is no solid proof that the Bible is anything other than fiction, but conveniently for you I can’t prove it just as I can’t prove that a tree falling in the forest really does make a sound even though I am not there to hear it land. The Bible is not only fiction, but fiction which has been copied. The stories within it were all written long before Jesus which you would know had you chosen to read anymore books besides just the Bible.

    As I said before Jesus was not the first or second or third in recorded human history to heal the sick and walk on water. Every Messiah to come in human history has the same trademarks and the same story. The Bible is not an original work. This is how man has been governed for thousands of years.

    What better way to govern and control than to make up stories to scare the masses into submission?

    I do realize that I am wasting my time though as you are a fanatic.

    Sorry, but I am not going to drink the Kool Aid.

  106. Scott Thong Says:

    Cheries, then we agree to disagree, as we hold different views and priorities.

  107. Scott Thong Says:

    There is no solid proof that the Bible is anything other than fiction, but conveniently for you I can’t prove it just as I can’t prove that a tree falling in the forest really does make a sound even though I am not there to hear it land. – Jason

    Did you just conveniently ignore all the links I posted? I think you did.

    As I said before Jesus was not the first or second or third in recorded human history to heal the sick and walk on water. Every Messiah to come in human history has the same trademarks and the same story. The Bible is not an original work.

    Obama wasn’t the first to propose healthcare reform, deficit spending and restrictions on oil drilling. By your logic, this means that Obama is not really President of the United States – since other Presidents have done those things before, therefore Obama must be a myth.

    ————————

    Jason, IMHO you seem to think you know a lot. But if you were to delve a little further past your own nose, you would realize that for every criticism you’ve raised, there have already been responses since the last thousand or so years. A quick Google search would reveal far more detailed theories about where the Jesus story ‘stole’ ideas from, and similarly plenty of explanations debunking those theories… which you would know had you chosen to use anymore material besides attack sites and your own jumping to conclusions.

    Of course you aren’t going to drink the Kool Aid of religion. You’ve already fully gorged on the Tang of self-assured smug arrogance.

  108. Scott Thong Says:

    Cherie, I believe you misunderstand my views.

    You think that I am not showing love by refusing to accept homosexuality. On the contrary, I believe that in order to show true love, I must inform people of God’s clearly stated stand on homosexuality. I sincerely believe that the Bible does not condone homosexuality, and there must be a reason for it (one that is for our own good, even if we can’t see it). And if that’s my sincere belief, it would be hypocritical of me not to say so – it would be unloving of me to purposely play along with the ‘homosexuality is okay’ crowd.

    It’s just as with people who tell me not to eat this or drink that because it’s bad for my health. It may seem that they’re being unloving by bugging me, especially if I disagree with their conclusions about what is and is not an unhealthy diet, but to them they are doing it out of concern, care and love for me.

    I’ll be honest, personally I do not see what is humanistically wrong with sex outside marriage between consenting adults (of any genders). Nor with carefully controlled, legalized prostitution. Nor with bestiality. Nor with incest. Nor with euthanasia.

    In fact, if I were an atheist, I’d probably be the most open minded, liberal of them all!

    However, I sincerely believe that the Bible is God’s word, that God is real, and that – no matter my personal opinions – God knows best. Thus I submit my personal views to God’s stated guidelines. And among those guidelines are ‘love your neighbor’ and ‘homosexuality is not acceptable’.

    So that is my stand – I continue to reject homosexuality because that is the truly loving thing to do.

  109. Simon Thong Says:

    Jason Says:
    October 28, 10 at 1:39 pm
    Please Simon.
    Do you have proof that it is not fiction?

    Simon Thong Says:
    October 28, 10 at 4:04 pm
    Please Jason,
    Let me turn the question the other way around: can you prove that the Bible is fiction?

    Jason Says:
    October 29, 10 at 1:11 pm
    No Simon…I can’t prove that the Bible is fiction. I can’t prove that I did not invent bubble gum. I can’t prove that I have never been atop Mount Everest. I can’t prove a negative.

    You, Jason, are so confused that you don’t know what you are saying, you can’t understand what you are saying, and you don’t even know that. You can prove that you were never atop Mt Everest or even tried because there is a list of all those who did. You can prove you didn’t invent bubble gum coz it someone else who did. Bubble gum was invented by Walter Diemer in 1928, and that’s not you or you would be 81, and you wouldn’t be making such silly statements like you’ve been doing so far.

    Cease and desist, and no one else will realize how confused you are.

  110. Simon Thong Says:

    correction: or you would be writing from the grave, seeing that Walter Diemer died in 1998.

  111. Craig Says:

    Actually, Jason is correct. The principle that one cannot prove a negative is fairly basic and extremely sound.

    Just because there’s a list of people who’ve reached the summit of Everest doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t do it without anyone knowing, Jason included.

    Just because history records Walter Diemer has having invented bubblegum doesn’t mean Jason isn’t a time traveller who gave the recipe to Walter in the first place.

    There’s the rather famous ‘blue teapot’ example, which comes from Bertrand Russell:

    “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

  112. Simon Thong Says:

    A double negative is the nonstandard usage of two negatives used in the same sentence so that they cancel each other and create a positive.

    Craig, Jason can’t be correct. See the meaning of a double negative? And we’re talking fact here, not mere supposition which is what the very able philosophy B Russell is doing to illustrate his point. We’re talking fact.

    Also. there is NO way anyone who is a foreigner could have gone to climb Mt Everest without being unknown, that is, being unlisted. Go and find out more before you sound even more ignorant than now. You’re wasting your breath.

    Time traveller? LOL LOL LOL

  113. Simon Thong Says:

    People do write a lot of ridiculous things, don’t they? Time traveler? Next thing we read is that Craig has invented a machine that transforms bull dung to nutritious cereal and which he has eaten for years, which explains why he writes what he write.

    I do know of how dung is converted into odorless cooking gas. How do we not know that you did not invent it first? Here’s a double negative for you to play around with.

  114. Scott Thong Says:

    Craig, Russell’s Teapot is a straw man argument. It over-simplifies and misrepresents the Christian claims about God.

    The Teapot hypothesis encompasses merely one claim – that there is a very tiny teapot in orbit around the sun. The only way such a claim is testable is by searching all of the Solar orbit simultaneously for the teapot.

    Whereas Christianity claims very many things that are perfectly testable. The Bible is claimed to be the word of God and a factual account of human history, and apart from spiritual guidelines it makes plenty of claims regarding human history and geography. As just a few examples, not so long ago secular ‘experts’ pooh-poohed the Biblical accounts of the Hittite people even existing, Cyrus sending the Jews back to their homeland, and Jerusalem being anything more than a tiny peasant village.

    Today, the Hittites are considered an empire rivalling Egypt, the Cyrus decree is famously inscribed on a cylinder, and encircling walls as well as David’s underground water supply have been dug up of the Jerusalem dirt.

    So not every statement on history put forward in the Bible has been proven yet – and some seem to be contradicted – but I have confidence that in due time, not one Biblical narrative will be at odds with archaeological discoveries.

    From there, we of course cannot prove that the claims about non-physical matters (God, souls, salvation) are true or not. However, to paraphrase Jesus, if you can believe a source on earthly matters, you ought to be able to believe it on heavenly matters too.

  115. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “..The Bible is not only fiction, but fiction which has been copied. The stories within it were all written long before Jesus which you would know had you chosen to read anymore books besides just the Bible.”
    – Jason.

    I would suggest Jason should state which book(s) that have such stories, besides the Bible. So that readers of this blog could read/verify it.

    Jason has came to a personal conclusion that Bible is nothing but a “fiction”. He also says it was copied.

    Quran also has be copied, copied many many times. God did not give the book, but verses..(in the form of voice/”sound” by Gabriel) and then copied by men. God doesn’t translate it either. Men did it.

    Verses were read to the prophet (pbuh), and he memorized them, and he asked his close companions to write it down on pulps, leaves, leather, tablets etc. Later (until today) it is written on the proper papers, and compiled to become a book.

  116. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    Just wanted to make sure you realized this…

    If what Jason says is true, that the bible is fiction and long before Jesus…. then the Quran is consequently fiction too, because Allah and Muhammad many times stated that the revelation revealed to the Jews and Christians and Jesus, etc are true and reliable and from Allah.

    Just making sure you keep that in mind, Nasaei.

  117. Craig Says:

    Double negative? Simon, what on Earth are you talking about? I merely agreed that one cannot prove a negative, there was no mention made of ‘double negatives’ at all. If I’d said “You can’t not prove a negative” that would be different.

    “Craig, Jason can’t be correct. See the meaning of a double negative?”

    No, because your first sentence doesn’t contain a double negative. Nor does it illustrate the concept. I suggest you do a little more study before you make an even bigger fool out of yourself. Perhaps see if your local library has an ‘Idiot’s Guide…’

    “Also. there is NO way anyone who is a foreigner could have gone to climb Mt Everest without being unknown, that is, being unlisted.”

    Read that back to yourself Simon, and see what you’ve said. You’re now claiming that every foreigner who’s climbed Everest is missing from your list. And I’m the one who sounds ignorant?

    But ignoring your poor grasp of grammar, it’s perfectly reasonable that a person could, if they really wanted, arrange a private expedition, unknown to the climbing community at large. Perhaps there would be stories circulating of a mysterious stranger who paid a lot of cash to a couple of Sherpas but nobody knows anything more about…

    Time travel is a bit of a stretch, but not impossible given what we currently know about the laws of physics. My point wasn’t that it was probably, merely that it was (just about) within the realms of possibility, you can’t say with absolute certainty that it didn’t happen.

    Scott, thanks for providing a reasoned debate and not degenerating into schoolground name-calling. Perhaps you could teach your brother (son? cousin? random guy who just happens to have the same surname?) how it’s done.

    Regarding the historical accuracy of the bible, I don’t know enough to enter that debate. You’ve piqued my curiosity, though, and I’ve started reading through some of the links you posted.

  118. Cherie Says:

    I would highly recommend to some of the writers on this blog to read: “How to be an open-minded Christian without losing your faith:, by
    Jann G, Linn.

    He writes about the two opposing views of extreme Christians (the ones that take the bible completely literal) vs free thinking Christians, the ones who concider the time in which it was written etc.

    We all know the damage extremist can do (need to look no further at the extreme Muslims) There has got to be a middle way (something we seem to have forgotten as even todays politics shows). If we keep arguing our stance so feverishly without tolerance to the others view things like hate, judgement, and ultimately war can happen. Let us on this blog not go that way.

    The bible is a beautiful book with very meaningful stories, not all of them meant literal, not all of them valid anymore today (just look at the stance of the Pope on birthcontrol and ponder for one momen where our planet would be today it we all still had 10 plus children wanting to live the American oil guzzling lives.

    Then, go out and live a life of SELF reflection doing onto others as we would have them do onto us, and judging, or speaking ill of others lifestyles would certainly not be one of those.

    Namaste

  119. Simon Thong Says:

    Craig Says:
    November 3, 10 at 8:15 pm
    “Also. there is NO way anyone who is a foreigner could have gone to climb Mt Everest without being unknown, that is, being unlisted.”

    Read that back to yourself Simon, and see what you’ve said. You’re now claiming that every foreigner who’s climbed Everest is missing from your list. And I’m the one who sounds ignorant?

    But ignoring your poor grasp of grammar”

    Who’s the one with a poor grasp of grammar? You can’t even understand what you read. LOL. For comprehension and grammar, you get zero. I mark a lot of passages every day, and you’re dumber than some of my Grade 6 students.

    Craig says also “it’s perfectly reasonable that a person could, if they really wanted, arrange a private expedition, unknown to the climbing community at large. Perhaps there would be stories circulating of a mysterious stranger who paid a lot of cash to a couple of Sherpas but nobody knows anything more about…”

    What a complete nincompoop you are, fella. You just want to argue. Read up on a “Totally incompetent nincompoop’s guide to…”

  120. Simon Thong Says:

    As for “Scott, thanks for providing a reasoned debate and not degenerating into schoolground name-calling”‘ you were tearted that way because of your offensive comments and rudeness. A schoolyard bully like you deserve no better..

    Now that you admit that you “know nothing regarding the historical accuracy of the bible, I don’t know enough to enter that debate”, at least I must complement you for admitting that you were a complete nincompoop in the first place..

  121. Simon Thong Says:

    Jason Says:
    October 29, 10 at 1:11 pm

    “No Simon…I can’t prove that the Bible is fiction. I can’t prove a negative.

    There is no solid proof that the Bible is anything other than fiction..”

    But I didn’t ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove that the bible is fiction. I asked you to prove a positive. But you didn’t even understand that. What low-level skills you have, and you accuse me of poor grammar. Go back to grammar school.

  122. Simon Thong Says:

    You started this way:# Jason Says:
    October 28, 10 at 12:52 pm

    Scott and Simon,

    Please stop qouting the bible as defenses to your arguments. It is a work of fiction and yes I have read it. I grew up reading it and being inundated by the insanity of it, but before the age of 12 realized it was all a bunch of lies intended to control the minds and fears of the masses. It is easy to defend fiction by creating more fiction. It is much easier to sell a great lie than it to sell a small one.

    # Jason Says:
    October 28, 10 at 1:39 pm

    And then you continued: Please Simon.
    Do you have proof that it is not fiction? It was written by at least 40 authors in 3 different languages on 3 different continents over approximately 1,600 years.
    Jesus is not the first or the second or the third person in recorded human history who could walk on water and heal the sick. The story is “old hat”.
    History is written by those who win the wars and the first thing most conquerers do when they win is burn the books of those they have just conquered.

    And then you started ther name calling: I do realize that I am wasting my time though as you are a fanatic.

    But now you complain about the debate degenerating into name calling?
    Be stupid if you want to, complain if you want to, but don’t expect others to sympathize with you or to be as stupid as you.

    Scott may be polite to you, and good for him. I call a spade a spade, and an insipid pretentious self-appointed expert of English grammar like you should be called exactly that:an insipid pretentious self-appointed expert of English grammar

  123. Simon Thong Says:

    Time travel is a bit of a stretch, Craig? Don’t be silly. It’s such a stretch that if you were stretching the band of your pajamas, it would break, you pajamas would drop to the floor, and you stand there stark naked, revealing your family jewels. It would be the literal complement to your grammatical nakedness.

    As for double negatives: you said, “I can’t prove a negative”, which means “I can prove a positive.” Didn’t even know you used a double negative? LOL

  124. Zack T Says:

    Jason Says:

    Do you have proof that it is not fiction? It was written by at least 40 authors in 3 different languages on 3 different continents over approximately 1,600 years.
    Jesus is not the first or the second or the third person in recorded human history who could walk on water and heal the sick. The story is “old hat”.
    History is written by those who win the wars and the first thing most conquerers do when they win is burn the books of those they have just conquered.

    A comment I found rather interesting…

    1 – ‘Continent’ means “one of the large landmasses of the earth”.. Last I recall, all events mentioned in the bible are all centered around Jerusalem/Israel…. furthest land of much events in the bible was Egypt, if I am not mistaken.

    2 – Jason says the bible “was written by over 40 authors in 3 different languages on 3 different continents over 1600 years”…. and then later on, says “History is written by those who win the wars and the first thing most conquerers do when they win is burn the books of those they have just conquered”.
    Throughout the bible, it records the Israelites/Jews winning over and also losing to the enemies. If burning books was indeed the first thing conquerors do, well, you’ve just proven yourself how extraordinary was the preservation of the bible, haven’t you?
    Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gotten writings of over 40 authors and in 3 different languages…. over 1600-year time span.

    3 – I’m sure Scott would know this a lot better than me, but the bible is one of the best sources of history with regards to the Middle eastern area and also for Egypt and surrounding areas there; and for centuries, more and more archaeological findings are proving the existence of many locations, tribes and even landmarks in the bible to be true and reliable. (A lot of the locations recorded in the bible are currently well and still inhabited and are even still named the same; e.g. Egypt, Israel, Jerusalem, Rome, etc)
    If the bible is nothing but fiction, I guess, we’re living in a somewhat fictitious world then.

  125. Simon Thong Says:

    Zack T, they ARE living in a fictitious world, one in which the historical events of the Bible are seen as fiction. A topsy-turvy world.

  126. Craig Says:

    Simon, please stop.

    “there is NO way…a foreigner could…climb Mt Everest without being unknown”

    Can you really not see your error, and that by making it you completely contradict yourself?

    Also, I am not Jason. Your comments are sounding increasingly confused as you begin to address us as the same person. I don’t know Jason, I was merely commenting on the logic of proving a negative. I never used the words “I can’t prove a negative” That was Jason. You can tell which person has commented by looking at the top of the comment, where their name is displayed.

    If you read back through the comments on this post, paying careful attention to the differences in names, then you’ll see that I didn’t start any name-calling or rudeness. Nor did I ever attempt to enter the debate on the historical accuracy of the bible. Nor would my comments appear ‘fanatical’ to any reasonable observer.

    Not that I expect one, but I feel an apology is owed.

  127. Simon Thong Says:

    1 Craig, for mixing you up with Jason, my sincere apologies.

    2 Craig Says:
    November 4, 10 at 4:35 am “Also. there is NO way anyone who is a foreigner could have gone to climb Mt Everest without being unknown..”

    Can you really not see your error, and that by making it you completely contradict yourself?”

    No, there is no error there: The first clause “Also. there is NO way anyone who is a foreigner could have gone to climb Mt Everest” can stand on its own. There is no double negative there. The second, the subsidiary clause “without being unknown”, has a negative but it does not intrude into the first. In essence, the whole sentence says, “Any foreigner who has gone to climb Mt Everest is known.” There is no contradiction.

    2 Craig Says:
    November 3, 10 at 8:15 pm
    But ignoring your poor grasp of grammar, it’s perfectly reasonable that a person could, if they really wanted, arrange a private expedition, unknown to the climbing community at large. Perhaps there would be stories circulating of a mysterious stranger who paid a lot of cash to a couple of Sherpas but nobody knows anything more about…

    No, Craig, that is not done. Anyone who wants to climb Mt Everest has to register himself, get a booking, and wait. It may take a year, more or less. It takes a lot of time and red tape.

    Of course, you’re just talking hypothetical, like when you were talking about time travel.

  128. Simon Thong Says:

    correction: the second 2 should be 3

  129. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “Fiction issue”..

    Zack T, I thought everybody acknowledged already Muslims believe Injil (and Taurat/Torah, Zabur) were ALL from Allah as stated in the Quran.

    But when an audience asked Professor of Religious Studies Bart Ehrman whether he believes in Bible, he asked: “Which Bible?”.

    So, Injil was from Allah, to Israelite of the Jesus time. Definitely from Allah. Is Injil=New Testament ? I don’t know. However, since there many of its verses are in conformity, or in harmony with the Quran’s verses..I guess this is the fact (they are from the same sources).

    I just wonder.. “which Bible” reply by Bart Ehrman..etc. Maybe yes, Dead Sea Scroll “confirmed” it. But does Bible contains ONLY DSS? How about other parts/chapter/volumes ?

  130. Zack T Says:

    It matters not which bible.. the fact is, Jason is arguing that “there is no solid proof that the Bible is anything other than fiction”… I doubt Jason cared which bible he was talking about and generalizing any bible as such.

    And in all honestly, there is no different versions of the bible. Even the Catholics’ extra ‘Apocryphal books’ aren’t a different version of the bible… just additional books that they accept (although not as canonical scripture, as far as I know).. plus these books changed nothing about the message of the bible..
    You’re arguing there are different versions of the bible.. and I’ll challenge you to bring forward a bible whose message is different from the other… aside from the modern day bibles that have been created by those who believed themselves to be the ‘true prophet of God’ after Christ.
    And I sure hope you’re not gonna go on about the Gnostic gospels like loop would… Those can’t even compile together to become a bible…. only at most, compiled to be an equivalent of one part of any one of the three Synaptic gospels we have.

    And I’m sure you can’t even argue about the ‘different versions’ of the OT, cause frankly, the Quran is one, and that’s gonna prove against what Quran said about itself and with the ‘revelation revealed previously to the Jews”.

    So, I don’t see where is the evidence of a ‘different’ bible… Then again, Christians never argued that they have ONE true bible or that God will protect every word in the bible (translated or not) or that there is an eternal unchanged bible n Heaven… unlike the Quran, which has been documented to have variants not in English but in its original language, Arabic. Unlike the bible, Islam can’t produce any Quranic manuscript that is within 100 or even 200 years after Muhammad’s death.

    So, before you try to refute the bible and its authenticity, how about you check out the authenticity of the Quran and its preservation? Seriously, Nasaei.

  131. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Some Muslim religious teachers (ustaz) say, the Quran we have today are actually “mush-haf” (compiled text, or scripture) – they meant (according to them) the real Quran is what people memorized in their hearts. And, there are also Muslim scholars said, besides that, Quran is in the Lauh Mahfuds,/ heaven, the text scripture Muslims have today is only mush-haf.

    Where is Lauh Mahfudz? I believe nobody knows for sure but Allah.

    So, Muslim do not care much if mush-haf was there or not in the first or second century after the demise of the prophet, because it was in many Muslims’ hearts – as it is today, as well. My friend said, if we burn ALL the available mush-haf today, we (Muslims) can compile the exactly the same book again (because many, many Muslims memorize in by heart, like during that 1st and second century after the prophet left). Same, we do not care much also about the burning by Othman. Only non Muslims worried much, we don’t, frankly.

    Muslims memorizing the ‘Quran” is not a fiction, but fact, even today, as you might have known it Zack.

  132. Zack T Says:

    Hahaha… You don’t care about the burning by Othman, but you fail to realize WHY Othman had to gather the manuscripts, write HIS standard version of the Quran.. and had every other manuscripts BURNED.
    (And that’s not even mentioning about the disagreement and opposition of Uthman/Zaid’s version of the Quran; and the numerous verses in the Hadiths that made mention of a number of Suras that were lost for good.)
    Until you acknowledge the implications of that reason, go right ahead and not care… and thus show yourself to just be an ignorant and biased follower of the faith.

    Funny.. I never mentioned Quran (or memorizing of the Quran) is fiction… I said,

    If what Jason says is true, that the bible is fiction and long before Jesus…. then the Quran is consequently fiction too, because Allah and Muhammad many times stated that the revelation revealed to the Jews and Christians and Jesus, etc are true and reliable and from Allah.

    Yet another statement that went off tangent of what has been said. Please keep up with what has been said and not make strawman arguments.
    It’s rather disappointing and somewhat deceitful that you need to misrepresent someone else’s argument to make yours more convincing.

  133. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “…Funny.. I never mentioned Quran (or memorizing of the Quran) is fiction… I said,

    …..bala, bla.

    I did not say you called it a fiction. I said (I said, not you): “memorizing “Quran” is not a fiction”, but fact…even today..

    So, “memorizing Quran is not a fiction” is my words, not yours.

    Still fresh on my mind…”which Bible?” reply by Ehrman. This is yes, not mine, his (Ehrman’s) word which I just quote it.

    Students who went Chapel Hill, North Carolina University to study Christianity or any branches of religious studies, may find out their professor to be this guy! (Ehrman). He is there to teach.

    The story of burning Quran is from our Muslim sources/narrations/Buhkari hadiths. Long, long time (more than 1,000 yrs old) we Muslims acknowledged it. There is a hadith on it (that you picked). Now, you pointed out it to us (as though we Muslims are not aware of it. perhaps you something at the back of your mind to try to cast doubts..to yourself (we don’t doubts, Uthman was noble, sincere, honest in his efforts to standardize mush-haf I believe)

    Anyway.. “which Bible?”

    No point answer it to Nasaei, reply it to Ehrman, he’s the one who argue..where to whole America was (and is) watching..

    and the whole world (because in cyber era of today, everything happened / took place esp. in the West/ America..even every where in the world..then the whole world will read it..right?

  134. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Ehrman was talking nonsense ? A professor talking nonsense ? I don’t think so, frankly. He knows what is he talking about.

    Ehrman is not Nasaei.

  135. Zack T Says:

    Muslims memorizing the ‘Quran” is not a fiction, but fact, even today, as you might have known it Zack. ~Nasaei

    Your statement was aimed at me, and since you made mention of ‘fiction’, it implies I said something or made an argument along the same lines of what you are talking about, which of course, you also concurred, I did not.

    Although, regardless of whether you did imply or not, I still find your point pointless, because memorization done now with Uthman’s version of the Quran makes no different, because you’ll only produce Uthman’s version of the Quran…
    As I’ve said, in the Hadith, there are plenty of verses that made mention of passages being lost (e.g. “I remember a sura which is no longer in the Quran that talked about this, “….”.”, “a goat came and ate the only copy that had that sura.”)
    If the Quran is unchanged in wherever Allah is, and Allah promised he’ll preserve it… I find it strange that even one sura is lost for good or that Allah failed to prevent a goat from eating the only manuscript with the verse of adult breastfeeding and stoning OR prevent those who had memorized the Quran (before it was written down) from being slaughtered when they were sent out to war (which there was some sort of admitance in your text that large portions of the Quran was lost due to these people being killed; including one statement where a Quran teacher in the text also said, “Let no man say he knows the Quran, but what remains of it.”).

    The matter is not whether you or any Muslims acknowledged a burning happened… It is a matter of whether you acknowledged the REASON WHY Uthman did it and the implications of such an act. Do you?

    If the early Apostles of Christ did the same thing, there’d be no end to the criticism against the authenticity of the bible.
    But praise our God, YHWH that He kept His promise to preserve His Word, so now we have thousands of manuscripts to back up our bible
    and there is no need to worry about inaccuracies, because the main purpose of the bible is to point to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. That message has been preserved since the beginning, just as God promised.

    “Which bible”

    I don’t recall Ehrman coming in here and using that as an argument.
    I recall a commentor, Nasaei coming in here and using that as an argument.
    So I will answer to you, Nasaei. And unless circumstances change and Ehrman really does come in here and makes such an ignorant argument, I will continue to do so.

    Ehrman was talking nonsense ? A professor talking nonsense ? I don’t think so, frankly. He knows what is he talking about.

    Ehrman is not Nasaei. ~Nasaei

    It’s a really bad practice on your part to assume my response, Nasaei.. it’s almost insulting that you’d assume I would be so quick to ignorantly or biasedly dismiss such claims.
    You’ve been rather dishonest lately, Nasaei. What happened?

  136. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    “…But praise our God, YHWH that He kept His promise to preserve His Word..”

    Realize or not, both Muslims and Christianity claimed that- God/Allah promise to preserve/protect the scriptures.

    So, very few..very few Muslims worried about the burning..but our Christian friends..really. One of the reasons is many peoples memorized Quran (in the past and the presently). Secondly, God himself promise to ‘vanguard’ it.

    Thirdly (as I said recently)..worry would we bigger problem if the Quran that people hold in their hands today is full of discrepancies, contradictions, false prophesies etc. But this was not the case (albeit some wild accusations by non believers (we all know what they claim, which sura/verses- we debated with atheists/ the unbelievers again and again every now and then…old issues)

    I mean the cause for concern is not clearly/realy there for Muslims. Let allegations go by – none is concrete / valid I think.

    I’m very sorry Zack if you think “lately” I’ve been “dishonest” (as you think so). Please avoid using that word, please..because “dishonest”=bad=wicked=wrong=???.

    Remember, I just pointed it out what other peoples said. Not me to verify them. Not me. Furthermore, anything they calaimed, could be true..and vice versa (could be wrong). Not me to be ‘jury’ on any issue.

    BTW, WHY did Uthman burned the mush-haf?

    How many parts of it were burned? Or which part? According to that narration/hadith, at that time, one or two more people including a lady claimed they still holds some part of written pulps/tablet still with them? Is it true? Pls. inform. TQ

  137. Zack T Says:

    And despite your longer comment… you still did not make any mention of WHY Uthman did it. So be it.
    (And it is not me to answer the question, since I was the one who posed that inquiry. Why are you asking a non-Muslim to answer this regarding what the Hadith recorded? I thought you’ve said (long ago) that to really know what the Islam scriptures say, etc is to look for ‘real’ practicing Muslims, and not non-believers who will lie and deceive?)

    Realize or not, both Muslims and Christianity claimed that- God/Allah promise to preserve/protect the scriptures. ~Nasaei

    Similar promise, different emphasis.
    YHWH (which is the NAME of our God in the bible) promised to preserve His word til the end of time… not the very words/letters/translation of the bible.
    Allah (which is the NAME of your God in the Quran) promised to preserve the whole Quran (hence Muslims’ claim that not even one letter or stroke of the Arab Quran is changed).

    Different emphasis, different burden of proof & load of.
    Bible: to disprove its preservation is to prove that the doctrine of Jesus Christ had changed throughout the history since Jesus’ death.
    Quran: to disprove its preservation is to prove at least one Arab Quran is different from another. Plenty of that.. and plus the dispute between Shi’ite vs Sunni vs other Muslim groups.

    Remember, I just pointed it out what other peoples said. Not me to verify them. Not me. Furthermore, anything they calaimed, could be true..and vice versa (could be wrong). Not me to be ‘jury’ on any issue. ~Nasaei

    I find this a rather “less-than-honest” way of being objective in seeking the truth.

    Example:
    Muslim: This guy said the bible is corrupted. That guy said the bible is changed.
    Christian: But we have this scripture and that scripture to prove the bible’s preservation.
    Muslim: I don’t know. Those people said it, I am not needed to verify whether what they say is true or not.

    Makes me wonder if you verify what your sheikh or imam say/said about the Quran: “Not me to be ‘jury’ on any issue.” ~Nasaei

    Contrast to the bible that teaches every Christian to search out the truth of the matter (especially regarding the bible), even if it was said by another biblical/believing Christian or even an angel.

  138. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    (hence Muslims’ claim that not even one letter or stroke of the Arab Quran is changed).

    That was your trap Zack. NOT true. Early Quran had NO reading signs for non Arab readers/reciters.(we called it kasra signs, tanween, fatha, sukun, dhommah etc. Early Quran contained only plain Arabic letters/characters.

    You have gone overboard by saying not even a comma (or stroke/slash/signs have changed. We (muslims) are nor claiming that. Your trap?

    The first revelation (verse) (i.e Iqra’) for example, as we know was recite to Muhammad pbuh ears by Gabriel. Gabrieal did not give him any papers or pen (or book, mush-haf etc). It was plainly “sound” or voice.

    Then why I ask you the reason why Uthman burned ?

    Because you looked so ‘assured’ of confident, and ‘steadfastly’ pursuing it..as though you know all about it ! I don’t really.

    Btw, you should combat atheists’ comments persistently, with the more convincing manner. Have you failed in that?

    Atheists or not, what they (or other people) said might be false (untrue)…or true (correct), maybe.

  139. Zack T Says:

    First of all.. when I said ‘stroke’ I meant ‘stroke of a letter’ not ‘stroke’ as in a comma, etc. Sorry if that alarmed you.

    And… How is it ‘my trap’ when it is what I hear from Muslims themselves?
    Is it now my fault that they were misguided to believe that?

    And why now change the subject to atheists?
    I chose as an individual to comment what my Muslim friends said.
    Anyways… Others are already discussing with our Atheist friends.

    Don’t forget.. our conversation started just because I wanted to remind you of the consequence of what Jason said, if it were true (i.e. bible is nothing but fiction, thus Quran is consequently fiction too), which you seemed to fail to recognize with your comment at the time and afterward.
    I wasn’t even trying to get into a debate/discussion. Was just dropping my thoughts… but then you started commenting more about the bible, so I was compelled to correct your perspective some more.. which still stands, btw…
    Jason didn’t care what or which bible.. his statement was a general one… which includes your ‘Injil’, which is nowhere to be found except in what we have today.. aka our bible.

  140. Simon Thong Says:

    Zack T, log on to http://thriceholy.net/ehrmanf.html.

    Bart Ehrman is the latest star in the firmament of the ‘Jesus’ publishing industry. This author’s interpretations are not as ‘wild’ as those of other luminaries in this field. Why does the audience for this literature favor such a pedestrian author, who does not throw them ‘red meat’ like John Shelby Spong and John Dominic Crossan? Because of his personal narrative. This author’s chief claim to fame is that he used to be a Christian. Religions must have converts, even the ‘Jesus’ religion, and Bart Ehrman was at one time a born-again Christian.

    By his account, it was a quest for popularity which led him into the evangelical fold

    how long was it likely a youth in search of social approval would remain within the fold? Longer than you might think — but only so long as he sheltered within the evangelical ghetto. Once out in the secular academic world, where his Christian commitment was no longer the path to popular acceptance, things took a different turn.

  141. Craig Says:

    Simon, thank you for apologising.

    “There is no way…without being unknown”

    I still can’t see this, and I genuinely want to understand if I’m missing something or if you’re incorrect.

    If I were to say “There is no way I could eat a cake without being hungry” that would mean that the only way I could eat a cake would be if I was hungry.

    In the same way, your statement that “There is no way a foreigner could climb Everest without being unknown” (to paraphrase) states that the only way a foreigner could climb Everest is if they were unknown.

    It’s a digression, and I don’t want to take this thread too far down the rabbit hole of grammar, but my ability to string together a sentence is important to me (I’ve had a few things published, and hope to publish more) and I want to make sure I’m understanding this correctly.

    It’s not an American thing, is it? Such as the way Americans will say “I could care less” which seems a pointless statement to a British person. We would say “I couldn’t care less” which makes far more sense. (Not that I want to start an American English vs British English debate. In this example the British version makes more sense, but there are other examples where American English is the sensible one).

    To say something a little more on topic, Jason’s statement that the bible is a work of fiction is an interesting one. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the bible does not contain anything which is historically accurate. Many works of fiction contain a large amount of truth – they are often set in real places, against backdrops of real historical events – but they are still works of fiction.

    And so one could accept that the bible provides an accurate description of many of the events within, but still consider it a fictional account. To an atheist, proof of the bible’s general historical accuracy is no reason to start believing in god. Which, surely, is why we call if faith? If god’s existence was a proven fact then there would be no need for faith, just as I need no faith to believe that – from my perspective – the sun will rise tomorrow.

  142. Simon Thong Says:

    In the same way, your statement that “There is no way a foreigner could climb Everest without being unknown” (to paraphrase) states that the only way a foreigner could climb Everest is if they were unknown.

    No, the paraphrase should be: Unless a foreigner registered himself, he would not be allowed to climb Mt Everest. (You can see how much information is imlpied in the sentence I used.

    I’m not sure if it is American or British English.

    Actually, the Bible is a whole lot of things. Literature, poetry, wisdom, idioms/proverbs, history, philosophy..but the most important aspect that is overlooked is that it is theology. Still, that theology is not divorced from history. Faith and fact are intertwined. Thus, the authenticity of the Bible’s accounts of history is crucial.

  143. Scott Thong Says:

    Cherie,

    Thank you for your kind advice. I have already suggested that we just agree to disagree – that is, I understand and respect your beliefs about homosexuality and Christianity and do not attempt to bludgeon you into changing them, while not surrendering my own views regarding the same. If you keep insisting that I am wrong and must change my ‘judging, ill speaking ways’, then again you will be the one who is actually doing so.

    If others did unto me things like judging and criticizing, of course I’d feel insulted and chagrined at first. But that is also an opportunity to reflect on what they said, and see if there is any truth to their claims. If there is, I’d swallow my pride, admit my error, and change my ways.

    Like I said before, true love is not afraid to scold for the sake of others – even if it will cause others to no longer love you back. Jesus is an example of this – you don’t see Him being gentle, accomodating and ‘don’t judge or speak ill’ towards the Pharisees!

    So I’ve taken your advice and weighed it, but I’m afraid I must disagree with it.

    On what Biblical standard is or it not valid today, your Pope+birth control example is not a good one – nowhere in the Bible does it say that birth control is mandatory. In fact, it doesn’t say that celibacy is mandatory for clergy either – but what I disagree with the Pope on is a whole other long subject.

    However, in general, we can easily decide what is ‘outdated’ by what Jesus mentioned or did.

    For example: What is our view on blood sacrifice? We no longer need to practise it, because Jesus Himself became the perfect, permanent sacrifice for our sins.

    What is our view on tithing? We should continue to practise it, for Jesus mentioned to render unto God what is God’s.

    What is our view on bestiality? We should continue to reject it, for Jesus made no mention of it at all – therefore He must have been contented with the prevailing Jewish, Old Testament, since-Moses-era view towards it, i.e. it is a horrible sin deserving the death penalty. For contrast, He was unhappy with the prevailing Jewish concepts regarding the Sabbath, and made known His views.

    What is our view on homosexuality? We should continue to reject it for the same reasons as bestiality. In fact, Jesus did indirectly oppose homosexuality by mentioning that adultery (sex outside marriage) is wrong, as well as marriage being ONLY between one man and one woman!

    If you want to use your own judgment over Jesus’ guidance and examples, we might as well ditch all of Christianity to follow our own ‘wisdom’.

    That is why I say that I can accept homosexuality as right by humanistic standards (along with legalized prositution, polygamy, voluntary euthanasia), but I cannot accept that it is right by Christianity.

  144. Scott Thong Says:

    But when an audience asked Professor of Religious Studies Bart Ehrman whether he believes in Bible, he asked: “Which Bible?”. – Nasaei Ahmad

    The correct thing for the person who was asking to say would have been: “Why don’t you tell us, professor, which Bibles are there?” From there, the asker could debunk the notion of different Bibles as Zack has done.

  145. Zack T Says:

    The correct thing for the person who was asking to say would have been: “Why don’t you tell us, professor, which Bibles are there?” From there, the asker could debunk the notion of different Bibles as Zack has done. ~Scott Thong

    Even the Nat Geo documented “Devil’s Bible” was not a different version of the bible… just a huge bible with lots of additional details and information… but the writings still tell the same story as any other bible.

    Even the well-known erred “Wicked Bible” was not a different version of the bible.. just one bad typo that caused one of the commandments to be altered 180 degree (hence why it was dubbed the “Wicked bible”).. but still the gospel of Jesus Christ is there… He came from God, became man, lived perfectly, died, buried, resurrected 3 days later.

    No different version… except for the modern day ‘cult’ manipulation and deceptions…
    “Which Quran?” would be more substantial to be asked than “Which Bible?”

  146. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    What atheists have said not necessarily right, or not necessarily wrong be they a scholar, professor or whatever.. They do not believe in any Holy Books !

    BTW, every Muslims believe Injil (New Testament in its original form) was from Allah (God). Not only Injil, but Torah (old Testament). Quran repeatedly mentioned it.

    “Where did Injil come from?”. Without a slightest doubt we reply: “From Allah (God)” – like Quran, like Zabur, like Torah

  147. Zack T Says:

    BTW, every Muslims believe Injil (New Testament in its original form) was from Allah (God). Not only Injil, but Torah (old Testament). Quran repeatedly mentioned it. ~Nasaei

    I’m really curious by your statement, Nasaei..
    What is the Injil; New Testament in its original form?
    Where can we find this “New Testament in its original form”?

    This is out of genuine curiousity, not sarcasm. After all, those of us familiar with the modern bibles we have readily available almost everywhere would never think that there is an ‘original form’ of the New Testament.

    How about you share with us where we can find and read this ‘New Testament in its original form’ so that we know what Allah ‘originally’ sent down to Jesus?

  148. loop Says:

    ‘What is the Injil; New Testament in its original form?’

    INJEEL means the “Gospel” or “good news” which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The “Gospel” writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):

    1. “And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people.” (Matthew 9:35)

    2. “… but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.” (Mark 8:35)

    3. “… preached the gospel. . .” (Luke 20:1)

    The “gospel” is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel “according” to (St.) Jesus himself!

    We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.

    What passes off as the “GOSPELS” today are the works of anonymous hands!

  149. Zack T Says:

    Thanks for the answer, loop. Glad you joined us this time too.

    I’ll wait for Nasaei to share his response before I ask for further clarification.

  150. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Thanks loop for correction. Since there are a difficulties for anyone to finely filter out the chaff from the grains….(I mean to identify which are Jesus words; which are not) among the thousands of verses that had been compiled by people in the New Testament (or Gospel/ Jesus’ preaching?), so some people (outsiders) claimed New Testament = “Injeel” (roughly speaking)..even though I always doubt it.

    I had many times heard that (the facts) Jesus “had NOT wrote a single word” for compilation. And, in one of his many debates, Ahmed Deedat raised the issue of “according to”, upon “according to” (but not “according to Jesus..”.

    Which one is the real “injeel”, no one knows. If Gerd Puin claimed collection Quran is a collection of a mixed cocktail, I guess it suits very much (as well) to describe the 66 Bible books we have today? (excluding the 7 apocryphal). I have no idea at all. What I know is that,
    the original which was in Hebrew/Aramaic was no where to be found. What people claim as “Bible” is actually it translations/transliterations, mostly in English. Jesus did not speak English, and English was not the lingua-franca of the people in Palestine, or Jerusalem at that time.

    So, which one is “Injeel” (if it still remaining) ? I have no idea exactly.

    Which one Zack?

  151. Steven Best Says:

    loop and Nasaei;

    My apologies if either of you are not Muslim. There can be no reconciliation between the Christian and Muslim beliefs.

    The problem is that the Muslims disbelieve the primary statements of “I am the way, the Truth and the Light, and no one cometh before the Father except by me” (John 14:6), and “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, the whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Those statements (among others) point to the fact that Jesus was NOT a saint, nor a prophet, but was God made flesh. When Muslims say that Jesus was a great prophet, they are mocking our religion, and our God as well!

    The simple fact is, if Jesus was NOT God made flesh, then He was a liar and a madman, and every person who believed in Him is now burning in the depths of Hell, because without His perfect sacrifice, we would still be obligated to atone for our sins with burnt offerings in the temple.

    Until your eyes can be opened, all good Christians must be vigilant against the incursion of the Muslims heresy, and gently lead them back towards the light of the risen Savior, before they die in sin and are eternally separated from His presence!

  152. Scott Thong Says:

    The “gospel” is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel “according” to (St.) Jesus himself! – loop

    Okay, next time Najib or Obama or Siti Nurhaliza gives a press conference, ask all the reporters to put down their pens and hide their cameras. It is only acceptable if the big shots personally write down about what they said and did using their own two hands!

    Jesus spoke, the disciples recorded. Not much different from Jibril spoke, Mohammad recorded.

  153. Zack T Says:

    Question posed: ‘What is the Injil; New Testament in its original form?’

    We sincerely believe that everything Christ preached was from God. That was the Injeel… ~loop

    So from loop, everything that Jesus preached was from God..
    so does that mean, loop, that you accept every saying of Jesus in the NT? That every word that was attributed to Jesus in the NT is the Injil?

    Which one is the real “injeel”, no one knows… What I know is that, the original which was in Hebrew/Aramaic was no where to be found. What people claim as “Bible” is actually it translations/transliterations, mostly in English. Jesus did not speak English, and English was not the lingua-franca of the people in Palestine, or Jerusalem at that time
    So, which one is “Injeel” (if it still remaining) ? I have no idea exactly. ~Nasaei

    So, in summary, Jesus’ Injil is nowhere to be found and practically nonexistent anymore?
    Then what revelation was the Quran confirming over and over when it says the Quran confirms or approves the revelations that were sent to Moses, David, Jesus, and the prophets of before?

    How about Allah’s promise to preserve his words?

    I think (just logically and rationally) that it’s rather irresponsible (and actually quite contrary to his attribute to be all-knowing) for Allah to allow any of his previous revelations to come down to a prophet and then later on gets manipulated thoroughly until it disappears completely from existence that no one now can find them… but only rely on a much much later revelation that makes (not reinstatement or re-declaring what was lost, but just) allusions of what was already revealed (and in most cases, what the people at that time have in their hands already. i.e. their Book)..

    Is it glorifying to Allah that his revelations disappear somewhere in history.. and then only when the Quran came out that He *finally (supposedly)* manages to preserve his words or at least, only then promised to preserve his words?

  154. Zack T Says:

    In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.
    What passes off as the “GOSPELS” today are the works of anonymous hands! ~loop

    So loop accepts the history of Malaysia.. or the US… (let alone the whole world!) even though he probably has never researched who wrote the history… or who commanded that history to be written…
    He accepts the stories of Moses, Abraham, Jesus, etc because he knows *supposedly* Muhammad recorded it in the Quran… several centuries after the times all these people walked on the earth.

    loop, can I ask for your opinion regarding these verses from the Hadith?

    Volume 9, Book 89, Number 301:
    Narrated Zaid bin Thabit:
    Abu Bakr sent for me owing to the large number of casualties in the battle of Al-Yamama, while ‘Umar was sitting with him. Abu Bakr said (to me), ‘Umar has come to my and said, ‘A great number of Qaris of the Holy Quran were killed on the day of the battle of Al-Yamama, and I am afraid that the casualties among the Qaris of the Quran may increase on other battle-fields whereby a large part of the Quran may be lost. Therefore I consider it advisable that you (Abu Bakr) should have the Qur’an collected.’ I said, ‘How dare I do something which Allah’s Apostle did not do?

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 201:
    Narrated Zaid bin Thabit Al-Ansari:

    By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur’an. I said to both of them, “How dare you do a thing which the Prophet has not done?”

    The prophet never did nor instructed anyone to collect the Quran (let alone burn any Quranic materials). Yet you consider the Quran from Muhammad (Allah) because people recorded what he said?
    What’s more.. you also don know who recorded all these sayings before they were compiled by Zaid a couple of generations after Muhammad died..

    Since Muslims claim Muhammad was illiterate, doesn’t that automatically mean Muhammad never wrote (except one occasion I know he only blotted out the ending of a letter), let alone write any of his revelation?
    And yet you seem to be implying a problem with the idea that Jesus never wrote any word of the gospels.

    I can point out a whole number of other prophets in the Quran who never wrote a word of the Quran nor instructed anyone to record their stories; e.g. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Ishmael, Isaac, Jesus, etc.
    But you seem to have no problem with the Quran for that same issue. Am I wrong?

    -

    I had many times heard that (the facts) Jesus “had NOT wrote a single word” for compilation. And, in one of his many debates, Ahmed Deedat raised the issue of “according to”, upon “according to” (but not “according to Jesus..”. ~Nasaei

    Hmm… ok. But is this really an issue?
    Must a historical account be authentic only if it was written or according to the actual person him/herself?

    Do you accept the stories in the Quran regarding Adam and Eve?
    Or how about Noah and the flood?
    Or Moses and the exodus out of Egypt?
    Or Abraham and his act of sacrificing his son?
    Or even the Hadiths then, since all those are sayings of Muhammad “according to…”?

    Then what about female testimonies, since Muhammad taught that by law, a woman’s testimony and witness is worth only half of a man’s; i.e. two female witness to replace one male witness, so if one forgets, the other can remind her?
    Doesn’t that mean Mary, mother of Jesus, needed another woman to verify what she said, otherwise her testimony regarding Jesus and her ‘suffering’ before giving birth to Jesus would be considered unverified by law?

  155. Scott Thong Says:

    What I know is that, the original which was in Hebrew/Aramaic was no where to be found. What people claim as “Bible” is actually it translations/transliterations, mostly in English. Jesus did not speak English, and English was not the lingua-franca of the people in Palestine, or Jerusalem at that time. – Nasaei Ahmad

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/comparison-of-isaiah-in-modern-bible-and-dead-sea-scrolls-2300-years-apart/

  156. Zack T Says:

    Doing some analysing of loop and Nasaei’s comments…
    We have loop, as always, seem to be causing more problems for himself than making a sound argument..

    We sincerely believe that everything Christ preached was from God. That was the Injeel… ~loop

    In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so.
    What passes off as the “GOSPELS” today are the works of anonymous hands! ~loop

    On one hand, loop is trying to deny the Synaptic Gospels (Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke) and also John’s Gospel because supposedly we do not know who really wrote these four gospels.

    But on the other hand, loop accepts everything that Jesus says to be from God.
    Might I ask, loop, what is ‘everything that Jesus said’ and where are you getting them from?
    If Jesus never wrote a gospel, nor instructed anyone to, how are you getting any writings about Jesus in the first place?

    -

    Nasaei is also not exempted from causing more problems for himself than making a sound argument.

    As pointed out in my earlier comment, the whole collection of hadiths are sayings of Muhammad according to so and so… but he has no problem accepting these as authoritative, and continue to questions the authenticity/authority of the four gospels in the NT.

    Also, like loop, he believes Muhammad was illiterate, but yet only has a problem with the idea that Jesus “had NOT wrote a single word” of the gospel.

    Nasaei, I am assuming, reads the modern day translations of the Quran (and Hadiths) and probably doesn’t know much about Arabic (let alone read the whole quran in its original language and its original writing styles; i.e. without the vowels).. but no, he only has a problem with how the gospels and the whole bible being originally not in English.

  157. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    He he he..You are like Ron also Zack..in term of mastery in arguments..with loop, with me, with Robert etc. I hope you do not win the debate but lost the case.

    I’m sure the late Ahmed Deedat would lose the case also IF he were to defend the Bible, and Dr. Anis Shorrosh would have easily won a debate if he were to advocate or defend the Quran.

    Yes, Allah promise to preserve. Then, if what Jesus preached, his words, his thoughts etc were all from Allah (inspired), now you ask loop why he doesn’t believe the Bible since it is from Allah in its entirety?

    If I say Quran in “its original form” …that also could lead to a problem in this kind of communication, because it may make people think Quran revelation was like something came from the sky.. like a falling rock- once lump sum altogether, whereas it was not. Neither any compiled book was given to Muhammad by Gabriel. It came a bit by bit in 23 yrs time span.

    So, you may ask, “show me where is, or what is Quran in its “original form” ! No body can give that !

    It was voice or recital by Gabriel. Voice is not physical hard material. It doesn’t have any shape, color, right? So, “Quran never exist in its original form”..you may say that to win the debate.

    It is true that I have a very little Biblical or Quranic knowledge.

    Allah says” We do not give man a knowledge, but VERY LITTLE indeed”. Meaning that if the knowledge a scholar have, or all knowledge of scientists or professors in this world combined, it is still considered “very little” compared to God’s knowledge – which is mostly unknown by humanity/man. Unseen.

    There are always room for us (and “master of arguers”) to argue or say something…

  158. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    yet another strawman argument… with regards to loop you’re talking about..

    In my last few comments, I did not ask loop why he rejects the entire bible “since it is from Allah in its entirety”… I was pointing out the inconsistency of his argument, which he uses to reject the bible and yet still embraces the Quran.

    If I say Quran in “its original form” …that also could lead to a problem in this kind of communication, because it may make people think Quran revelation was like something came from the sky.. like a falling rock- once lump sum altogether, whereas it was not. Neither any compiled book was given to Muhammad by Gabriel. It came a bit by bit in 23 yrs time span.

    So.. basically, Nasaei is saying Jesus’ ‘Injil’ is actually the words He spoke when He walked on earth.. not some ‘book’ that He wrote or recorded or got from God/Allah.

    So then the question remains… if the current bible/NT we have is not credible to know what Jesus really said when He walked the earth… then WHERE is this record/writing of Jesus’ ‘Injil’?

    Alas, there is none and Nasaei doesn’t answer my question regarding Allah’s irresponsible behavior, and also his somewhat not-so-all-knowing ability to not foresee the Injil’s eventual demise (in order that he could preserve it before it does disappear). Allah did not bother to preserve the Injil and now it is no where to be found, as Nasaei and loop seem to be saying.

    The NT we have now is the same (albeit translated and some copier errors here and there) as the ones the apostles wrote and taught.
    It is true that majority of the NT is the writings of Paul… but Muslims seem to keep omitting the fact that there are other writings of the other apostles in the NT; i.e. 1,2 Peter, 1,2,3 John, Revelation.
    And by claiming that Paul is the sole culprit behind the Trinity doctrine, they seem to have forgotten that John wrote the fourth Gospel which is the gospel that most ascribes Jesus with divine attributes.

    It is true that I have a very little Biblical or Quranic knowledge.

    Allah says” We do not give man a knowledge, but VERY LITTLE indeed”. Meaning that if the knowledge a scholar have, or all knowledge of scientists or professors in this world combined, it is still considered “very little” compared to God’s knowledge – which is mostly unknown by humanity/man. Unseen.

    There are always room for us (and “master of arguers”) to argue or say something… ~Nasaei

    Do we need God’s knowledge to figure these things out? Or to find inconsistencies in an argument or ‘arguer’? (Do we even need a PhD or Master before we can?)
    If we do, then I guess no one knows anything and no one can really say which religion is true, no, not one, because even with all the knowledge of men in the whole world’s history, it is still ‘very little’ compared to God’s knowledge.

    And thus, Nasaei is basically saying, “I don’t really care for the truth and I am just lazy to seek the truth.”
    What a way to go in seeking God and wanting to be with Him for eternity.

    Then again… Allah is an impersonal god that doesn’t want any of his ‘creation’ to know more about him, because he is incomparable to anything, never reveals himself to anyone, and no one in creation can ever comprehend him… but yet expects people to accept him as whatever attributes he says he has.

    Unlike the God of the bible, YHWH, who cherishes the relationship He has with each and every of His creations and wants all of His creations to know more and more about Him and who He is… and is more than willing to reveal Himself (either spiritually or even in a physical manner) to those who believe in Him and earnestly seek Him so that they will *really* know Him (and personally too) and can trust in what He says about Himself and who He is; instead of just demanding respect and demanding that people accept Him for who He says He is.

  159. loop Says:

    ‘Unlike the God of the bible, YHWH, …’

    In short, according to you Zack T, “HE SHARES HIS NATURE. HE IS IN EVERY WAY LIKE THE FATHER but he is not the Father”.Numerous quotations from the Bible are given below to prove that Jesus
    neither SHARED THE NATURE OF GOD, nor is he IN EVERY WAY LIKE GOD. Given the quotations from the Bible without comment, because the Bible speaks for itself!

    THE BIRTH OF “GOD”
    “God” was created from the seed of David: “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David according to the flesh.” (Romans, 1:3)

    “God” was the fruit of the loins of David: “Therefore being a prophet, and
    knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his
    loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his
    throne.” (Acts, 2:30)

    THE FAMILY OF “GOD”
    “God” Was the Son of Joseph: “Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him,we have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write,Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John, 1:45)

    THE DEVELOPMENT OF “GOD”
    Spiritual Development of “God”: “And the child grew, and waxed strong in
    spirit, filled with wisdom.” (Luke, 2:40)

    THE TEMPTING OF “GOD”
    The Devil Tempted “God” For 40 Days: “And immediately the spirit driveth himinto the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, temptedof Satan.” (Mark, 1:12-13)

    THE MISSION OF “GOD”
    The Confession and Repentance of “God”: before the beginning of his public ministry: “Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist” (Matthew, 3:13), “which signified the confession of sins” (Matthew, 3:6), “and repentance from sins (Matthew, 3:11).

    THE RACIAL “GOD”
    According to “God”, The Gentiles Are Dogs: “It is not meet to take the
    children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” (matthew, 15:26)

    A “GOD” UNLIKE THE GOD
    A Hungry “God”: (Matthew 4:2,Mark, 11:12)
    A Thirsty “God”: “(He) saith, I thirst.” (John, 19:28)
    A Sleepy “God”: “He was asleep.” (Matthew, 8:24),
    A Weary “God”: Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus onthe well.” (John, 4:6)
    A Groaning “God”: “He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled.” (John,
    11:33)
    A Weeping “God”: “Jesus wept.” (John, 11:35)
    A Sorrowing “God”: “And (he) began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” (Matthew26:37).
    A Hysterical “God”: “And (he) began to be soreamazed and to be very heavy.”(Mark, 14:33)
    A Weak “God”: “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven,
    strengthening him.” (Luke, 22:43)

    THE WARRING “GOD”
    The “God” of War: Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to send peace onearth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew, 10:34)

    The “GOD” ON THE RUN
    “God” Was Panic-Stricken: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for
    he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.” (John,7:1)

    THE CAPTURE OF “GOD”
    A Friend Betrayed the Secret Hiding Place of “God”: “And Judas also, whichbetrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus off-times resorted thither with hisdisciples. Judas then, having received a band of man and officers from thechief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches andweapons.” (John, 18:2-3)

    THE SUPPOSED END OF “GOD”
    The Dying “God”: “And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.” (Mark, 15:37)

    No cherishes and so ordinary to get to know about the God of the bible.He can therefore, never be GOD.Unlike the God in Quran:

    “Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.” (Holy Qur’an,112:1-4)

  160. Scott Thong Says:

    loop is making the same ridiculous, over-literal, lawyer-like argument as we saw with ‘A prophet like Moses’ earlier. It’s a wonder loop didn’t add the following ways The Father is not ‘like’ The Son:

    1. The Father is called The Father, Jesus is called The Son;
    2. The Father is never named Jesus;
    3. The Bible never says to pray, “Our Jesus who art in heaven”;
    4. The Bible doesn’t say “In the name of the Father, the Father and the Holy Spirit” and also does not say “In the name of Jesus, Jesus and the Holy Spirit”;

    And still I am being less ridiculous than loop. Should I even bother to explain the difference in the usage of the term ‘like’? I am a human being like Zack, does that mean I have the same parents, and the same job, and the same life experiences as Zack?

    Look at how illiterately literal loop is in this:

    THE RACIAL “GOD”
    According to “God”, The Gentiles Are Dogs: “It is not meet to take the
    children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” (matthew, 15:26)

    Why doesn’t loop also note that according to Jesus, Jews are children and getting well is bread and the act of healing is casting? Casting as in making a metal object, throwing a net or magicking a spell?

    Ridiculous!

    Perhaps we all have to be incredibly detailed, specific and exclusionary in all our statements from now on to avoid being jumped on by language lawyer loop? Mojo Jojo is probably the only one safe from loop’s scrutiny:

    Hello and good evening to you. I am Mojo Jojo, your instructor and the person who will be teaching you from this point forward. That is to say that as you are here representing the students of the class, I am here representing the teacher of the class. And as it is my job to teach, it is your job to learn, and in learning gain more intelligence than you currently have.

  161. Zack T Says:

    Lo and behold.. from the topic of the ‘preservation of the Quran’, we come to ‘Jesus is not God’… as if it somehow automatically means the preservation of the Quran is no longer needed to be questioned and is trustworthy to be God’s word.

    It is amazing… how often Muslims always like to change the topic of the discussion. Why?
    Is it that difficult to defend their Quran? Or what they believe?

    Why is it Muslims so often in turn attack the Christian faith and beliefs when it comes to defending the Islamic faith?
    Even if they proved Christianity is false, that still doesn’t resolve the issues we have with the Islamic faith, does it?
    If your boat is sinking… and you sink another boat.. that’s not gonna save your sinking boat!

    So, I suppose with loop not answering any of my questions against his case for the Quran, then I guess he has no case for the Quran and that I guess he is unintentionally agreeing to the notion that he is unable to defend the case for the Quran, even if he wanted to.

  162. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Let Bible speaks for itself. Peoples’ extra ideas (“neo-apologists?”) maybe personal self believe..and misleading..as it maybe..

  163. Simon Thong Says:

    Yes, let the Bible speak for itself but then, why cut out this part and that part to suit yourself, friend?

  164. Zack T Says:

    Let Bible speaks for itself. Peoples’ extra ideas (“neo-apologists?”) maybe personal self believe..and misleading..as it maybe.. ~Nasaei

    Yes, Nasaei.. you are so right… Why should people be making their own opinions about what the bible says? Let’s have the Bible speak for itself.

    John 1:1-18 [NIV]

    1 IN THE BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word WAS God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 THROUGH HIM all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was LIFE, and that life was the light of ALL MANKIND. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

    9 The true light that gives light TO EVERYONE was coming INTO the world. 10 He was IN the world, and though the world was made THROUGH HIM, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he GAVE THE RIGHT to become CHILDREN of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

    14 The Word BECAME FLESH and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who CAME FROM the Father, full of grace and truth.

    15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who COMES AFTER ME has surpassed me because he WAS BEFORE ME.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came THROUGH Jesus CHRIST. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who IS HIMSELF GOD and is IN CLOSEST RELATIONSHIP with the Father, has MADE HIM KNOWN.

    I think it’s rather clear and straight-forward what the bible says about Christ… Don’t you, Nasaei?

  165. Scott Thong Says:

    Let the Bible’s characters speak for themselves:

    Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” – John 20:28

    Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. – Matthew 28:9 (Only God is to be worshiped, and note how they bow prostrated at Jesus’ feet)

    …while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ – Titus 2:13 (written by Paul)

    To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours – 2nd Peter 1:1 (written by Peter, one of Jesus’ three closest apostles)

    “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. – John 8:58-59 (Stoning is penalty for blasphemy such as claiming to be God in Leviticus 24:13-16; God introduces Himself as ‘I AM’ in Exodus 3:14)

    Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” – John 10:31-33 (blasphemy = claiming to be God)

    “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. – Matthew 26:65 (again, blasphemy for claiming to be God; sit at right hand of God reference at Psalm 110:1; Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God and coming on clouds of heaven reference at Daniel 7:13-14; high priest not supposed to tear his clothes at Leviticus 21:10 thus indicating huge ‘grief’ at Jesus’ words)

    And this is just from the New Testament. The Old Testament has more.

  166. Nasaei Ahmad Says:

    Let’s “take five” (B4 next comments from anybody)..

    Any comments loop?

    “..Yes, let the Bible speak for itself but then, why cut out this part and that part to suit yourself, friend?..”
    – Simon Thong.

    That is what non-Muslim did exactly, “choosy” n “selective” AND sometimes quoted them out-of context in their efforts to discredit Islam.

    But the most intriguing is..disbelievers couldn’t understand the issue ..(this you can say the same thing again towards us (Muslims). “Muslims won’t accept”, “won’t believe”, “failed to believe..or to understand it”. DUA KALI LIMA (same). And polemic goes on..and on..

    However, Scott’s blog is getting more popular, thanks to Scott for his
    meticulous selection of topics (so that it attract peoples’ attention).

  167. Zack T Says:

    That is what non-Muslim did exactly, “choosy” n “selective” AND sometimes quoted them out-of context in their efforts to discredit Islam. ~Nasaei

    I’m agree that there are some non-Muslims who are probably guilty of that…
    and I’m not afraid to be corrected, if I have done such a thing.

    However, i believe I have not been guilty of such… and as proof, neither you nor loop has been able to challenge what I quoted what the Quran said about the bible’s authority/authenticity (actually you two didn’t do much to challenge me)… or our previous discussions; i.e. “Prophet like Moses”, “preservation of the Quran”…
    instead, most of the time, you two just keep trying to switch the table and focus on Christianity and the bible, rather than defend the Quran (just as loop has so blatantly done this time).

  168. Simon Thong Says:

    No, Nasaei, muslims are guilty. Why? They won’t accept the whole Bible but want to leave out Paul’s letters. They claim that the New Testament is corrupted by Paul.

  169. Aaron Says:

    Not having read all your comments, but one thing I don’t understand about your chart showing how there can be no genetic component to homosexuality because the can’t reproduce ignores completely the fact that they can, they just are attracted to form relationship with people who don’t have complementary sexual organs.

    Social pressures could easily play the strongest role in continuing a homosexual genetic lineage. Despite their sexual and romantic orientation, if the social expectation is that they must reproduce and join with the opposite sex, they likely will do so. There have been cultures in which the propagation of the species meant that heterosexual partners did the babymaking and the romance was homosexual. Society shapes norms, not God. Now that society (and technology) is evolving, there’s little reason that gays can’t make babies too without those missing sexual organs, except form 1900 year-old second-hand accounts of a Jewish mystic.

    Your assertion that there is such thing as a ‘pure’ homosexual is also a little dissonant for me, because I was under the impression that it is established fact that there is a range of sexual expression in regards to sex/gender as shown by Kinsey. So, nobody really argues that sexuality is a duality if they use actual population statistics to form their positions on subjects.

    Ultimately, it shouldn’t matter in the US if two dudes or two chicks get married or not, since civic marriage is not about reproduction and we have that lovely Establishment Clause to go with “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. No citizen should abrogate the rights of others when it has no effect on their own. It frankly doesn’t matter if God hates fags and doesn’t want them to marry, because the only way He can do something about it is to come down here and smite all us sinners.

  170. Scott Thong Says:

    Admittedly my chart is an oversimplification and exaggeration – I fully give that if sexual preference is fully determined by genotype, there still is the possibility that pure homosexual preference is a recessive trait like thallesemia or red-green colourblindness. (But try saying ‘homosexuality is recessive’ in public…)

    Personally I cannot believe that sexual preference is in no way infuenced by enviromental factors such as early sexual experiences.

    On the matter of laws defining who can marry, I’ve pondered on the issue of whether legislation along the lines of the Defense of Marriage Act are basically the imposing of religion on those who do not share the same beliefs.
    I concluded that whether it is social or economic or foreign policy matters, everything can be considered ‘personal views’ and are bound to ‘infringe’ on someone’s point of view. For instance, the continued spending by the current administration has stirred up the emotions of fiscal conservatives such as the Tea Partiers in much the same way as Proposition 8 stirred up the emotions of pro-gay groups.

    Personally I would not touch social issues on the national scale. If I were President, I would distance myself from them – instead focusing on the economy, jobs and energy (which is what the USA really needs right now).

    Once my policies begin showing positive effects, I can then put forward the ‘persuasion’ that since I’m right on the economy/jobs/energy, don’t you think I am likely to be right on social issues as well? I would stop short of aggressively advocating anything, however, instead opting to let the public observe just what social policies I support as a personal matter.

    On another note, I’ve read the argument before that if gay marriage is to be legalized, why not polygamy? After all, it is similarly a consensual arrangement between adults.

    And to take it further, what about zoophilia – which certain European nations have long ago legalized? The argument that animals cannot ‘consent’ to sex does not hold water when we routinely carry out de facto imprisonment, slavery and murder against them.

    In summary, my stand remains the same as before – sexual preferences are an individual choice, however I cannot agree that JudeoChristianity sanctions it.

  171. hutchrun Says:

    “That is what non-Muslim did exactly, “choosy” n “selective” AND sometimes quoted them out-of context in their efforts to discredit Islam.” – Nasaei Ahmad

    Surely you don`t mean this:

    “And there will go round boy-servants of theirs, to serve them as if they were preserved pearls.”

    “They will be served by immortal boys.”

    “And round about them will (serve) boys of everlasting youth. If you see them, you would think them scattered pearls.”
    http://www.albatrus.org/english/religions/islam/72virgins_and_boys.htm

  172. Ron Says:

    “Once my policies begin showing positive effects, I can then put forward the ‘persuasion’ that since I’m right on the economy/jobs/energy, don’t you think I am likely to be right on social issues as well?” — Scott

    In short, no. Your argument is a logical fallacy: Appeal to authority

    Expertise in one field of endeavor does not necessarily translate into expertise in all fields and endeavors. For instance, being the top neurosurgeon in the country doesn’t automatically qualify that person to give out financial advice, or even lend an opinion in other fields of medicine (pediatrics, immunology, urology, cardiology, etc.).

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

  173. Ron Says:

    Bible passage that condones teh gay

    Luke 17

    34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.

    35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

    36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

  174. Scott Thong Says:

    Obviously, this passage is clear indication that the Rapture will leave behind all leftists.

  175. wits0 Says:

    Sounds like a most fantastic elastic stretching of Luke 17!

  176. Ron Says:

    Jesus was a Liberal. Here are his views on:

    Crime and Punishment

    Capital Punishment:

    If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]

    Thou shalt not kill [Matthew 5:21]

    Justice:

    Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. [Matthew 5:6]

    Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy [Matthew 5:7]

    But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. [Matthew 6:15]

    Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1-2]

    Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.[Luke 6:37]

    If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them. [Luke 17:3-4]

    And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. [Matthew 6:12]

    Foreign Policy

    Make Peace, not War:

    Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. [Matthew 5:9]

    Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. [Matthew 5:39]

    Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you; [Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27-31]

    Separation of Church & State

    Paying Taxes:

    Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. [Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25]

    Public Prayer & Displays of Faith:

    “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.[Matthew 6:5-7]

    Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely. [Mark 12:38-40, Luke 20:46-47]

    The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. [Mark 2:27]

    Healthcare Reform

    Be a good Samaritan [Luke 10:30-37]:

    A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

    “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

    The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

    Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

    Plus Jesus performed many free healings.

    Immigration

    Love your neighbor as yourself. [Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31]

    I was a stranger and you took me in. [Matthew 25:35]

    Social Policy

    Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. [Matthew 5:42]

    So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you. [Matthew 7:12.]

    If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]

    Love your neighbor as yourself. [Matthew 22:39]

    I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. [Mathew 25:35-36]

    But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous. [Luke 14:13-14]

    Wealth & Greed

    Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.[Matthew 6:19]

    You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24]

    Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]

    It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25]

    In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” [Mark 11:15-16, John 2:14-16]

    But woe to you who are rich,for you have already received your comfort. [Luke 6:24]

    Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12:15]

    Sell your possessions and give to the poor. [Luke 12:33]

    Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Mark 10:21, Luke 18:22]

  177. SCOTT THONG SPEAKS ON HOMOSEXUALITY, GAY PASTOR & CHRISTIANITY | simonthongwh Says:

    [...] Thong Yu Yuen Sasivarman, the explanation is at http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bible-passages-that-oppose-homosexuality-including-the-wo… (mentioned in the first letter as an alt url). I do give that when it comes …down to it, [...]

  178. Adrian Says:

    If Jesus was straight, why didn’t he marry?

  179. Adrian Says:

    If Jesus could do “miraculous” things like walking on water or raising the dead, why couldn’t he do something simple like writing the New Testament himself, so we could actually know his positions on every important issue? Wasn’t it rather idiotic of Jesus not to write these things down himself, so that we have to rely on Paul or random fundamentalist ministers to tell us what he believed? [I also don't capitalize the pronouns for Jesus because I regard him simply as a historical figure, if he existed at all.]

  180. Scott Thong Says:

    If Jesus was straight, why didn’t he marry?

    Because that wasn’t his mission. Also, see the plot of ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ and the premise of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ for complications that might arise.

    why couldn’t he do something simple like writing the New Testament himself, so we could actually know his positions on every important issue?

    Because He was too busy with His actual mission?

    One might as well ask why Jesus didn’t come in modern days instead, thus appearing to billions via TV – as Judas sings in the closing number of ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.

  181. Ron Says:

    You know that The Da Vinci Code is fiction, right?

    Because He was too busy with His actual mission?

    So Jesus was capable of performing miracles but couldn’t find time to write things down at the end of the day, or find a scribe to do it for him? Or what about after the resurrection? According to the Book of Acts, Jesus hung around for forty days instructing his disciples. Wouldn’t that have been an opportune time to record things for posterity?

  182. Scott Thong Says:

    You’ve been gone a while, Ron!

    In the words of Bill to Francis, “Son, I’m almost happy to hear your horsesh*t.”

  183. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Ron, funny…that question U should ask Jesus himself, not Scott or anybody else here..

  184. Ron Says:

    I did, but Jesus never returned my calls. Guess he’s too busy helping NFL quarterbacks.

  185. nasaei ahmad Says:

    By the way…Ron, who is ‘god’ ? Personally I don’t believe god to be somehow (or anyhow) similar to his creatures, inlcuding human beings. If ‘god’ needs an ass (or donkey) ride, he is NOT ‘god’; if he drinks or consume foods to survive, he is NOT god. If he was circimsized when he was 8 days old, he is NOT god. If he dies, he is NOT..He might be a human..or God’s creatures..

    As I said last time, god doesn’t need a sport car, a toilet/restroom.

    The people say..He had been in human form before (and now he died..(then they add: only his physical did die..his sprit is immortal-forever…bla bla . bla..).

    Then they say: “God can do anything he wants…” including,that he used to come on earth as a human..”

    Well,..I don’t know (however I don’t agree all such things)

    “You must believe it (the Bible)..otherwise you won’t be saved!” They said.

    I aslo believe that the Bible doesn’t say (anywhere in it) – I mean the whole episode of Jesus existence was something like an “appearance” or action film only, a drama of sort..not real.

    Does Bible say such thing ? (any verses anybody??)

    Ron..I believe you have the expertise and calibre to clarify and verify it…for the sake of “better understanding..truth.

    Thanks

  186. Ron Says:

    Nasaei,

    I’m not very well versed in the Muslim faith, but according to my understanding, Allah is viewed as an all-powerful being, right? So if that’s true, then why would it be hard to accept that he could manifest himself in human form if that’s what he chooses to do?

    As for the gospel accounts, they weren’t written until decades after Jesus’ supposed death, and the earliest surviving manuscripts are incomplete fragments dated to the 2nd century. Also, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus’ life or ministry outside of the Bible. That doesn’t mean he didn’t exist, but makes it very difficult to establish who he was or what he taught.

    Bart Ehrman (and other biblical scholars) believes that Jesus was a real person but discounts the supernatural elements as narrative embellishments used to promote the biblical authors’ theological viewpoints. While I respect his expertise as a textual critic, I don’t think he’s qualified to make factual claims about historical accuracy — that’s something which falls into the domain of historians and archaeologists.

    Naturally, I don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity, and remain highly skeptical of his existence until further evidence presents itself.

  187. Jason Says:

    Simon,

    Do you believe the words in the bible are literally true? Do you believe every event and quote in the bible is factual?

  188. Scott Thong Says:

    Adressed to Simon, or to me? Simon hasn’t commented on this page or elsewhere on this blog for ages.

  189. nasaei ahmad Says:

    That Jason’s question needs to be answered.. with concise and clarity…’once for all’

  190. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Let’s ponder again comments by Adrian and Ron of Jan. 14 above.

    Extensive answers and elaboration needed..may be

  191. Jason Says:

    Sorry…I meant to address Scott and not Simon.

  192. Scott Thong Says:

    Okay.

    So yes, I believe that every event and quote in the Bible is factual, in the meaning of none of it is made up.

    However, I do not interpret everything literally, as the Bible uses metaphors, hyperbole, allegory and even sarcasm – just as we do today.

    For instance, when it says that “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan” went to be baptized by John… Do we take this to literally mean all people went to be baptized? Including the Pharisees and unrepentant? Even more literally and include infants and the bedridden? Even MORE literally and include the animals, insects, pavement stones, trees, buildings etc went? As the Bible never mentions that only people went, it just says ‘all Judea’.

    Simple common sense and context is enough to differentiate whether something should be understood literally or metaphorically for most portions of the Bible.

  193. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    I understand that the bible contains metaphors, hyperbole, allegory and even sarcasm. This is perfectly acceptable and expected.

    Do you believe the story of Noah’s Ark and the great flood to be factual or is it a fictional story meant to convey a message?

  194. Scott Thong Says:

    IMHO the Bible conveys the story of Noah and the Flood as factual. The way it is presented does not support a ‘merely allegorical’ interpretation – it is recounted as a historical event.

    That being the way it is, as a Bible-believing Christian I therefore accept that the Flood is in fact a historical event – whatever difficulties arise therefrom will be subsequently dealt with.

  195. Jason Says:

    Noah and his family were in the ark for 370 days (by my calculations). Below is a breakdown, which might also help answer how long the earth was covered with water.
    My answer was based on adding these numbers together:
    40 –the number of days it rained (Gen 7:17)
    110 –the number of days “the waters prevailed on the earth” (Gen 7:24)
    73 -the number days the waters “decreased” ( Gen 8:4,5)
    40 –assuming “end of forty days” followed the previous 73 days (Gen 8:6)
    7 –days waiting for the dove to return
    7–days waiting for the second time he sent out the dove
    7 –days waiting till he sent out the third dove
    29 –days needed to finish out “601 year, 1st month, 1st day” (Gen 8:13)
    57 –days needed to finish out “2nd month, 27th day, the earth was dried”
    ____
    370 Days
    Then God told them to leave the ark (Gen 8:15,16)
    Answer:
    Long enough to kill every species and subspecies of animal on earth including fish and water dwelling mammals. It was also long enough to wipe out almost every species of plants, including trees.

    So where did Noah put the Giant Sequioa trees and redwoods and maples, etc…?
    Did he build aquariums for all of the fish? The vast majority of salt water species cannot survive in fresh water just as the vast majority of fresh water species cannot survive in salt water.

    This story has more holes in it than a mountain of swiss cheese. How would I or any other human being come to the conclusion that this story is anything other than fiction when you apply logic and reason?

    I if or anyone else could believe this story to be true it would be just as easy to accept any fictional story as true.

  196. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    There is also no geological evidence to support that there ever was a great flood which covered the entire earth during any portion of man’s existence. While there is geological evidence that most if not all of the earth was once under water, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests each area was ever cover by water at the same time.

  197. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Scott, how do we (Christian and Muslims) respond to Jason’s question about Noah ark ?
    Both Muslim and Christian believe in it.

    I don’t have the answer frankly…I imagine a kilometre long ship still small to accommodate every couples of the beasts..

  198. nasaei ahmad Says:

    I think “metaphor” maybe difficult to apply when it comes to contradicting facts and numbers..as found in the Holy Bible.

    Quran? Oh yeah..we all know..one verse say 6 days; the other “8 days” (creation of the earth – are you sure of it anyway ?)

    “The other verse doesn’t say 8 days actually..but “you” instead … (“you” is anyone who claimed)

  199. Scott Thong Says:

    Well Jason and Nasaei, let me try my best.

    First, some clarifications.

    The Bible doesn’t state that Noah was to bring plants on board to preserve them, nor fish or other aquatic creatures. Nice work counting up the days, but you could have taken a look at those other details as well.

    It also doesn’t state that God would kill all water animals either (it goes on to specify ‘every creature that has the breath of life in it’ and ‘everything on earth’) – although this doesn’t discount that a sudden massive change in the underwater environment could kill them through shock.

    It’s also a common misconception that Noah had to load up every species of animal. The Bible only says ‘kind’, which can be taken to encompass quite a wide spread of species and genus. Lions, tigers, cheetahs and even house cats might be grouped under one kind. Hence the number of creatures on board the ark could have been much smaller.

    God could have had all the modern species descend from one representative kind – through mutation, evolution, outright miracles or whatever means – or even form entirely new kinds out of the ones that were saved, for example saving only one pair of mice and from that leading to all modern rodents. Meanwhile, whatever seeds still were viable after the flood would have sprouted and colonized the land.

    But simply put, the Bible does not say a lot of things, and everything extra is mere inference or conjecture.

    —————————

    Second, some points add veracity to the story of the Flood. Almost every culture, no matter how isolated, has some tale of an ancient, global deluge that wiped out all life – and where only the hero is saved. Is this a hint that such an occurence did actually happen once upon a time?

    That being said, certain details also place the Bible’s narrative as superior to other localized versions. For example, the Sumerian version has a cubic-shaped boat. This would toss and roll endlessly on the waves (like an ice-cube in a drink), not very conducive to survival! Once the flood ends, the protagonist offers sacrifices, becomes immortal, and founds the royal Sumerian dynasty as the first in a line of god-kings.

    Versus the Biblical account – Noah builds an ark with specific measurements, long and low and thus stable in rough seas. Once the flood ends, he offers sacrifices – then almost immediately gets drunk and exposes his shameful nakedness. So much for a triumphant ending. That’s realism for you! This lends credence to the idea that the story is meant to be factual – like much of the Bible, the human characters within almost never have a flawless profile.

    —————————

    Third, there is a branch of (pseudo)science termed Flood Geology. This is closely linked to Young Earth Creationism. Personally I don’t take the Young Earth view, but some of Flood Geology’s arguments seem to have merit.

    What they argue is, you say ‘no geological evidence to support that there ever was a great flood which covered the entire earth during any portion of man’s existence’… But how do we know what such evidence would look like, since our whole current science is based on the assumption that a great flood never happened? It’s like if in the distant past, a huge nuclear radiation event had occurred – all our modern carbon dating would be skewed and we wouldn’t be able to know, since we have to assume no such event happened.

    So imagine that if there had been a sudden deluge. The rushing waters would have carved great holes in solid rock over a matter of weeks, not millennia – and you get places like the Grand Canyon.

    The countless dead creatures would sink to the bottom, be covered by mud, and be fossilized as sorted by size – that’s why smaller life forms appear in the lowest strata of rock, not because they evolved first. The sudden mud avalanches would also preserve soft-bodied life forms as fossils better than the gradual siltation theory of modern paleontologists.

    And so on and such.

    (Related, one question posed by Young Earthers that I find intriguing – if salt is added to the sea every day, and there is no process by which it is removed from the sea, then why isn’t the sea entirely salt by now if the Earth really is billions of years old?)

    —————————

    Fourth, there have been plenty of astounding discoveries that totally changed the way we view the world – especially the ancient world. Mass Iguanodon graves showing upright, lean, quick animals instead of lumbering lizards. Fossil of an Ichtyosaur in the midst of giving birth. An entire Norse settlement founded on the North American mainland centuries before Columbus.

    The Biblical record is especially prone to these pradigm shifts, partly because it is so full of details – and partly because secular scholars are so vehemently opposed to JudeoChristianity.

    For example, once upon a time it was a ridiculous fable that any Near Eastern king would let a defeated, captive people return to their homeland and rebuild their city and temple. Then the Cyrus Cylinder was discovered.

    Once upon a time, historians pooh-poohed the Bible’s mention of ‘Hittites’ – no such people ever existed! Utter nonsense! Then an entire empire, rivalling the ancient Egyptians including in direct war, was dug out of the desert. Now instead, historians claim that the Bible only means ‘hill people’ when it mentiones Hittites. Wow, nice save, historians/ sarc

    Once upon a time, Jerusalem was never a great fort city and Luke was an astoundingly poor historian who got all his details wrong!

    I continue to be confident that whatever holes remain in the Biblical accounts, they will all eventually be filled in by science and archaeology – though likely not in my lifetime.

  200. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    The part you say about the young earthers is not making any sense to me. How is salt added to the sea everyday? Is there someone pouring salt into the sea each day?

    How do we have any fresh water lakes with no presence of salt? Once upon a time we had a great flood, and the water somehow just drained away as though someone pulled a plug in a bathtub. And then before all the water was gone some of it was saved. Most of it was still sea water full of salt, but alas there are huge lakes full of nothing but fresh water with no trace of salt whatsoever!

    And let’s say Noah really did fit all of those animals on the Ark for a year or more….It would have had to hold many more animals in order to feed the carnivores during this long voyage.

    Why are these stories so easy for you to believe?

    Why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the bible? I guess they just never existed.

  201. nasaei ahmad Says:

    “But simply put, the Bible does not say a lot of things, and everything extra is mere inference or conjecture”- Scott said.

    I think this is ‘factually’ true. People have the ‘extra’ believe, they topped it up !

    Who knows if some of the animals were created or came into existence AFTER that flooding event …I mean, not all of them ever exist before that time? God can do any thing He wish. The idea that EVERY animal were in Noah ark at that particular time may be wrong. Quran also doesn’t have detailed iformation regarding that event.

    After all..I don’t know..

  202. Scott Thong Says:

    Scott,

    The part you say about the young earthers is not making any sense to me. How is salt added to the sea everyday? Is there someone pouring salt into the sea each day? – Jason

    It is added through water courses – rivers, runoff etc – with dissolved minerals from the soil flowing down into the ocean. The water get evaporated and returns to wash down the soil again. But the minerals remain in the ocean.

    Basic high school science.

    So what Young Earth asks is, if this has been happening for billions of years, why isn’t there more salt in the oceans? The NASA site I link above says the added salt is offset by adding water, but like I mentioned the water eventually returns to the water cycle – the salt doesn’t.

    Note that I never said I adopt their reasoning – personally I do not adhere to the a-few-thousand-years-old-planet view. I merely stated that I find it interesting, and if someone could tell me the ‘scientific’ explanation for why the seas aren’t saltier (what process removes minerals from it), I wouldn’t object.

    How do we have any fresh water lakes with no presence of salt? Once upon a time we had a great flood, and the water somehow just drained away as though someone pulled a plug in a bathtub. And then before all the water was gone some of it was saved. Most of it was still sea water full of salt, but alas there are huge lakes full of nothing but fresh water with no trace of salt whatsoever!

    If the worldwide flood did happen – which I believe via the Bible that it did – then this isn’t the dilemma you think it to be.

    Let’s assume that the seas in Noah’s time were just as salty as they are today (and in reality, they ought to be less salty since less time had passed to wash minerals into the ocean). Now add massive rainfall (freshwater) and huge geysers of underground springwater (fresh again). The overall composition of the world-covering water would be closer to fresh than salt.

    As for modern day lakes, you do realize that most of them have a an outflow? That is, a river leading out of the lake and down to the sea. This is a way to get rid of their dissolved minerals coming into the lake from the inflow rivers.

    You know which lake doesn’t have an outflow? The Dead Sea. And what is its defining feature? Extreme saltiness due to very high amount of dissolved minerals.

    What the Young Earthers ask is how the biggest body of water which has a continuous inflow of minerals but no outflow – the oceans – is not super-salty like the Dead Sea after billions of years of mineral buildup.

    What I say is, good question.

    And let’s say Noah really did fit all of those animals on the Ark for a year or more….It would have had to hold many more animals in order to feed the carnivores during this long voyage.

    You know what this is like?

    This is like some Lord of the Rings fans complaining that, in a fantasy world filled with magic, when Gollum who used to be a mythical creature called a Hobbit but was warped by the amazing magical powers of a fantastical magical ring, falls into the lava of a volcano that was used to forge said magic ring, while clutching said magical ring…

    When he falls into the lava he starts to sink into it even as he disintegrates.

    THIS IS WRONG, DON’T THEY KNOW THAT LAVA IS MOLTEN ROCK AND THAT ROCK IS DENSER THAN FLESH, GOLLUM WOULDN’T SINK INTO IT!!!

    So they can cheer as giant trees throw rocks at a wizard’s tower while his orc minions scatter… But improperly-simulated lava is what suspends their disbelief?

    This is what your above complaint is like. Let me spell it out for you.

    In the story of Noah, where the omnipotent God commands a man to build a boat, then causes so much water to fall/burst forth that the entire world is flooded, then causes the deluge to stop and the waters to recede…

    You are complaining that God didn’t think to address the problem of providing for carnivorous animals, say by having Noah stores lots of meat or high protein legumes? Or maybe just leaving it to Noah to think it up himself – since God also didn’t bother telling Noah to add beds, cages, toilets or etc? Or miraculously making the carnivores able to eat plants for the duration of their stay? Or that carnivorous animals might not have been evolved yet, as they could have descended from the various kinds of animals saved after the Flood?

    The God who made all creation including animals, who sent an angel to shut the mouth of the lions for Daniel, who made manna out of thin air for the Israelites, who sustained Jesus through a forty-day fast – this same God couldn’t possibly find some way to solve the above problem, and also didn’t write a memo detailing the exact method He used to put in the Bible as an appendix so you could read it and be satisfied?

    That’s your objection? Seriously?

    Why are these stories so easy for you to believe?

    I’ll be honest – there are many things in the Bible that are hard for me to believe. Not just physical world things like the Creation account or the Flood or 40 years wandering in the desert. Spiritual and moral things too, like how even consensual sexual contact between adults is wrong unless they are married, or the existence of hell, or how merely being more good than bad isn’t enough to obtain salvation, or the doctrine of the Trinity.

    But to put it simply, the arguments and evidence that convince me outweight those which dissuade me.

    I believe the same goes for every person as relates to every topic – is global warming real, is evolution proven, does Keynesian economics work in stimulating a recovery, etc etc etc. Two people can be presented with the same raw data, yet come away with totally different conclusions. I call this Personal Standards of Proof.

    For me, the Bible’s claims as a whole meet my Personal Standards of Proof. I decide to accept the things not yet proven for certain (the Flood, Jesus’ offer of salvation, what is sinful and what is not) because of the things that have been (the Cyrus decree, the book of Isaiah being written centuries before Jesus fulfilled its prophecies).

    Why are dinosaurs not mentioned in the bible? I guess they just never existed.

    Your snark above leads to some very juvenile reasoning. Allow me to demonstrate its shortcomings.

    What specific animals were mentioned in Noah’s story? I didn’t see any horses there, so horses never existed either.

    Or how about rice? The whole Bible doesn’t mention it once! I guess rice doesn’t exist! Even though it feeds countless people in Asia!

    Look, I know that it’s called ‘The Bible’ and not ‘The Divine Wikipedia of All Facts, Knowledge and Trivia’, but… OH NOES, Gensis doesn’t mentions God creating oxygen – HOW ARE WE BREATHING???!!

    In ridiculing Biblical beliefs this way, you are making your own reasoning become ridiculous.

    I’ll give you another shot at it. Try harder this time.

  203. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Read Bible and Quran again…! As for the Quran narration, I think it doesn’t say, for example… “water covered the whole planet earth’s surface”… during Noah Ark event. So, people misconstrued..believing all earth surface were covered during that particular time.

    On the other hand, in the old ages, animals could be living, or found everywhere on earth- not only in the Middle East. If flood covered those area only, animal (let say dinosaurs) did not have to go to the Middle East or Syria or Jordan to aboard Noah’s ark then..

    All I can say is peoples’ wrong INTERPRETATION of the holy books that made them misunderstood. Furthermore, holy books do not have complete details.

  204. Zack T Says:

    Quran 011.040 [YUSUFALI]
    At length, behold! there came Our command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: “Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family – except those against whom the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers.” but only a few believed with him.

    Quran 023.027 [YUSUFALI]
    So We inspired him (with this message): “Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our Command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take thou on board pairs of every species, male and female, and thy family- except those of them against whom the Word has already gone forth: And address Me not in favour of the wrong-doers; for they shall be drowned (in the Flood).

    Quran 054.011-012 [YUSUFALI]
    So We opened the gates of heaven, with water pouring forth. And We caused the earth to gush forth with springs, so the waters met (and rose) to the extent decreed.

  205. nasaei ahmad Says:

    So, how do you think Zack, did water cover ALL of the earth surface ? Some of the key words are:

    “earth gushed forth”; “the fountains of the earth gush forth”; and “We caused the earth to gush forth”;

  206. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei, the issue is not ‘how’ (or what) do I think about the flood… but what do YOU think of what the Quran says about Noah’s flood.

    I find the Quran speaks rather clearly that it was referring to a worldwide flood… and a number of early Islamic scholars understood the Quran to mean as such…

    But if you want to believe that the Quran is only referring to a local flood, then it is up to you to explain why the Quran describes the flood in such manner.

  207. Ron Says:

    The Bible doesn’t state that Noah was to bring plants on board to preserve them…

    So how would the inhabitants of this floating zoo have survived for over a year without food?

    It’s also a common misconception that Noah had to load up every species of animal. The Bible only says ‘kind’, which can be taken to encompass quite a wide spread of species and genus. Lions, tigers, cheetahs and even house cats might be grouped under one kind. Hence the number of creatures on board the ark could have been much smaller.

    God could have had all the modern species descend from one representative kind – through mutation, evolution, outright miracles or whatever means – or even form entirely new kinds out of the ones that were saved, for example saving only one pair of mice and from that leading to all modern rodents.

    Evolution extends over very long time periods. Those “cat” and “rodent” families you mentioned are millions of years old, and the speciation would have occurred long, long, long before the supposed flood. In any case, BTW, archaeological evidence suggests that the domestic house cat has existed for well over nine thousand years. So there’s no getting around it: Noah would have had to take aboard at least one pair of every single cat and rodent species in existence. Ditto for horses, birds, reptiles and insects.

    Meanwhile, whatever seeds still were viable after the flood would have sprouted and colonized the land.

    Some plant species can indeed survive extensive flooding, but olive trees can’t tolerate wet soil and take years to propagate — which makes the biblical account of a dove bringing back an olive leaf only seven days after the waters had receded from the earth highly suspect. Furthermore, how long would all those ravished herbivores exiting the ark have to wait before the first crop appears on ground that’s littered with rotting vegetation and sea salt? Or what about the carnivores? When could they expect to partake of their first meal given that they’d be required to wait for the rest of the animal population to replenish?

    Second, some points add veracity to the story of the Flood. Almost every culture, no matter how isolated, has some tale of an ancient, global deluge that wiped out all life – and where only the hero is saved. Is this a hint that such an occurence did actually happen once upon a time?

    There’s nothing remarkable about that since practically every culture has experienced a major flood event. From the perspective of primitive cultures living in isolation any flood that extends as far as the eye can see becomes a global event. Not to mention that tales tend to get embellished with every retelling.

    Versus the Biblical account – Noah builds an ark with specific measurements, long and low and thus stable in rough seas.

    The proportions are within spec, but a boat that large made out of wood without metal reinforcements would not have been any more seaworthy than the cube.

    Once the flood ends, he offers sacrifices – then almost immediately gets drunk and exposes his shameful nakedness.

    Can you blame him? The guy needed to unwind — he just spent the better part of a century building a boat and sailing around in cramped quarters with his family while tending to the needs of thousands of animals. One can only imagine the squabbles over who’s turn it was to change the kitty litter in the lion’s quarters. Then the situation took a turn for the worse: upon disembarking he realized that everything he’d owned was gone and FEMA was no longer around to provide relief.

    What they argue is, you say ‘no geological evidence to support that there ever was a great flood which covered the entire earth during any portion of man’s existence’… But how do we know what such evidence would look like, since our whole current science is based on the assumption that a great flood never happened?

    Actually, it’s just the opposite. The flood account was considered an incontrovertible fact for centuries. That opinion changed precisely because the scientific evidence rendered the story implausible.

    The countless dead creatures would sink to the bottom, be covered by mud, and be fossilized as sorted by size – that’s why smaller life forms appear in the lowest strata of rock, not because they evolved first. The sudden mud avalanches would also preserve soft-bodied life forms as fossils better than the gradual siltation theory of modern paleontologists.

    Your hypothesis has been proven false via sedimentation experiments. You can even test it out for yourself by following the instructions given here.

    if salt is added to the sea every day, and there is no process by which it is removed from the sea, then why isn’t the sea entirely salt by now if the Earth really is billions of years old?

    Ah, but the salt does get removed from the sea. Unfortunately, I’ve already reached my two links per comment limit, so I’ll leave it for you to discover how that process works.

  208. Scott Thong Says:

    So how would the inhabitants of this floating zoo have survived for over a year without food?

    Eh, it does mention God commanding Noah to load up the ark with food for people and animals. Just not plants for the sake of repopulating them.

    Evolution extends over very long time periods. Those “cat” and “rodent” families you mentioned are millions of years old, and the speciation would have occurred long, long, long before the supposed flood. In any case, BTW, archaeological evidence suggests that the domestic house cat has existed for well over nine thousand years. So there’s no getting around it: Noah would have had to take aboard at least one pair of every single cat and rodent species in existence. Ditto for horses, birds, reptiles and insects.

    By evolution I do not refer to the standard Darwinist slow-motion version. Referring back to the Lord of the Unconvincing Lava bit I shared earlier, we’re talking about an omnipotent, snap-metaphorical-fingers-and-it-happens, entire-universe creator here. I don’t think kicking punctuated equilibrium up a couple of rungs poses much of a challenge.

    Some plant species can indeed survive extensive flooding, but olive trees can’t tolerate wet soil and take years to propagate — which makes the biblical account of a dove bringing back an olive leaf only seven days after the waters had receded from the earth highly suspect. Furthermore, how long would all those ravished herbivores exiting the ark have to wait before the first crop appears on ground that’s littered with rotting vegetation and sea salt? Or what about the carnivores? When could they expect to partake of their first meal given that they’d be required to wait for the rest of the animal population to replenish?

    LoTR Lava again. Biblical parallels again, God made a plant grow overnight for Job. And as I said already, God made manna out of thin air, closed the lions mouths for Daniel, and sustained Jesus for 40 days of fasting in the hot, dry, dehydrating desert.

    The proportions are within spec, but a boat that large made out of wood without metal reinforcements would not have been any more seaworthy than the cube.

    LoTR Lava. Biblical parallels again, God made a metal axe-head float. Trying to recall one where God temporarily increased the load-bearing capacity of an item.

    Your hypothesis has been proven false via sedimentation experiments. You can even test it out for yourself by following the instructions given here.

    Believe it or not, I’m not going to say ‘LoTR Lava’. Whereas the earlier objections I dismissed with a wave of my +5 Fundamentalist’s Wand of God of the Gaps, those were directly linked to God’s command to Noah to build and ark etc. Fossilization I deem out of that sphere and thus subject to the ordinary rules of physical science (as far as a worldwide instant deluge is ordinary).

    Ah, but the salt does get removed from the sea. Unfortunately, I’ve already reached my two links per comment limit, so I’ll leave it for you to discover how that process works.

    You’ve already saved Jason the trouble of thinking up replies to my comment. Why not go all the way?

  209. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Many people thought that Noah landed on Mt. Arafat. If Arafat wasn’t covered by water then, Everest is also not covered because it is taller than Arafat – and maybe some other mountains as well.

  210. nasaei ahmad Says:

    Ooops.. Noah landed his vessel on Mt Arafat after the flood receded ?

    I don’t know…Frankly I don’t know..

    And I don’t have the answer also regarding how those animals survived on board for very long time without sufficient sources of foods (as asked by Ron etc (above)…

    Please Zack T help clarify it..

  211. Zack T Says:

    Nasaei,

    Interesting that you completely ignored our previous discussion on what the Quran says about Noah’s flood.

    Anyway… why is it so hard for the animals to survive the ark for so long? Let me just point out a few plausible explanation:

    1 – LoTR lava. God could easily sustain both Noah’s family and all the animals without food (miraculously) or even provide food for them all (just as He provided manna for Moses and the people during the Exodus period). Is that so hard for you to grasp, Nasaei?

    2 – The animals could’ve just gone into hibernation (by God’s inducing). Animal in hibernation can survive long periods of sleep with minimal food consumption of the food storage available.

    3 – Contrary to popular belief, it is very possible that all beings back in Noah’s day were herbivores (no carnivores/meat-eaters).

    Genesis 1:29-30
    (29) And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.
    (30) And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.

    It was only after the flood, that meat-eating was sanctioned by God.

    “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” (Gen 9:3)

    So, there was no need for Noah to bring extra animals to feed the other animals.

    Sorry that the Quran never knew of such things, nor can it answer such questions/issues as asked by Ron, etc.

  212. Zack T Says:

    And Nasaei, it’s Mt Ararat… not Mt Arafat (as in Yasser Arafat)…

    Plus, the bible didn’t say Noah’s ark landed on Mt Ararat… it said it “rested on the mountainS of Ararat”.
    So by this description, it is not necessary that the bible is placing the Ark on the very peak of a mountain (as falsely assumed by unwary bible disbelievers)… and could just as easily mean that the ark is resting amongst the mountains of this mountain range.

  213. Ron Says:

    Eh, it does mention God commanding Noah to load up the ark with food for people and animals. Just not plants for the sake of repopulating them.

    Understood, but my question was more along the lines of: How would Noah stock a year’s supply of fresh food in an era without refrigeration or the benefit of modern preservation methods? More LoTR magic?

    By evolution I do not refer to the standard Darwinist slow-motion version. Referring back to the Lord of the Unconvincing Lava bit I shared earlier, we’re talking about an omnipotent, snap-metaphorical-fingers-and-it-happens, entire-universe creator here. I don’t think kicking punctuated equilibrium up a couple of rungs poses much of a challenge.

    No doubt, it must have been extremely fast given that the bird “kind” had already evolved into ravens and doves by the time Noah’s ark came to rest.

    On a side note: perhaps you should update your “about” page to reflect the fact that you’re no longer a moderate skeptic of macro-evolution.

    LoTR Lava again. Biblical parallels again, God made a plant grow overnight for Job. And as I said already, God made manna out of thin air, closed the lions mouths for Daniel, and sustained Jesus for 40 days of fasting in the hot, dry, dehydrating desert.

    [...]

    LoTR Lava. Biblical parallels again, God made a metal axe-head float. Trying to recall one where God temporarily increased the load-bearing capacity of an item.

    Sure, in a supernatural realm anything becomes possible. However, it seems rather odd that a god possessing all these amazing powers would trouble himself with such an elaborate spiel when he could just as easily resolve the problem by poofing all the evil people out of existence, or better yet, simply transforming them into good, God-fearing folk instead.

    Believe it or not, I’m not going to say ‘LoTR Lava’. Whereas the earlier objections I dismissed with a wave of my +5 Fundamentalist’s Wand of God of the Gaps, those were directly linked to God’s command to Noah to build and ark etc. Fossilization I deem out of that sphere and thus subject to the ordinary rules of physical science (as far as a worldwide instant deluge is ordinary).

    So in other words, you argue for science scientific explanations when they suffice, and invoke a god-of-the-gaps explanation when they don’t. Gotcha.

  214. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    Please stop using junk science to argue your point. The geological science community does not find any evidence to support a great flood. Those who do take such a stance are not real scientists.

    The reason why dinosaurs are not in the bible is because they did not exist at the same time as man. They were long extinct. Carbon dating places dinosaurs millions of years ago, and only places modern man (homo-sapiens) 50,000 years ago.

    Why is rice never mentioned in the bible? Maybe because it was not a staple in the middle east. It does not originate in the middle east.

    And I have no idea what Lord of the Rings has to do with any of this. Haven’t read it or seen the movie. It is fiction just like the bible.

    It is hilarious how you defend the bible as truth simply by quoting the bible. That would be like me trying to say Peter Pan could really fly because it said so in the story of Peter Pan. Fiction cannot be defended by quoting said fiction. It is not logical to believe a story just because someone went to the trouble of writing the story.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for which you supply none.

    “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.” – Carl Sagan

  215. Scott Thong Says:

    Please stop using junk science to argue your point. The geological science community does not find any evidence to support a great flood. Those who do take such a stance are not real scientists. – Jason

    I did mention that it is considered a pseudo-science, which should have been warning enough.

    But very well, I will stop bringing up Young Eart and Flood Geology – but it would be nice if you could tell me where the salt in the ocean goes to.

    Why is rice never mentioned in the bible? Maybe because it was not a staple in the middle east. It does not originate in the middle east.

    That is my whole point in mentioning rice – just because something is not mentioned in the Bible (whether rice or dinosaurs), doesn’t mean the Bible assumes they don’t exist. You yourself answered your own question – dinosaurs aren’t mentioned because they aren’t in the correct time frame as Noah.

    So you prove your own question to be nothing but a troll comment, not a serious query – you yourself know the answer to your question, but you posed it anyway just to jab at the Bible.

    And I have no idea what Lord of the Rings has to do with any of this. Haven’t read it or seen the movie. It is fiction just like the bible.

    Meaning, you don’t get the point of my analogy.

    I am saying, the Bible portrays a God who can do ANYTHING – including create the universe with a command – and here you are questioning how He could possibly sustain animals on the ark? Isn’t that a bit myopic?

    It is hilarious how you defend the bible as truth simply by quoting the bible. That would be like me trying to say Peter Pan could really fly because it said so in the story of Peter Pan. Fiction cannot be defended by quoting said fiction. It is not logical to believe a story just because someone went to the trouble of writing the story.

    Objection. Where did I use the Bible to prove the Bible? This whole time, I’ve been citing things like ecological cycles, archaeology etc to support my position that the Bible is factual.

    Either you just put up a straw man argument or you are confusing me with some other proponents of the Bible who use circular reasoning (which is nothing to do with me).

    I do cite the Bible, but only to clarify and correct whenever you display gross misassumptions about it (which also undermine your arguments).

    To use your Peter Pan analogy, you say that the story’s villain is Captain Cook, and then I correct you that his name is Captain Hook.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for which you supply none.

    Like I said, I know that the global Flood is not proven yet. But based on what has been proven, I bet that the Flood will eventually have the evidence to back it up.

    “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.” – Carl Sagan

    Which can equally apply to non-religious beliefs – such as liberalism, communism, and yes, atheism.

  216. Scott Thong Says:

    Understood, but my question was more along the lines of: How would Noah stock a year’s supply of fresh food in an era without refrigeration or the benefit of modern preservation methods? More LoTR magic? – Ron

    Why, yes. Yes it is.

    No doubt, it must have been extremely fast given that the bird “kind” had already evolved into ravens and doves by the time Noah’s ark came to rest.

    On a side note: perhaps you should update your “about” page to reflect the fact that you’re no longer a moderate skeptic of macro-evolution.

    I still raise an eyebrow at the fossil record, but am convinced by the apparent DNA link between therapods and birds. So moderate skeptic still works for me.

    In any case, I keep thinking about updating or reformatting the About page, but never get round to it.

    Sure, in a supernatural realm anything becomes possible. However, it seems rather odd that a god possessing all these amazing powers would trouble himself with such an elaborate spiel when he could just as easily resolve the problem by poofing all the evil people out of existence, or better yet, simply transforming them into good, God-fearing folk instead.

    1) Free will

    2) For not My thoughts are your thoughts, Nor your ways My ways – Isaiah 55:8
    Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. – Job 38

    I believe you know the gist of what the above passages are implying.

    So in other words, you argue for science scientific explanations when they suffice, and invoke a god-of-the-gaps explanation when they don’t. Gotcha.

    Actually, my standard stance is to assume no-miracles, no-direct-intervention, no-altering-laws-of-physics unless it is specifically mentioned or required.

  217. Jason Says:

    “Objection. Where did I use the Bible to prove the Bible? This whole time, I’ve been citing things like ecological cycles, archaeology etc to support my position that the Bible is factual.”

    Gee I don’t know…maybe your last post Scott???
    2) For not My thoughts are your thoughts, Nor your ways My ways – Isaiah 55:8
    Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. – Job 38

  218. Zack T Says:

    Jason, how is that using the Bible to prove the bible? Please explain.
    How and what was Scott using those bible verses to prove?

  219. Scott Thong Says:

    Jason, the context is right here on this page for you to see – my citation of those passages is directly in response to Ron’s raising the issue as to why God doesn’t just snap His fingers and make everything perfect.

    It’s a theological/philosophical question that calls for a theological/philosophical response. Therefore I cited Biblical passages to clarify the JudeoChristian view – that God in His wisdom knows much more than we do, hence it is futile and short-sighted to try and second-guess God’s plans. For a simple illustrative post on this notion, see Red Alert Style Alternate History and God’s Wisdom. Another common version is The Old Man and the White Horse.

    Therefore, my citing Biblical passages has nothing to do with your own questions about the Flood.

    I said I believed Ron knows the gist of what the Bible passages I cited imply, but apparently you don’t get the gist – or the context – at all.

    And all that is besides the point – my citing those Bible passages came AFTER your comment about how it is hilarious that I ‘defend the bible as truth simply by quoting the bible’.

    So come on, tell me what I said BEFORE your comment above, that made you accuse me of circular reasoning.

  220. Jason Says:

    The bible says it’s ok to kill children
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

    The bible also says its ok to stone adulterers and rape victims to death:

    Deuteronomy 22:23-24

    23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

    The bible also says anyone who commits blasphemy should die!!!

    Leviticus 24:16

    16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

    The bible also says people of other religions should be put to death:

    Deuteronomy 13:5-10

    5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    Judaism and Christianity the religion of peace???
    Yea…right!!!

    This is why religiion is EVIL!
    If you eliminate those with different views however valid and rational, then all that is left is those who will believe the lies which are left!

  221. Scott Thong Says:

    Ah see, you are now engaging in the standard Comment Troll Tactic of totally ignoring my thoughtful, detailed responses to your earlier accusations – and instead you move on to a flood of new, unrelated attacks that you most probably read (or even copy-pasted) from some polemics site.

    I’ve been playing this game for years now, I know the standard drill.

    Nevertheless, as you are a new commenter here, I shall indulge you for a few rounds (i.e. until I get bored).

  222. Jason Says:

    So my comments were not true?

  223. Scott Thong Says:

    Give me a while, fella… One unfair advantage of being on the offensive when it comes to commenting is that it usually takes a lot more effort to mount a decent defense.

    For example, all you have to say is something like “The Trinity is not in the Bible!” or ” and I then have to cite multiple passages as well as give an exegesis in order to justify the concept of the Trinity.

    For a secular comparison, I could quote twenty lines spoken by Barack Obama – without the context – and claim that these prove that he encourages physical violence. An Obama supporter would then have to search for each separate quote, find the source to get the context, then explain at length why each quote does not actually intend violence.

    See the huge difference in effort required?

  224. Zack T Says:

    Jason, you don’t even take note of what has been responded to you on your earlier comments (on the flood).

    I’ll just quote you what someone else has said.. “If you eliminate those with different views however valid and rational, then all that is left is those who will believe the lies which are left!”

  225. Scott Thong Says:

    Here we go Jason, my response at length.

    I fully expect that you will continue the standard Troll Tactic of either:

    1) Responding directly to certain of my points you find easy to attack,

    2) Snarking or insulting peripherally to my points; or

    3) Ignroring my points and moving on to new attacks.

    Even knowing so, I am giving a detailed response because it serves to refresh/expand/refine my apologetics skills and knowledge, and if anyone stumbles upon our discussion they can be enlightened by the information presented.

    The bible says it’s ok to kill children
    Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

    All of these passages you cite are from the Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament, given circa more than 1000 years before Christ, and specifically meant for Jews or those assimilated into Jewish culture and religion.

    I openly admit that the laws seem harsh or even barbaric by today’s standards – but today’s standards are relativistic morals based on secular, liberal humanism. To be fair, you need to judge the Mosaic Laws by contemporary laws and practices of the era – and many of them were far more brutal and capricious, e.g. you can kill someone if he merely injured you.

    Further, these Old Testament laws no longer apply to Christians directly – we follow the New Testament’s covenant of Grace, remember? – so I don’t see how they are relevant to modern Christians.

    And lastly, there exists an entire appendix of legal codes worked out by the Jews (and remember, these laws were meant for Jews – not Christians) as a practical application of the Mosaic Laws. From whole list here, an excerpt:

    Q: I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    A: You are forbidden to kill him yourself. The death penalty may only be administered by a court of 23 ordained rabbis (see tractate Sanhedrin). Since there are no genuinely ordained rabbis (and won’t be until Elijah returns), no competent court can be convened.

    Anyway, as regards your first citation above, the passage does not state the age of the son. If such a son can be profligate and drunk, it stands to reason that he is already a grown man or at least an independent youth. If such a man is in rebellion against his parents, it stands to reason he would be rebellious against the elder and community leaders as well – and thus a very real threat to society.

    Even the modern punishment for treason is the death penalty. So what’s the objection again?

    And like I mentioned, a court of 23 genuinely ordained rabbis (the equivalent of ‘elders at the gate of the town’) would be required in order to judge such a case before permitting any stoning to death!

    The bible also says its ok to stone adulterers and rape victims to death:

    Deuteronomy 22:23-24

    23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

    Although there are passages relating to rape, the one above is not one of those. It describes consensual extramarital sex between two people, and the girl will not be spared either because she is not a rape victim but a willing party. (It’s in town, everyone is around, if she were attacked she could have called for help.)

    Maybe by the free sexual mores of postmodernism, such a response is unreasonable. But as I mentioned at the start, we are talking about Bronze Age culture here.

    And IMHO, with all the social problems caused by free sex – including STDs, HIV/AIDs, unplanned pregnancies, abortion, and statistically proven higher crime and poverty rates for children raised by single mothers – keeping sex within marriage is a very good idea!

    And also, 23 rabbis to judge the case.

    The bible also says anyone who commits blasphemy should die!!!

    Leviticus 24:16

    16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

    The bible also says people of other religions should be put to death:

    Deuteronomy 13:5-10

    5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    In the society of that time, the king and national leader is God Himself. Blasphemy against God is not only rebellion, treason and plain old disrespect. It is rejecting the creator of the universe, the giver of life, the God who personally rescued them from Egypt and sustains them each and every day. The Israelites had seen God work miracles firsthand, belief in God’s existence was not an issue here.

    Note too that blasphemy includes not just saying bad things at God as is commonly assumed in modern times. It also involves claiming someone or something else to be divine (see this explanation of Mark 2:5-7 for an example).

    With God as the ruler, following any other deity is treason – whatmore most tribes followed their own deities on a national level (e.g. the deity Baal of Peor). Hence to worship any other deity is to declare allegiance to those tribes instead of the the Israelites – i.e. treason. This is especially poignant when you remember that most of the other tribes were in open war against the Israelites.

    And see what you yourself cited there… 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God.

    And once more, 23 rabbis to judge the case.

    Judaism and Christianity the religion of peace???
    Yea…right!!!

    This is why religiion is EVIL!
    If you eliminate those with different views however valid and rational, then all that is left is those who will believe the lies which are left!

    Q: Which group killed the most people in all history, crushed the human rights of the most people in all history, committed the most atrocities in all history, over the shortest time period in all history?

    A: It was the Communists, with more than 500 million killed by them and billions more persecuted in just the span of one century. They did more evil than every religion – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, paganism included – had managed in all of human history over the past 4000 years, combined!

    A: And what belief system did the Communists follow?

    Q: Atheism. Every communist regime – from the Soviets at the start to the North Koreans today – banned religion, persecuted and executed religious believers, destroyed religious places of worship, and declared religion as illegal and illogical. To follow a religion was considered treason against the state. (Hmm, treason – haven’t I been using that word a lot when discussing backward, unfair, downright evil religious laws?)

    “If you eliminate those with different views however valid and rational, then all that is left is those who will believe the lies which are left!”??? It was atheists who were the BEST at eliminating all other different views – be they religious, philosophical, societal or economical.

    Stalin wiped out the Christians (and every other religious follower). Pol Pot wiped out Buddhists (and every other religious follower).

    So tell me, if religion is so evil… Why did the MOST EVIL REGIMES in all human history all happen to REJECT ALL RELIGION?

    I declare, it was the outright rejection of religious beliefs – not just the seemingly negative laws you cite, but things like ‘Thou shall not murder’ and ‘Love thy neighbor’ – that directly led to the most brutal, widespread and unapologetic atrocities in history!

    ————————–

    And finally, your comment seems to be taken directly from http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message553954/pg1 right at the very top.

    So you get what I mean about the difference in effort? I spent the better part of half an hour to properly respond to your ten second cut-and-paste job. It would take me even longer if I were inexperienced or never answered such polemics before.

    By rights, I should just copy-paste text or a link from an apologetics site and ask you to read it to find the response to your attacks.

    Here’s a suggestion, why don’t you head on over to wherever you got your comment’s text from, and post my detailed and thoughtful response as an asnwer.

  226. Zack T Says:

    Scott told Jason, “Here’s a suggestion, why don’t you head on over to wherever you got your comment’s text from, and post my detailed and thoughtful response as an asnwer.”

    I’d love to know what sort of responses he’d receive from them.
    I’m pretty sure that it won’t be anything critical or thoughtful, but fallacious, unrelated and insulting.

    Good response, Scott. Jason has much to learn.

  227. Cherie Says:

    Hey guys, I have been on this site a long time and use to actively to participate, not as an atheist, nor Christian but a believer of the ONE, of Love and Peace, Of like begets like, of the Universal Law. I actually see valid points in both your arguements, but have gotten a bit bored with the need to be right on either side.

    Yes, I am one of those funky New Agers that believes in Neil Donald Walsh’s book Conversations with God, where God tells us, to him their is no right or wrong, merely consequences. In other words, to God it is not wrong what you eat or who you sleep with, but if you eat crappy food or sleep with your best friends wife, their are consequenses that will come your way. We in New Age call this karma, it is not a judgemental thing, it just IS. Ever since I stopped looking at what other people think or believe and how they chose to live and started to be more concerned about wether I am the kind of person people might like to hang around with my life has become alot kinder and gentler. It is nice not to walk around in judgement all the time anymore, it feels lighter. I can see how you guys arguement can go on forever without ever having a winner. Remember, both the optimist and pessimist will be right about the world, and each will bring in enough evidence to state their case. I just rather be an optimist and believe that you guys can simply part ways agreeing to disagreeing, then Namasteing eachother (seeing the Light in eachother) and put some of that awesome writing skill to work in a more productive manner. I have found that we cannot convince those that do not wish to be convinced, and it looks to me that you guys fit that category.

    Love and Light

  228. Zack T Says:

    Cherie, based on your comment, I’d just like you to explain to me this hypothetical scenario…

    A grown man to rape a infant girl and then cut her limbs off and leave her bleeding with no help…
    Is it right? Is it wrong? Or is it ok for him to do that?

  229. Cherie Says:

    As always I too get the most hanous possible examples. What would happen? Consequence would deem the man to be put to death most likely. I don’t believe God has much to do with it (and yes I do believe there is a God :>) How bout the other nice compassionate stuff I wrote, guess people still rather wish to be right than Happy.

    Love and Light

    Cherie

  230. Zack T Says:

    What consequence? If there is no such thing as right or wrong.. what constitutes as ‘good’ consequences…. and what constitutes as ‘bad’ consequences?
    Then following that would be.. what event causes one consequence to follow, instead of the other? After all, there is neither right nor wrong, according to you.
    Why does the hypothetical terrible man get a ‘bad’ consequence for a neither right nor wrong act? You certainly can’t say it was the wrong thing to do, since that would mean there is wrong int his world… and by default, there exists right as well.

    It’s not about being nice and happy… It is about being truthful and right.
    If an idea can be proven false and wrong, then you got to change it.
    Just because an idea makes you feel good, doesn’t make it good or right. Like taking drugs or torturing defenseless living beings.

  231. Cherie Says:

    Already lost interest in this game. Good luck to you guys and I see the Light :>):>)Not because I am right and you are wrong, not because either one of you is right or wrong, but because I sense too much Ego, and rather stay clear of that emotion :>)

    Love and Light send you way :>) (if this offends in any way, ask yourself what part in you, your higher, loving self, or you righteous, lower self. I am merely asking I do not know the answer, only you do my friend :>):>)

  232. Zack T Says:

    If to speak the truth and what’s right is to boast and be egoistic, then I shall boast all my life. Am I wrong to believe that, Cherie? Or will I have ‘bad’ karma/consequences to face later on?

    You claim to see the Light, yet you refuse to acknowledge the Truth… so what is this ‘Light’ that you are seeing?

    Jesus says, in John 8:12, “I AM THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have THE LIGHT of life.”

    Jesus says HE is the LIGHT of the world… but also He says that “I am… THE TRUTH…” (John 14:6)

    You claim to see the Light yet refuse to acknowledge the Truth. Indeed, what is this ‘Light’ you claim to see? What does your ‘Light’ represent, if there is no ‘Truth’ to be found in your ‘Light’?

    “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the TRUTH and so be saved.” (2Thessalonians 2:9-10)

    You say that you are of love… but what is the proof of that love you claim to be of?

    (1John 3:18) “Little children, let us not LOVE in word or talk but in deed and in TRUTH.”

    Cherie, what is the greatest act of Love, to which you claim to be of?

  233. Cherie Says:

    Namaste my friend, giving that neither atheism nor religion has worked over thousands of years, I am trying the buddhist and Ghandi approach (and many others like them) It seems to work for me. These days I feel no judgement because I no longer Judge, I believe it was Jesus who said to enter the kingdom of Heaven we must become as children again. I see my daughter poor the Love on others and how she is Loved in return and have tried the same approach which is working for years now.

    Love and Light my Friend :>)

    PS was it not the phariseas who judged Jesus the harsched, wanted him dead, and was it not them that Jesus had the biggest issue with, yet he cried out to his father on the day of his crusifiction and asked God to forgive them for they did not know :>):>)

  234. Zack T Says:

    Cherie said, “giving that neither atheism nor religion has worked over thousands of years, I am trying the buddhist and Ghandi approach (and many others like them) It seems to work for me.”

    Religion has not worked over thousands of years….
    Yet Buddhism (and many others like them) seems to work for Cherie….
    This is what anyone would call “self-contradicting”, Cherie.

    These days you no longer judge.. and yet you just said earlier that the hypothetical terrible man will most likely face the consequence of being put to death. Is that not a judgment? A judgment that what he did IS not right? And is worthy to be punished by death?

    It is impossible to live life without judgment or judging. The very act of decision making is a form of judgment.

    Definitions of judgment includes:
    1 – the act of judging or assessing a person or situation or event
    2 – the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions

    And what has ‘not judging’ got to do with ‘entering the Kingdom of Heaven as children’? Even children know what’s wrong and not right to do without needing to be taught.

    What’s more.. you refuted your own statement when you judged your own daughter that what she did is good and leads to ‘good’ consequences… But there is no right or wrong… there is no judgment/judging according to you… in essence, no good nor bad.
    So then what is the basis of your ‘good’ or ‘bad’, Cherie? Your position is self-refuting. That’s what I have been trying to point out to you.

    You keep advocating the non-existence of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’… yet you also advocate ‘consequences’ which can be good or bad, DEPENDING on one’s action.
    To advocate the existence of consequence that is proportional to our actions, be it good or bad, IS indeed to advocate the existence of criteria to define what is good and bad, a.k.a. what is right and what is wrong… meaning to advocate the existence of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.

  235. Zack T Says:

    And Cherie, yes, Jesus asked God to “forgive them for they know not what they do”…. but Jesus is also the biggest advocator of TRUTH and doing what’s right to God and the biggest adversary of SIN and doing what’s not right (i.e. wrong).

    You can’t stand upon Jesus and yet deny the existence of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for you will be standing against the Truth.

  236. Zack T Says:

    Why do you think Jesus had the ‘biggest issue’ with the Pharisees in the first place? Or ANY issue even?

    If Jesus is a examplary role model for you and your philosophy, then He would not have ANY issue with ANY one… because NO one has done anything that is neither right nor wrong.

    Tell me, if you have understanding.

  237. Scott Thong Says:

    Hey, old time commentors returning are always welcome!

    Perhaps this might help:

    Cherie, you say that there is ‘no right or wrong, merely consequences’.

    Whereas Zack says that there is right and wrong.

    May I suggest that we can classify actions as either right or wrong, based on the consequences?

    For example, if a man has an affair with his best friend’s wife. The consequences – anger, resentment, divorce, broken friendship – are bad. Hence, we can say that such an action is wrong.

    Does this make sense?

    But I suppose that if he could sleep with his friend’s wife and everyone laughed and was fine with it, you would say therefore that action is NOT wrong. This is not conjecture, I have plenty of commentors who have shared that they do not consider incest and bestiality wrong – the latter even claims his dogs enjoy it. So that must mean bestiality in his case is RIGHT.

    So I conclude that the differing view here is: Is there such thing as intrisically right and intrinsically wrong, or are all human actions neutral and moral-less? Like how inaminate objects are neutral and moral-less, such as a rock falling on a house or a flood drowning people is not immoral, it just happens, the rock and water have no sentience.

    But humans DO have sentience, that is what sets up apart from rocks and animals.

  238. Scott Thong Says:

    Zack, I believe I said before:

    Oh, I just absolutely love it when someone comes here and tells me “Don’t be so arrogant and egotistical!”… In a very arrogant and egotistical way. Almost as good as when someone goes “Don’t be so judgmental!” in a very judgmental way.

    And this too (in reply to Cherie long ago):

    If we leave all judging to God, then we must leave ALL judging to God – including murderers, rapists and bigots. You can’t even judge me – which is what you have been doing, have you not? You are non-judgmental and all-loving, and I am not, poor me, it would be better if I could be more like you… Am I accurately describing here?

    And to Cherie:

    If you keep insisting that I am wrong and must change my ‘judging, ill speaking ways’, then again you will be the one who is actually doing so.

    And on global warming:

    I don’t know the guy. It’s not up to me to judge. Even if he’s a hypocrite.

    But you judge me?

    And not on this page for once:

    You tell me it isn’t enjoyable to eviscerate someone’s worldview with an avalanche of criticisms and belitting, point by painful point. I mean, it’s sooooo much easier and more entertaining to launch a flurry of assaults and watch the receiver flounder to respond to each and every one of them, right? You’re doing it on my blog right now.

    Ooh ooh, and this one is really great, read the whole thing:

    You are soooooo right, apologetics4dummies. I will go and repent of my arrogance and Phariseeness right away. Probably beginning with taking your comments as an example of what NOT to follow:

    - in christian apologetics – one must NEVER attack another person on the basis of difference in faith – sorry – i dun see that in scot or simon and for that – their faith is quite meaningless and bring disgrace to the Christian faith.

    I leave you to the judgement of the Lord! Remember that you have to account to the Lord on judgement day for every loose canon/word that you blast to your readers or anyone for that matter.

    Go confess and repent! When you are healed of your ailments, come back and write again – this time with HUMILITY as encouraged by the Lord and forbearance.

    Demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit for crying out loud!

    Sheesh! Does your pastor know that you write this way? What sort of testimony are you showing?

    Do you think you are spreading the aroma of Christ? How many would want to be Christians if they read your responses?

    I am so ashamed that you are SUPPOSED to be my brethren.

    Good Lord, deliver them, PLEASE!

    The meaning is that YOU ARE THE DUMMY for not getting the meaning of my nom de plume, you arrogant idiot!~

    Ah, the risks and vagaries of involving the ‘do not judge’ clause, yes?

    On that, Simon had this to say before I replied:

    Gosh, the very things you said are judgemental, arrogant and hypocritical. Look in your mirror, and may it be not cracked

    I’ve gotten a lot of commentors who judge me for my judging, telling me not to judge! Teh irony.

    Also, I realize that reading my responses to commentors on this very post reveals some solid gold comebacks. For example, scan or search for ‘Cletus from Podunk Alabama’ and my response!

  239. Ron Says:

    1) Free will

    Free will is not mentioned once in the Bible. In fact, it states quite outright that God predestined us to serve as pawns in his cosmic chess game. (Acts 13:48; Romans 8: 28-30; Romans 9:11-21; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 2 Timothy 1:9)

    2) For not My thoughts are your thoughts, Nor your ways My ways – Isaiah 55:8

    Tell me this: Is God not bound by the same rules of logic as we are?

    Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. – Job 38

    Yep. Might makes right: that’s the central theme of Job. And God requires four whole chapters to pimp all his accomplishments just so he can declare himself the biggest BAMF in the universe — then sarcastically rubs it in by saying he’ll give props if Job can garner the same street cred as himself. (Job 40:9-14)

    For a secular comparison, I could quote twenty lines spoken by Barack Obama – without the context – and claim that these prove that he encourages physical violence.

    Could? :-(

  240. Scott Thong Says:

    Free will is not mentioned once in the Bible. In fact, it states quite outright that God predestined us to serve as pawns in his cosmic chess game. (Acts 13:48; Romans 8: 28-30; Romans 9:11-21; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 2 Timothy 1:9)

    A long running debate, with the Calvinists on one extreme end and the Arminians on the other.

    You’ve already thrown in for the predestination side, here are a few more as well as passages for the free will side:

    http://www.dougledbetter.org/theology/sovereignty_vs_freewill.html

    The closing paragraph of the latter gels with my own opinion: “Ultimately, I believe that God directs history. However, I do not believe that He micro-manages history.”

    But consider this: Three as one (the Triune God) and two natures as one (Christ’s divinity and humanity) similarly exist in Christian thought. So it’s not so much a matter of Which antipode is right? as Both apply, but our limited human minds cannot comprehend how.

    Wrap your human mind around the sea battle tomorrow paradox.

    Tell me this: Is God not bound by the same rules of logic as we are?

    Yes, I believe so – good cannot be evil, and something cannot be both hot and not-hot simultaneously.

    Meanwhile, the passage is about how the designer of all existence knows infinitely more than is granted to us by our few decades of living experience, so we shouldn’t presume to judge His actions.

    Your point?

    Yep. Might makes right: that’s the central theme of Job. And God requires four whole chapters to pimp all his accomplishments just so he can declare himself the biggest BAMF in the universe — then sarcastically rubs it in by saying he’ll give props if Job can garner the same street cred as himself. (Job 40:9-14)

    Considering that Job and his buddies spent dozens of chapters complaining, berating and persuading at one another in flowery descriptive poetry, I’d say that’s about in tone for this book.

    Could? :-(

    Could in context of Jason, already did before in context of yourself which is why I gave that example of all examples.

  241. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    It is illogical to say that Athiests have been responsible for more death than religion.

    Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, etc etc.

    The problem with those arguments, is that none of these guys were really atheists. They all tried to replace the old accepted gods and religions of their people, with themselves, their political ideologies, and the state set up as gods and religions in their places.

    Atheists do NOT think they are infallible gods or that others should worship their ideas. And yet every despot on “the list” tried to do exactly that. You’re NOT an atheist if you think YOU are a god.

  242. Scott Thong Says:

    Oh, that’s very convenient nuanced definition you have there… Instead of the usual definition of an atheist being someone who rejects the existence of the supernatural including and especially any gods.

    So tell me, if you reject some deity as being the source of morality, where do you get your moral code from? Humans right? Including your own good judgment? And you trust that your judgment isn’t wrong? Isn’t this the same thing that Lenin and Mao did? So aren’t you guilty of thinking you’re god too, deciding for yourself what is good and evil?

    I can use the same narrow-definition method too. I can say that anyone who ever did bad things is not a true Christian, since a true Christian would follow Jesus’ teachings and example. Crusaders don’t represent Christianity, they neglected ‘turn the other cheek’. Inquisitors forgot ‘love thy enemy’. Witch burners ignored ‘do unto others as you would they do unto you.’

    See? No real Christians ever did anything bad, ever! Then I can extend the same defense to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc so your accusation that religion causes evil is false. Ha!

    Simply put, all your re-defining doesn’t avoid the fact that ‘People who follow man as the final arbiter of morality and justice’ have killed far more innocents than ‘People who follow an alleged supernatural deity as the final arbiter of morality and justice’. Your idea that religion causes evil is false.

  243. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    I do not reject some deity as being the source of morality. I am not an athiest. I believe in God. I just do not believe the stories which man has written as the word of God. God gives us our morality. No religion is required to attain that which God has already given to you.

  244. Scott Thong Says:

    Well then, I would agree with you that religion per se is not important – in Christianity, it is relationship with God that is the key thing.

    That said, I do not discount the necessity of the Bible. It functions as God’s revealed word and guide for our lives – without it as a basis, there is no way to

    After all, if everyone has an equal claim to ‘God gave me morality, directly’ then in practise it is relativistic morality. No one can say he is right and someone else is wrong, as there is no absolute measure (e.g. holy scriptures or religious laws) to judge his claims by.

    In the end, every man considers himself their judge of morality – exactly the same scenario as the atheistic Communists you describe.

  245. Jason Says:

    Scott,

    The despots we discussed before knew what they were doing was immoral and chose to do so anyway. God in my opinion gave them morality and they turned against it. Had I myself never seen a bible or heard of Christianity I would still never become a perpertrator of mass genocide because I do not ignore the morality already given me by God. I do not see the bible as God’s revealed word unless I take the word of man to justify that belief. I do not trust the word of man.

  246. Ron Says:

    A long running debate, with the Calvinists on one extreme end and the Arminians on the other.

    You’ve already thrown in for the predestination side, here are a few more as well as passages for the free will side:

    www. dougledbetter.org/theology/sovereignty_vs_freewill.html

    The closing paragraph of the latter gels with my own opinion: “Ultimately, I believe that God directs history. However, I do not believe that He micro-manages history.”

    I was unable to find the quote you referenced, but the author you linked to appears to side with Calvinism… or am I missing something?

    To be honest, I’m not sure where I stand on the matter. A part of me would really like to believe that we possess this thing called “free will” which allows us to choose our own path. Our entire legal system is based upon the premise that we operate as rational, free-thinking agents who should be held accountable for our actions (despite making exceptions for those who seem to lack this capacity due to mental defects).

    However, we can’t choose the social environment we’re born into any more than we can choose the genetic traits we inherit from our parents. Psychologists claim that our overall disposition towards life becomes permanently fixed sometime during early childhood. If that’s true, then children born into an emotionally unstable or hostile environment are doomed to failure through no fault of their own. Sure, we occasionally hear stories of those who’ve managed to escape from a bad upbringing, but those cases seem to be the exception that proves the rule. Even then, it seems that many can’t escape the mindset of their youth (ex. rags-to-riches celebrities like Mike Tyson and Dennis Rodman, or these folks).

    And what about those who suffer the repercussions of bad choices made by others (Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, etc)? Did any of the millions adversely affected by the actions of these madmen really have any real say in the matter?

    Please note: I’m not advocating that we allow thieves, rapists, and murderers off the hook just because they grew up under less-than-ideal circumstances. Nor am I suggesting that we automatically throw our hands in the air and resign ourselves to the fact that “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” as Thoreau wrote (although he may have had a point there). I’m merely suggesting that things may not be quite as cut-and-dried as they seem to appear.

    But consider this: Three as one (the Triune God) and two natures as one (Christ’s divinity and humanity) similarly exist in Christian thought. So it’s not so much a matter of Which antipode is right? as Both apply, but our limited human minds cannot comprehend how.

    Credo quia absurdum

    “The Son of God was crucified: there is no shame, because it is shameful.

    And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.

    And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”

    ~Tertullian (De Carne Christi V, 4) ;)

    Wrap your human mind around the sea battle tomorrow paradox.

    I freely admit that I don’t quite follow the argument regarding the supposed paradox. If I understand it correctly, the logic seems to be that once an event transpires, it then becomes an a priori truth by necessity, which means that all other options are permanently sealed off, including the idea that there was any free choice leading up to the event. So for example: if 9/11 was fated to happen since the dawn of the universe, then none of the terrorists — or their ancestors, for that matter — possessed any “free will” to alter their destiny.

    Well, I guess in hindsight that would be correct. But I don’t really consider it a paradox unless you entertain the idea that all choices are made in a vacuum; because then you’d have to explain the rationale for making any decision.

    In other words, based on an indeterministic decision-making model, drinking battery acid would be no less preferable than drinking clean water. In my opinion this constitutes yet another argument against the concept of free will as it’s currently understood.

    Yes, I believe so – good cannot be evil, and something cannot be both hot and not-hot simultaneously.

    Meanwhile, the passage is about how the designer of all existence knows infinitely more than is granted to us by our few decades of living experience, so we shouldn’t presume to judge His actions.

    Your point?

    My point was to determine whether or not you believed that God could violate the laws of logic as well as physics. But now I’m compelled to ask this: What facts does God possess that we don’t? If anything, I’m inclined to argue that a non-physical, non-temporal being would be placed at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to understanding the human condition. It’s akin to saying that a sighted person can fully comprehend what it’s like to be blind without ever having undergone the experience.

    Considering that Job and his buddies spent dozens of chapters complaining, berating and persuading at one another in flowery descriptive poetry, I’d say that’s about in tone for this book.

    Sarcasm aside, I think we both know that this story — if read literally — presents God in an extremely negative light. I mean, come on, making a bet with Satan to see if an honest man will break under pressure and then refusing to fess up when called upon to explain why — does that sound like an all-loving God to you? Would you condone this sort of behavior coming from anyone else?

  247. Scott Thong Says:

    The despots we discussed before knew what they were doing was immoral and chose to do so anyway. God in my opinion gave them morality and they turned against it. – Jason

    Okay, so maybe genocide for the sake of genocide is so extreme that anyone should realize it is wrong. But these leaders did it in the name of ‘the greater good’. It’s like how a police sniper will kill a man if it could save the lives of hostages. These leaders killed millions because they (allegedly) sincerely believed that their actions would lead to a better, more peaceful, strife-less world.

    And what about the case of someone willingly allowing himself to be killed and eaten? Both parties agreed to it, there was no coercion, is this wrong?

    Or let’s take a less extreme matter – for example, bestiality or incest or pedophilia. Is there anything that automatically tells humans that ‘This is wrong!’? What if they really, really think it is right?

    So if someone genuinely believes things like consensual murder or bestiality or incest or pedophilia is RIGHT, can you still apply your argument that ‘they knew what they were doing is wrong’ to them?

    I do not see the bible as God’s revealed word unless I take the word of man to justify that belief. I do not trust the word of man.

    By the above, what do you actually mean? I am guessing that you mean that there is no proof, evidence or argument for the Bible being God’s word except that some people (e.g. Christians) claim that it is?

  248. Ron Says:

    The Huffington Post

    President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions

    Posted: 03/19/2012 7:08 am

    Jimmy Carter served as the 39th president of the United States, founded the Carter Center and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. President Carter is also a Sunday School teacher and has followed that avocation since his earliest years. In this interview, HuffPost’s Senior Religion Editor Paul Brandeis Raushenbush spoke to President Carter by phone about the hardest questions presented in the Bible: from gays, science, the role of women, slavery passages and more. The former president offered answers to each of them with the insights and spiritual wisdom he has included in his latest book: NIV Lessons from Life Bible: Personal Reflections with Jimmy Carter.

    Paul Brandeis Raushenbush: Thank you so much for talking with me President Carter. As I warned, I am going to be asking the tough questions. So … Did God write the Bible?

    President Jimmy Carter: God inspired the Bible but didn’t write every word in the Bible. We know, for instance that stars can’t fall on the earth, stars are much larger than the earth. That was a limitation of knowledge of the universe or physics, or astronomy at that time, but that doesn’t bother me at all.

    How do you approach the passages in the Bible that talk about God’s creation (Genesis 1:1) while maintaining a positive attitude towards science?

    I happen to have an advantage there because I am a nuclear physicist by training and a deeply committed Christian. I don’t have any doubt in my own mind about God who created the entire universe. But I don’t adhere to passages that so and so was created 4000 years before Christ, and things of that kind. Today we have shown that the earth and the stars were created millions, even billions, of years before. We are exploring space and sub-atomic particles and learning new facts every day, facts that the Creator has known since the beginning of time.

    [...]

    A lot of people point to the Bible for reasons why gay people should not be in the church, or accepted in any way.

    Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things -– he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.

    I draw the line, maybe arbitrarily, in requiring by law that churches must marry people. I’m a Baptist, and I believe that each congregation is autonomous and can govern its own affairs. So if a local Baptist church wants to accept gay members on an equal basis, which my church does by the way, then that is fine. If a church decides not to, then government laws shouldn’t require them to.

    [...]

    Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). How can you remain true to an exclusivist faith claim while respecting other faith traditions?

    Jesus also taught that we should not judge other people (Matthew 7:1), and that it is God who judges people, so I am willing to let God make those judgments, in the ultimate time whenever it might come. I think ‘judge not that you be not judged’ is the best advice that I will follow. Maybe it is a rationalization, but it creates a lack of tension in my mind about that potential conflict.

    There are many verses in the Bible that you could interpret very rigidly and that makes you ultimately into a fundamentalist. When you think you are better than anybody else — that you are closer to God than other people, and therefore they are inferior to you and subhuman — that leads to conflict and hatred and dissonance among people when we should be working for peace.

    [..]

    Should we approach the Bible literally, or metaphorically?

    When we go to the Bible we should keep in mind that the basic principles of the Bible are taught by God, but written down by human beings deprived of modern day knowledge. So there is some fallibility in the writings of the Bible. But the basic principles are applicable to my life and I don’t find any conflict among them.

    The example that I set in my private life is to emulate what Christ did as he faced people who were despised like the lepers or the Samaritans. He reached out to them, he reached out to poor people, he reached out to people that were not Jews and treated them equally. The more despised and the more in need they were, the more he emphasized that we should go to and share with them our talent our ability, our wealth, our influence. Those are the things that guide my life and when I find a verse in the Bible that contradicts those things that I just described to you, I put into practice the things that I derive from my faith in Christ. talent our ability, our wealth, our influence. Those are the things that guide my life and when I find a verse in the Bible that contradicts those things that I just described to you, I put into practice the things that I derive from my faith in Christ.

  249. Cherie Says:

    AMEN. Beautiful Ron. This is the nicest thing I have seen posted on this site since I started reading it years ago. It is how I try to live my life as well. Thanks for sharing, hope this helps for those chosing to judge those that aren’t like them.

  250. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks for sharing, hope this helps for those chosing to judge those that aren’t like them.

    As I have mentioned many times to you, Cherie… You are judging me for not being like you.

  251. Scott Thong Says:

    President Jimmy Carter Authors New Bible Book, Answers Hard Biblical Questions

    There is a reason why Bubba and Jimmy the Dhimmi had to form their own ‘alternative’ to the Southern Baptist Convention.

    But seriously folks, the only man with greater Biblical scholarship credentials than Jimmy Carter is his second term /sarc

  252. Cherie Says:

    How can my sincere appreciation and compliment be turned into a feeling of judgement. Did no mean it that way, just nice to get a like minded person on here :>)

  253. Scott Thong Says:

    Nono, I am talking about all the previous times you have judged me for not being like you.

    History please:

    In reply to Cherie:

    If we leave all judging to God, then we must leave ALL judging to God – including murderers, rapists and bigots. You can’t even judge me – which is what you have been doing, have you not? You are non-judgmental and all-loving, and I am not, poor me, it would be better if I could be more like you… Am I accurately describing here?

    In reply to Cherie:

    If you keep insisting that I am wrong and must change my ‘judging, ill speaking ways’, then again you will be the one who is actually doing so.

    That is to say, you are actually part of the ‘judging others’ problem that you so rigidly condemn here.

  254. Cherie Says:

    Dear Scott,

    I am sorry you chose to live in the past. I used to do that and was miserable because of it ( abusive childhood, feeling like a victim, lots of negative stuff that happened to me) Than I realized one day (not so long ago) that it wasn’t the things from the past that caused me so much pain, but rather my choice to hang onto them and relive them over and over again in my mind. I was finally able to let go and my life is so much better and even my past looks alot kinder now. Wars are fought over pains from the past, chosing to let go is a huge step into allowing the future and humanity to become better off. I am not perfect at it, but I am alot happier and more peaceful for it. We all have filters in our lives about the people in our lives, that is why somebody can say something and one will take it kindly, while somebody else may say the precise same thing (say an ex-spouse) and one takes it as critisism. Learning to recognize our own filters will allow us to become more happy, because we have control over the way we chose to take things (we do not have control over the words others may speak or write) I use to feel very offended by your website and would throw the judgement I felt it had towards Gays right back at you (as Jesus said Judge and you will be judged) I have come a long way from that way of thinking and so feel no more anger towards this site, but rather hope to shed some light on here. It is also why I can’t go into these accusations back and forth, they solve absolutely nothing.

    You Scott have the choice to take this letter personal and as a attack or condensding tone (that would be your filter against me due to our past conversations) or …. You can chose to take it from the Love of which it was written. I am fine either way, as my light recognizes the light that shines in YOU :>):>)

    Love and Light

    Cherie

  255. Scott Thong Says:

    Textbook case of ‘passive aggressive’ behaviour here…

    But I accept that you mean well, and I appreciate your concern even if I don’t agree with your worldview.

  256. Ron Says:

    There is a reason why Bubba and Jimmy the Dhimmi had to form their own ‘alternative’ to the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Yeah, they realized that the SBC (which split off from the Northern Baptists in 1845 so its members could continue being slaveholders) is still stuck in the 19th century.

  257. Ron Says:

    @ Cherie, thanks.

    I’m grateful that a growing number of modern Christian churches (like Carter’s) are abandoning the old “holier than thou” stance and adopting a more progressive and inclusive outlook.

  258. lievie007@yahoo.com Says:

    Dear Scott,

    Thank you for that. The one thing I have noticed (and is why I stopped communicating on here) is that the good never truly is acknowledged. To say I am passive aggressive is again “chosing” to go to the negative. That is why so many people live so unhappily. Our thoughts ultimately are our choice, and since thoughts are things, we bring the negative into fruition. Living in this way causes projection, which means since you think this way, you believe the entire world thinds that way. For years now I have retrained my brain to stay away from the negative and have become a much happier person for it. Sometimes it takes work, but the world has become a much better place.

    Namaste

    Cherie

  259. Scott Thong Says:

    So then, it’s kinda like how the Democrats – who championed slavery, segregation and Jim Crow laws while fighting against emancipation and integration at every legislative turn – are now the party of the Blacks?

  260. Ron Says:

    Racist religious Democrat vs. racist religious Republican. Qu’est ce que la différence?

  261. Scott Thong Says:

    Americans are so racist.

    (Dyamn, I sound like Jeremiah Wright, Michelle Obama and Derrick Bell. Now I wonder what these three have in common?)

  262. Ron Says:

    When Same-Sex Marriage Was A Christian Rite
    by Kelvin Lynch

    A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Egypt.

    It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

    Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

    While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 – 518) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

    more

  263. nasaei ahmad Says:

    aah.. Ron’s comment above is a serious and shameful “accusation”… unless if most Christians agree with him…

  264. Scott Thong Says:

    I just realized, Cherie… Did I ever make this clear to you?

    I accept homosexuals as persons. I accept their right to choose whatever they want with their lives. In no way do I hate or actively seek to harass / discriminate against them (whether personally or through legislation).

    I simply believe that, as per what it says in the Bible, that homosexuality is not condoned in Christianity.

    If just that constitutes a judmental, exclusionary, unaccepting or vindictive spirit… Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and mine would be that one would be extremely sensitive and thin-skinned to consider my view to be those things.

  265. sylvania bulb Says:

    sylvania bulb…

    [...]Bible Passages That Oppose Homosexuality – Including the Words of Jesus and God Himself « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[...]…

  266. Nick Says:

    Scott,

    Was thinking of writing some big blog entry that expresses my beliefs on homosexuality and the Bible. Then I found yours which is remarkably in line with my own, even down to some of the specific responses you’ve given to arguments. So I decided I’d point people to your blog instead of reinventing the wheel.

    Also I started reading the comments you wrote back in ’09 and see that you’re still going strong these days. Stay strong, brother.

  267. Scott Thong Says:

    Thanks Nick, and feel free to repost anything you wish. Since the time of this post, I’ve had countless sparrings with commentors – most egregious of all are self-proclaimed Christians who tell me it is wrong for me to judge!

  268. H Edwards Says:

    I have spent some time with Rick Brentlinger’s
    http://www.gaychristian101. Rick has a rather bad habit of reading what is NOT there. He has dishonestly filled biblical silence with material which enables his argument. Rick the your argument is long arduous and at time convoluted – yet the opposing argument is very direct. Why?

    Read what is there, NOT what you wish was there.

  269. Scott Thong Says:

    Indeed, as has been said: A text without the context is a pretext for a subtext.

  270. Ron Says:

    Christian group backs away from ex-gay therapy

    By Patrick Condon, Associated Press
    June 26, 2012

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The president of the country’s best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction through prayer is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people’s sexual orientation can be permanently changed or “cured.”

    That’s a significant shift for Exodus International, the 36-year-old Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries around the U.S. and world. For decades, it has offered to help conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted homosexual inclinations through counseling and prayer, infuriating gay rights activists in the process.

    This week, 600 Exodus ministers and followers are gathering for the group’s annual conference, held this year in a Minneapolis suburb. The group’s president, Alan Chambers, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the conference would highlight his efforts to dissociate the group from the controversial practice usually called ex-gay, reparative or conversion therapy.

    “I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included,” said Chambers, who is married to a woman and has children, but speaks openly about his own sexual attraction to men. “For someone to put out a shingle and say, ‘I can cure homosexuality’ — that to me is as bizarre as someone saying they can cure any other common temptation or struggle that anyone faces on Planet Earth.”

    Chambers has cleared books endorsing ex-gay therapy from the Exodus online bookstore in recent months. He said he’s also worked to stop member ministries from espousing it.

    The times they are a-changin’…

  271. Leo Says:

    “be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”

    Funny… Jesus never married and never had kids.

    “if God’s original plan was for homosexuals to fill the earth, then why did He not design men to be able to procreate with men?”

    Maybe for the same reason science was created. Or, maybe because there is a need for population control. Or, maybe because someone needs to adopt kids that are abandoned or mistreated by heterosexual couples.

  272. Scott Thong Says:

    Funny… Jesus never married and never had kids.

    Strictly speaking, Jesus was the one giving that command, not the one the command was given to. His being God, the Word who created all things, part of the let US create man in our image. Capisce?

    Maybe for the same reason science was created.

    That doesn’t make any sense in this context. What were you trying to get at?

    Or, maybe because there is a need for population control.

    That purported reason falls flat when so many homosexual couples go for artificial insemination or surrogate parents in order to have children that are genetically related to one of them. It’s like, they have some deep, genetic or evolutionary need to procreate that their sexual preference cannot fulfil without cheating.

    On a related note, population may reach a plateau due to already falling fertility rates – the developing world’s rates will eventually end up like the first world’s rates. So, what population crisis?

    Or, maybe because someone needs to adopt kids that are abandoned or mistreated by heterosexual couples.

    Sure, like Frank Lombard who offered up his adopted kids for sex… Or maybe the Folsom dudes… Or elsewhere in San Fran… Or perhaps the 3000% higher incidence of domestic abuse, 19x more cheating, and 85% of partnerings not lasting past 11 years which leads to crippling the health and social development of the children.

    Or hey, Jerry Sandusky.

    But look, EVIL HETEROSEXUALS AND THEIR TRADITIONAL FAMILIES! /sarc

  273. Stefani Says:

    I understand that based on a religious standpoint gay marriage is “detestable” What happened to the seperation of church and state? Oh, thats right it doesnt exist. What about those who arent Christians or dont believe in god. I am an atheist but because a Christian think its morally wrong because of his beliefs I am not able to legally marry my girlfriend. I have been with the same person in a committed relationship for 9 years. We are practically married in every way. If I die tomorrow she gets nothing. She wont be entitled to recieve anything because we are not legally connected. Its aq shame that me life must be affected by those who are scared of what they dont understand. Love for the same sex is better than having hate in your heart and better than discriminating against others.

  274. Scott Thong Says:

    I sympathize with you on this matter, as I believe that Christian beliefs should not be imposed on nonChristians. As I state in many other instances, my belief is merely that Christians cannot argue that homosexuality is permitted by the Bible.

    However, separation of church and state in this case is usually mis-cited. It doesn’t mean that religious beliefs should be entirely excluded from all determination of laws – after all, why a voter’s should belief in God be any less important than another voter’s belief in redistributive policies?

    In the end, democracy always entails at least some minority who are unhappy with the elected law of the land. For example, Tea Partiers are unhappy with the taxation policies; marijuana users want its use fully legalized; NAMBLA wants pedophilia to be permissible and acceptable; pro-life groups want abortion outlawed or at least restricted along more reasonable lines.

    And as I point out in several other places, even if religious belief is discarded, many sexual practices are still rejected by society – even by self-declared atheists. Incest and bestiality for example. Is this infringing on the rights or discriminating against the personal choices of incestuous couples or zoophiliacs?

  275. Susan Brunner Says:

    Word of God? It all boils down to being irresponsible enough to entertain the insane idea that the designer of the universe lacks the ability and/or energy to create a reliable system with which to impart extremely important intel to his global human population over thousands of years. Rather than continuing in the tradition of intelligent design, the judeo christian god instead opts to leave this rather important bit of life/death/heaven/eternal damnation protocol up to a few random Semites milling around in a sandbox of fourth-rate real estate? God came up with the peacock but somehow he just isn’t capable of leaving a clear and straightforward set of rules depicted in stick figures carved into, say, the wall of the Grand Canyon and perhaps a few other strategic geographical locals? Instead he employs the occasional dodgy prophet with no credentials, spares 3 whole angels and then leaves the rest up to the bossiest male in Sinai to get the word out to the rest of the world. Not his best effort. He put more thought into the banana. So when it comes time to rethink his own system which he personally finds dissatisfying, instead of just giving in and doing the Grand Canyon thing, his solution is to force an unwanted pregnancy on some poor girl and her really understanding husband and sacrifice the resulting soul (his only begotten son) after only 33 years on the clock and that’s supposed to take care of the redemption of all of mankind throughout the ages? Why doesn’t anyone bother to point out the obvious concept that God is hardly limited to one son and that 33 years on the job is paltry at best considering all the souls in danger of eternal damnation? God could have been gracious enough to have thrown us a couple more sons, he could have provided a larger support staff and he could have 86-ed Paul from the original entourage, sparing us all his misogynistic midlife crisis……….puulleez! Would it have hurt God to beef up the miracle budget some in terms of feeding and healing and forgo the whole creepy and suspect resurrection drama? Curing leprosy is a no-brainer sure sell, rising from the dead and ascending to heaven a few days later is pure showmanship and smacks of bad human acting. Jesus seemed nice and all but that whole storyline did little more than introduce the carrot of reward in the afterlife and the not-so-loving threat of eternal damnation. Worse yet, God almighty displays unfathomable laziness when he leaves it up to ghost writer hacks to publish the word of God, flat-out paternal neglect when he fails to notice a significant chunk of the word of god was left laying around in some cave for a really long time, little interest in his intellectual property rights when time and time again his word is edited by whichever generation of presumptive male humans deign to eliminate and/or add to the mess of holy writings and God couldn’t have been paying much attention when last, but not least, the “guys in charge” decide to illustrate the whole thing, replacing jews, romans and other assorted Semites and persons of color with Scandinavians. And really. Did I miss the memo? Was the universe created by North Korean Dictators? The Judeo Christian diety made the ocean; you really think he needs a human fan club? Only kids and bully boys require praise, any sacrifice demanded from a more powerful being is extortion and anyone who requires or enjoys to be worshiped has a serious personality disorder. Word of God? I don’t swallow it, not for a minute! Bottom line. God created homosexuals. They’ve always been here in both genders. No non-human species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Man (and I mean man) is shamefully arrogant to disrespect this particular child of God and blame it upon a shabby bunch of words written by individuals who had the bad manners to purport to be God’s “chosen” people and the lack of character to blame sin itself on their long-suffering female counterparts. We’ve done a more than adequate job at being fruitful and multiplying, casually and systematically ravaging the very heavens and the earth God was foolish enough to put in our reach. We can use all the homosexuals we can get right now if it isn’t already too late. And by the way, I’m a straight, caucasian female who attended Christian parochial school from K through 12th grade. Time to cut the crap, act with reason and real human ethics and lose the lame, worn out fairytales of ridiculous men with goofy hats.

    And, by the way…. Incest is irresponsible in terms of progeny, and can create a victim despite consensual sexual intercourse, Beastiality is not consensual, pedophilia is not consensual (informed consent). These are not in the same ball park.

  276. hugegenic Says:

    Ahaa, its good discussion on the topic of this paragraph here
    at this blog, I have read all that, so now me also commenting at this
    place.

  277. Scott Thong Says:

    Actually, the standard view is that God created all things perfect, and homosexuality is a result of Sin and The Fall – a marring, distorting of God’s original plan. As I hashed out in the post itself.

    To wit, if God made every creature and person homosexual… We would all be extinct in one generation.

  278. gaylover123 Says:

    dear scott thong jesus has had sex with another man I heard it from mary magdalen the prostitute.

  279. Scott Thong Says:

    Dear troll,

    I’ll let God take that up with you Himself when you see Him before the judgment throne.

  280. Nomme Seven Says:

    Understood and realize that it is only common sense that male&male – female&female cannot proliferate, but what about children born with two sex organs? Some born with none. Do we hide these children from society, punish them like the Inquisition? thought God was the ultimate JUDGER AND RULER! What about little boys and girls, evident from an early age, expressing innate signs of homosexuality? Why does the creator design millions of people in this world that way? He is the G=(GOD) in all creations? Don’t try to understand the creator. You are human capable of sin yourself. Simple live in the garden and do your best because when he is ready, as he has expressed according to the Bible, he will take away all the bad weeds from the garden. That’s up to him not you!

  281. Scott Thong Says:

    Well as I explain above, God didn’t create homosexuals per se… Rather, it is a result of the corruptive influence of sin.

    However I agree with you that it is not our place to ‘change’ homosexuals. We are called to love them and persuade them of that God does not intend them to continue in their ways, and leave the rest to their own free will and to God’s transformative power.

  282. Scott Thong Says:

    Dear  troll,

    I’ll let God take that up with you Himself when you see Him before the judgment throne.

  283. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    Do you believe that homosexuals can become heterosexual if they love God and believe in God’s tranformative power?

  284. Scott Thong Says:

    Possible? Yes.

    Actual implementation by God’s sovereign will and wisdom.

  285. Jason Says:

    Scott,
    Why would we want to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals? There are almost 7 billion people on the planet now and not enough resources to feed them all. If there were no homosexuals, then our world population would be even greater than it is now. Do you think we need to have more people?

  286. Scott Thong Says:

    This is a fallacious argument that I have seen countless times, even just on my blog’s comments alone.

    First, it is very narrow to look at this issue solely from the point of population – in fact it is such a tangential point compared to the social, moral, religious, family, health, freedom etc. aspects that it always strikes me as a red herring type of argument.

    Second, it is a mistaken assumption to think that homosexuals do not increase population. Or haven’t you heard of all the cases of homosexual couples relying on artificial insemination or surrogate parents in order to have a child that is genetically related to at least one of them? (Funny isn’t it… It’s like there is some undeniable natural instinct to pass on their genes regardless of their non reproductively sexual preference…)

    Third, Malthusian doomsday prophecies of overpopulation are SOOOO last decade. We are feeding more and more people with less and less land area and effort. The problem of hunger is one of overconsumption by some and poor distribution to the others, as well local socioeconomic and political factors, not one of overall global lack of food. In fact, population decline is a major issue today – of the entire developed world, only America has a (barely) replacement level birthrate. All the others (Europe, Japan, Russia etc) are having so few children that if the trend continues, they will all simply all die out as a nation.

  287. ruth leckie Says:

    I’m tired of hearing God said this and God said that. I believe that bearded, ignorant, mausaginistic, chauvanistic old men with many wives, wrote down what was [ their own personal interpertaion] of what God would say. I don’t believe for one moment they actually spoke to God. They also believed the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Come on people use common sense and get into the real world. 2013. lets just follow the teachings of Jesus “love your neighbour as you love yourself”. Then you can’t go wrong!

  288. Scott Thong Says:

    While I agree that ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’ is excellent advice, how do we implement this? What if we truly believe that God has stated what is best for us, both in this life and in preparation for the next life?

    Let’s use the example of anti-smoking advocates, or Michael Bloomberg and his anti-soda, anti-sugar, anti-fatty food, anti-salt crusade. These people want to stop others from consuming things that they believe are bad for health (with good reason). So they try and ban everyone from enjoying those things – whether or not others agree with them.

    Why do they do this? Because they genuinely believe that it is in the best interests of everyone not to smoke or drink sodas or eat McDonalds Super Size meals. They do it out of ‘love’ for their neighbor. Don’t even get me started on wanting to ban all guns, reducing carbon emissions and sponsoring unrestricted abortions.

    So how far does ‘love your neighbor’ go? As far as wanting to warn people that their behaviour will lead to suffering in this life and the next? As far as telling them that a loving, caring God has much better plans for them?

    Note that advising people that they are sinning, and shouting/mocking/forcing people to listen to our views are two very different things.

  289. yea right Says:

    And who’s to say homosexuality isn’t God’s way of keeping the world from being overpopulated. And also who is to say that the bible was interpreted correctly since it was written in a dead language that no one speaks or can accurately interpret.

  290. Scott Thong Says:

    The ‘homosexuality prevents overpopulation’ fallacy is so unoriginal that I’ve developed a standardized response:

    First, it is very narrow to look at this issue solely from the point of population – in fact it is such a tangential point compared to the social, moral, religious, family, health, freedom etc. aspects that it always strikes me as a red herring type of argument.

    Second, it is a mistaken assumption to think that homosexuals do not increase population. Or haven’t you heard of all the cases of homosexual couples relying on artificial insemination or surrogate parents in order to have a child that is genetically related to at least one of them? (Funny isn’t it… It’s like there is some undeniable natural instinct to pass on their genes regardless of their non reproductively sexual preference…)

    Third, Malthusian doomsday prophecies of overpopulation are SOOOO last decade. We are feeding more and more people with less and less land area and effort. The problem of hunger is one of overconsumption by some and poor distribution to the others, as well local socioeconomic and political factors, not one of overall global lack of food. In fact, population decline is a major issue today – of the entire developed world, only America has a (barely) replacement level birthrate. All the others (Europe, Japan, Russia etc) are having so few children that if the trend continues, they will all simply all die out as a nation.

    And dead language? What, no one speaks Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek anymore? Or were you referring to Latin?

  291. bruce Says:

    re:
    Matthew 5:27-29 If same sex partners cannot marry, then they can’t commit adultery.

    Matthew 19:56 You say, “marriage as ordained by God”, but the verse doesn’t mention marriage. (Though, I’d assume it refers to marriage as well.) But it does say both men and women will leave their parents to marry. Same-sex couples do that too!

    Mark 10:69 ditto.

    Your flow charts are nice, but if homosexuality is contained within a gene, as you illustrated above, perhaps the male-female couple depicted above both passed on submissive “gay genes”. And that means God created the homosexual.
    Why would that be? So they could hate themselves?

  292. Scott Thong Says:

    Biblically, if a couple cannot marry then they cannot indulge in any sexual activity without commiting immorality – regardless of the common understanding of adultery as breaking marital exclusivity.

    Jesus said specifically that a man leaves his parents to be united to his WIFE – in fact the Greek word means woman in a general sense, with the context defining it as wife. No possibility of a man joining to a man here. See http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/bible-passages-that-oppose-homosexuality-including-the-words-of-jesus-and-god-himself/ under What Jesus Said for more.

    And as for genes, i actually am aware that recessivity is a possibility – but just try and say that homosexuality is recessive out loud! God created everything perfect, and that includes male joining to female – see What God Said in the previous link. Homosexualilty is a corruption of God’s perfect design by sin – see http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/the-sin-theory-of-evolution-reconciling-evolution-creationism-and-intelligent-design/ for the gist.

  293. bruce Says:

    I didn’t say homosexuality was carried in a gene, Your flow chart did.

    I was wondering.. .. . Where in the Bible does Jesus condemn homosexuals? I can find no references to homosexuality until after his death.

  294. Scott Thong Says:

    And I didn’t say that you said that homosexuality is carried in a gene. IMHO actually, homosexuality is NOT a purely genetically determined trait – but again, try and say that in front of politically correct supporters of homosexuality. If it isn’t genetically determined, then it is a behaviour that can be influenced – CHANGED – by the environment. Thus, groups that believe in ‘rehabilitating’ homosexuals into heterosexuals would be justified… And groups opposed to teaching acceptance of homosexuality could argue that to even MENTION homosexuality is tantamount to spreading and encouraging it.

    Jesus did not specifically mention homosexuality – but then, neither did He specifically mention things like drugs, pornography, suicide, blackmail… Does this mean that we can commit these things? Or should we instead infer from His other teachings (do unto others, love God, live holy lives) and infer that as a devout Jew, anything Jesus didn’t mention is to be regarded as remaining as the status quo?

    I mean, Jesus overturned many prevailing Jewish customs as misguided and wrong – discrimination against women and the socially unfortunate, overly strict adherence to the Sabbath, replacing God’s intentions with man’s own laws – but Jesus did not take the perfect chance to overturn the prevailing Jewish custom of ‘Marriage = Man + Woman’ in Matthew 19. If Jesus were supportive of homosexuality, don’t you think He could have used that opportunity to condemn and reject the homophobia of Israel by saying ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh’?

  295. bruce Says:

    But Jesus did say this,”For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it,” (Matthew 19:12).

  296. Scott Thong Says:

    Uh, can you explain what you’re trying to use that passage to argue? I’m a bit lost.

  297. 123.vn mua bao cao su Says:

    The focus of this lesson is to teach your teen, that nothing is guaranteed or set in stone, and that their daily choices could trigger
    a number of infinite possibilities. It is used in
    combination with other herbs to treat cancer.
    Vig – RX and Vig – RX Plus are considers as the two most popular drugs for penis enlargement.

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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers

%d bloggers like this: