Alabama Supreme Court Issues Historic Order Halting Issuance of Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Licenses

Alabama Supreme CourtMONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court has issued a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state.

“As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman,” the 148-page order reads. “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”

The order comes after a county probate judge asked the court for guidance on how to respond to a recent ruling striking down the state’s Sanctity of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

As previously reported, in 2013, two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn the law after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child. In January, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade declared the voter-approved state amendment unconstitutional.

“If anything, Alabama’s prohibition of same-sex marriage detracts from its goal of promoting optimal environments for children,” she wrote. “Those children currently being raised by same-sex parents in Alabama are just as worthy of protection and recognition by the state as are the children being raised by opposite-sex parents. Yet Alabama’s Sanctity laws harms the children of same-sex couples for the same reasons that the Supreme Court found that the Defense of Marriage Act harmed the children of same-sex couples.”

As an appeal was denied in the matter, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, also known as the Ten Commandments Judge, sent a letter and memorandum to probate judges throughout the state, advising them that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples despite Grenade’s ruling. But while over 50 judges decided to obey Moore, others opted to obey Grenade.

As confusion ensued, one probate judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the court for further guidance. On Tuesday evening, six of the nine judges released an order concurring that probate judges must not issue the licenses. Moore was not included in the order.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender: All men and all women are equally entitled to enter the institution of marriage,” the justices wrote. “Only by redefining the term ‘marriage’ to mean something it is not (and in the process assuming an answer as part of the question), can this statement be challenged. Put in the negative, traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because all men and all women are equally restricted to marriage between the opposite sexes.”

The court also chastised the state attorney general for not doing more to speak out and provide clarity on the matter.

“In the wake of the federal district court’s orders, Attorney General Strange has refrained from fulfilling what would otherwise have been his customary role of providing advice and guidance to public officials, including probate judges, as to whether or how their duties under the law may have been altered by the federal district court’s decision,” the justices stated.

Probate judges have five days to submit explanations as to why they should be exempt from the order.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Segregation now. Serration tomorrow. Segregation forever!!!!!!

    • Gary

      The rights of no one are denied by heterosexual marriage.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        On that we disagree.

        • Gary

          Then you are wrong.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

          • Gary

            I am. I am also entitled to have judges make their rulings in accord with the US Constitution, which ALL of the judges who have ruled in favor of ssm have NOT done.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You should consider offering what you believe to be your obvious expertise in constitution law to the various legal teams who are arguing this issue. No doubt they would be most grateful.

          • Gary

            They should already know it. The problem is that the judges who are determined to rule in favor of ssm do not care what the US Constitution says.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Ahhh…of course….that makes perfect sense.

  • The Last Trump

    “As it has done for approximately two centuries, Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman”.
    Wow. See how easy that was?

    It’s amazing how even common sense itself can be victimized by LGBT bullying.
    But not today.

    Praise God. 🙂

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      “Chalk one up for the good guys! :)”

      How, exactly, are people who want to deny two citizens the right to pursue their happiness and harm them financially and legally, “good guys”?

      • JCIL

        Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a race. The Good Guys are people who aren’t bullied into changing their stance on immorality just because gay activists want their immorality ‘normalized.’

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          “Homosexuality is a lifestyle”

          Homosexuality is an emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction of people of the same gender. It is not a “lifestyle”, just as heterosexuality is not a “lifestyle”.

          “The Good Guys are people who aren’t bullied into changing their stance on immorality just because gay activists want their immorality ‘normalized.'”

          So they are inherently “good” if they support your beliefs regarding what is moral, even if doing so harms certain citizens whose rights are protected by the constitution.

          A very selfish and self-centered view on what makes someone “good”, and an obvious disregard for the American constitution and the protections it provides.

          • JCIL

            “Homosexuality is an emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction of people of the same gender.”

            What causes this attraction? What causes ped – o – files to be attracted to children? What causes spouses to be attracted to someone else’s wife or husband? What causes bi’s to be attracted to any gender?

            They are ‘good’ because they stand for good morals and not sin.

            “A very selfish and self-centered view”

            Selfish and self-centered because it doesn’t agree with your view? Aren’t you being selfish and self-centered?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What causes this attraction?”

            The exact basis for sexuality – either hetero or homo – is unknown.

            “They are ‘good’ because they stand for good morals and not sin.”

            Ahhhh….so you want the judiciary to rule that anything that is not consistent with the Christian faith. So you would prefer that the US be a Christian Theocracy rather than a constitution republic. You think that the judiciary should rule that people should only be able to worship the Christian god. And that people should not have the freedom to take the Christian god’s name in vain – thus eliminating free speech. Is that correct?

            “Selfish and self-centered because it doesn’t agree with your view?”

            Not at all. Selfish and self-centered because you want to restrict the rights of others by ensuring that the laws which govern all citizens are based upon your personal religious beliefs.

            “Aren’t you being selfish and self-centered?”

            How is supporting our legal system being one that allows citizens to pursue their happiness as they see fit provided that doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others nor threaten the common good, “selfish and self-centered”?

          • JCIL

            “The exact basis for sexuality – either hetero or homo – is unknown.”

            It is known. It’s called preference.

            Yes, I’d like the judiciary to be based on Christian concepts…such as which made the USA the most democratic and powerful nation on earth. Man-based morals don’t measure up to God-based morals.

            “Selfish and self-centered because you want to restrict the rights of others by ensuring that the laws which govern all citizens are based upon your personal religious beliefs.”

            Aren’t you being selfish and self-centered because you want the right to do whatever it is you want based on your personal beliefs?

            “How is supporting our legal system being one that allows citizens to pursue their happiness as they see fit provided that doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others nor threaten the common good, “selfish and self-centered”?”

            Are you all for supporting the common good?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “It is known. It’s called preference.”

            Please cite your sources for this.

            “Yes, I’d like the judiciary to be based on Christian concepts”

            So you are anti-American and do not support our constitution.

            “Aren’t you being selfish and self-centered because you want the right to do whatever it is you want based on your personal beliefs?”

            What have I said that would cause you to state that I “want the right to do whatever it is you want based on your personal beliefs”? I do not desire, nor do I believe I should have, such a right.

            “Are you all for supporting the common good?”

            Nope. I am for laws which are based on rational, compelling, and legally valid arguments. I am also against laws which restrict the rights of citizens to pursue their happiness and exercise their liberty that are not based on rational, compelling, and legally valid arguments.

          • JCIL

            Professor Graham Willett who is himself a homosexual and author of ‘Living out Loud – A short history of US’ – a history of homosexual activism in Australia has said,

            “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, “it’s not our fault”, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality.. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort [to recruit]?”

            “So you are anti-American and do not support our constitution.”

            Not at all. But since when is practicing immorality a constitutional right? Who should decide what is moral and immoral?

            “I am also against laws which restrict the rights of citizens to pursue their happiness and exercise their liberty that are not based on rational, compelling, and legally valid arguments.”

            Should citizens have the right to pursue anything regardless of its immorality?

            Once again, homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle…previously determined immoral. Nothing has changed other than gay activists have hoodwinked the public with their ‘born this way’ marketing campaign. In a sense, they lied to the public in order to gain acceptance, and many people bought into the lie.

            I choose to stand for truth and against sin. This is what ‘good’ people do. Evil (which homosexuality is) flourishes when good people do nothing. It’s time good people stood for truth again so that evil doesn’t flourish.

          • dark477

            that’s his opinion but it isn’t a fact, various mental health organizations have studied sexual orientation and they all say that it cannot be changed.

          • JCIL

            “various mental health organizations have studied sexual orientation and they all say that it cannot be changed.”

            That’s nonsense:

            The American College of Pediatricians released fact-sheet for use, stating, “There is no Genetic cause to homosexuality. It’s caused by environmental, familial and temporal issues”.

            “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality”. American Psychiatric Association

            An article by Dr. Warren Throckmorton, “Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays,” summarizes 11 studies and concludes: “My literature review contradicts the policies of major mental health organizations because it suggests that sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging sexual trait, is actually quite flexible for many people, changing as a result of therapy for some, ministry for others and spontaneously for still others.”

            “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,” says John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is a behavior, not a condition, and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.

          • dark477

            I didn’t say that they found it was generic I said that It cannot be changed.

          • JCIL

            “It cannot be changed.”

            You might want to read the quotes again. You also might want to study child development, and especially about how sexuality develops. You might also want to study psychology and behavioral science.

            People’s preferences change all the time, and so does sexual preference. This is why many gays start out hetero, change to bisexual, then to homosexual, and then switch all over the place. Many return to hetero later in life. Sexuality is fluid, not permanently set. You should do some serious research so you can know the truth rather than buying into the gay propaganda unchallenged.

          • dark477

            they don’t change and i noticed you haven’t put any dates on your quots

          • JCIL

            “they don’t change ”

            How do you square that with:

            “I am one of thousands of men and women who have come out of the gay lifestyle,” he said after recounting the turbulent history of his life. “But the media and other people, gay activists, don’t want you to hear that. You know why? Because the entire gay agenda is build on a faulty sinking foundation. Two pillars: Number one—that you are born gay. And number two—that you can’t change. I am living proof that both of those are faulty and wrong. – Stephen Bennett, a recovered homosexual now happily married to his wife for twelve years.

          • dark477

            I call it lying either to himself or to others

          • JCIL

            You are merely denying the facts. But denying doesn’t negate them.

          • dark477

            the fact is that sexual orientation is unchangeable and it doesn’t matter if it is

          • JCIL

            “the facts are that sexual orientation is unchangeable and it doesn’t matter if it i”

            Denying the facts don’t negate them no matter how much you don’t want them to be true.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Choosing not to engage in homosexual behavior does not mean that one’s sexuality has changed. In addition, there are many people who are bisexual. Mr. Bennett’s story is not proof that people can change to whom they are sexually, romantically, and emotionally attracted.

          • JCIL

            “Choosing not to engage in homosexual behavior does not mean that one’s sexuality has changed. ”

            You didn’t read his comment…or the research. You also have no idea about sexual development and preference. You speak from ignorance on the subject.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, I did read his comment. Where in his comment did he say that he is no longer attracted to men?

            “or the research”

            What research?

            “You also have no idea about sexual development and preference.”

            What is your basis for that statement?

            “You speak from ignorance on the subject.”

            How so?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So your basis for stating that homosexuality is a choice is the opinion of one person, who is not basing his opinion on any scientific studies or research. Well, no arguing with that kind of proof.

            “But since when is practicing immorality a constitutional right?”

            The totality of what is considered moral and what is not varies from person to person. An act being considered “immoral” is not a sole basis upon which decisions are made regarding what citizens have the right to do, as clearly evidenced by the lack of religious authority in the constitution. Citizens have always been free to do things that others may view as being “immoral”.

            “Who should decide what is moral and immoral?”

            Excellent question. Since you are the one who is suggesting that laws be based solely upon that criteria, you are best suited to provide an answer. So who should decide? Catholics? Southern Baptists? Church of Christ Scientist? Methodist? Mormon? Amish?

            I do so hope it’s not the Amish – I’ve grown quite fond of electricity.

            “Once again, homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.”

            There is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence to back up your claim. Further, why would someone “choose” to be homosexual? Toward what end? Finally, if homosexuality is a choice, then it should be possible for anyone to choose it. Could you simply “choose” to be romantically, emotionally, and sexually attracted to someone of the same gender?

            “I choose to stand for truth and against sin.”

            You are certainly free to stand for whatever you believe to be truth and against what you believe to be sin. That is one of the primary freedoms in our great nation.

          • JCIL

            “So your basis for stating that homosexuality is a choice is the opinion of one person,”

            On facts:

            “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.” William H. Masters, codirector of the Masters and Johnson Institute, Virginia E. Brown, and Robert C. Kolodny.

            “The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,” says John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is a behavior, not a condition, and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.

            “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality”. American Psychiatric Association

            In May 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a Fact Sheet, “Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues,” which includes this statement:

            “Currently, there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “”The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today.” William H. Masters”

            From 1982. That is not “today”. It’s amazing how much new research has been done in the 43 years since then which generally discards that view. You might want to get some more current information.

            “”The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish,” says John DeCecco, professor of psychology at San Francisco State University and the editor of the 25-volume Journal of Homosexuality.”

            From 1989. It’s amazing how much new research has been done in the 36 years since then which generally discards that view. You might want to get some more current information.

            “”There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific”

            Please not the word “specific”. That does not mean there is not a genetic/biological basis. That means that a specific one has not been identified. And it certainly does not mean that sexuality is definitively a “preference”.

            From the same 2000 publication you reference:

            “No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”

            If there is a “cause” then it is not simply a preference. Your own citation disproves your statement.

      • Harry Oh!

        By not promoting lewd, destructive, sinful behavior as being natural, normal and healthy, that’s how.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          Ahhhh…so they are inherently good because they agree with you.

          • Harry Oh!

            Agree with God and agree with nature. You too can be delivered from your destructive addiction if you seek professional counseling and with God’s help you could find happiness and fulfillment instead of stalking Christian websites in a vain attempt to brow beat people who know what is right and what is wrong without a shadow of a doubt, with your twisted views.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Agree with God and agree with nature.”

            Because you have chosen to believe that God’s word is contained in the Bible does not make it definitively true.

            “you could find happiness and fulfillment”

            I already have.

            “who know what is right and what is wrong without a shadow of a doubt”

            You are certainly entitled to your beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong. Your beliefs, however, are not a sole basis for our laws.

          • JCIL

            “Because you have chosen to believe that God’s word is contained in the Bible does not make it definitively true.”

            Can you prove it’s false?

            “I already have.”

            If you have, why do you spend time on Christian forums promoting the gay agenda?

            That internal angst you are feeling is the conflict with what you know to be true and how you are behaving. That internal conflict will never leave no matter how much you want to suppress it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Can you prove it’s false?”

            No, I can not. That does not mean, however, that it is true.

            “why do you spend time on Christian forums promoting the gay agenda?”

            What “gay agenda”? Being treated equally under the law? That is an American agenda – not a “gay” agenda.

            “That internal angst you are feeling”

            I feel no internal angst regarding my sexuality.

          • JCIL

            “No, I can not. That does not mean, however, that it is true.”

            Unless you can disprove what has already been established as historical fact, it remains true. Do you have some proof that the historical record is false?

            “What “gay agenda”? Being treated equally under the law? That is an American agenda – not a “gay” agenda.”

            Don’t confuse immorality with being treated equal. This is another gay agenda mistake.

            “I feel no internal angst regarding my sexuality.”

            Denial works for some people.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “already been established as historical fact”

            What “facts” have established that God exists and that the Bible contains an accurate description of God’s views?

            “Don’t confuse immorality with being treated equal.”

            I don’t. Immorality is an opinion. Equal under the law is based upon the legal code.

            “Denial works for some people.”

            You are an excellent example.

          • JCIL

            “Equal under the law is based upon the legal code.”

            People are equal. Behaviors aren’t.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “People are equal.”

            I’m glad you agree that people are to be treated equally under the law.

          • JCIL

            Behaviors aren’t equal. You forgot that part.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I didn’t forget it. I agree with it.

  • Gary

    Thank God there are still a few judges who have some wisdom. The justices are exactly right that nothing in the US Constitution prohibits heteros-xual-only marriage. The sad part is that the supreme courts in none of the other states seem to have the same wisdom.

  • Badkey

    Oh, this desperation is so funny! Sad… Pathetic… Wasteful… But knowing they’ll lose makes it funny.

    • Harry Oh!

      Please go find your Father and forgive him for not being closer to you when you were a child.

      • Badkey

        Sweetie, my father and I had a great relationship.

        You stereotype way too much.

  • Harry Oh!

    So amazing to finally see rational, clear reasoning from legal intelligentsia. Not a common occurrence these days unfortunately.

    • dark477

      they’re just a bunch of bigots that seem obsessed with being on the wrong side of history. they have no authority to overrule a federal judge.

      • Harry Oh!

        You poor tortured, deranged soul. You have lost the ability to discern what is normal and what is not.

        • dark477

          “normal” is irrelevant and nonexistent. the federal judge outranks even the state supreme court so thees idiots have overstepped their authority by overruling her

          • JCIL

            Gay proponents use the words ‘bigot’ and ‘hate filled’ in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Gay proponents are some of the most intolerant people I know. They will say and do anything to push their agenda. But it’s no longer working. Intelligent people can see through this charade.

          • dark477

            You can keep telling yourself that but won’t change anything.

          • JCIL

            Yes it will. Just wait. God always punishes sin. It’s not a matter of if, but when. We already know how God views homosexuality. It’s not normative behavior, and it never will be.

          • dark477

            it doesn’t matter what you think and since your god only exists in your imagination it doesn’t matter what he thinks either.

          • JCIL

            Do you have proof that God doesn’t exist? Any?

          • dark477

            you’re the one claiming he exists therefore it’s your job to prove it not mine. my proof is the fact that there is no evidence what so ever that shows there is any kind of supreme being

          • JCIL

            You made the claim that God only exists in my imagination. It’s incumbent on you to prove that. Can you?

          • dark477

            yes there is absolutely no proof that god exist that’s my evidence. if there’s no evidence of something then it’s only logical to assume that it doesn’t exist

          • JCIL

            That’s it?! You don’t have any so you conclude God doesn’t exist?

            How do you square that with the legal system saying God exists? With a department of the Federal government saying God exists? With countless pieces of evidence that say God exists? With many country’s constitutions saying God exists? With billions of people who have personally experienced God?

            The non believer is saddled with the reality that they have no proof or evidence to support their belief. Whereas believers have a tremendous amount of evidence, including personal.

          • dark477

            people claiming to have seen god isn’t any more proof of god’s existence than claims of alien abductions are proof of life an other worlds, you need real scientific evidence which no religious mouth breath has ever been able to provide

          • Paul Hiett

            So, I take it you believe in the Loch Ness monsters, Big Foot, Yeti, Leprechauns, and Fairies?

            After all, millions of people have claimed to see them too.

          • JCIL

            These are such silly straw men non arguments. I’m surprised people still try and use these.

          • dark477

            it’s a valid comparison since you’re basically calming that if a lot of people believe something it must be true

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s no difference in the claim of someone seeing Bigfoot vs your claim of God existing.

          • JCIL

            The inability to discern the difference between folklore and fact may be the reason for your faulty beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            People claim to see Bigfoot. People claim to have found footprints.

            How is this any different than your claim that God exists?

          • JCIL

            As I said, your inability to discern folklore and hearsay from fact is most likely the reason for your faulty beliefs.

            God is already established as fact, with historical, archeological, personal, and scientific evidence to support Him. Do you have any to support your belief that He doesn’t exist? Any?

          • Paul Hiett

            “Fact”. You keep using this word. I don’t not think it means what you think it means.

          • JCIL

            Fact: a piece of information used as evidence

            Predictive and fulfilled prophecy is one. The universe from nothing is another. Life from non life is another. Fine-tuning of the universe is another. Jesus is another. There are a great many more.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “How do you square that with the legal system saying God exists? ”

            What law says that God exists?

            “With a department of the Federal government saying God exists?”

            What department says that?

          • JCIL

            “What law says that God exists?”

            Check out the legal system and you’ll see they recognize God as being real.

            “What department says that?”

            The Treasury Department.

          • dark477

            you mean “in god we trust” that was only added as a screw you to the communist and no laws in America acknowledge the existence of any god

          • Paul Hiett

            How so? Because they started printing “In God We Trust” on our money a few decades ago?

          • JCIL

            It’s still on currency today. That is a statement of fact. Unless you can disprove this fact. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? You can’t point to that as “proof of God”. It was added to coins to bolster the claim that God was on the side of the Union during the Civil War. It was added to paper money back in 1956 as part of the cold war strategy to claim God was on our side in that as well.

            You really don’t know your history very well.

          • JCIL

            “You can’t point to that as “proof of God”.”

            God is already established as fact. To believe God doesn’t exist requires disproving this fact. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            No, it doesn’t. No where has any deity ever been proven. Not yours, not Horsus, Isis, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Zeus, Thor, Odin, etc.

            Not one single deity in the history of mankind has ever been proven.

          • JCIL

            “No where has any deity ever been proven. ”

            God has demonstrated Himself in a number of ways. You just aren’t paying attention.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Check out the legal system and you’ll see they recognize God as being real.”

            You made the claim. I’m not doing research for you. Either you can backup your claim or you can’t. If you can’t, then it is invalid.

            “The Treasury Department.”

            The Treasury Department does not say that God exists. The phrase “In God We Trust” “In God we trust” first appeared on U.S. coins in 1864 and has appeared on paper currency since 1957. At least part of the motivation was to declare that God was on the Union side of the Civil War.

            Regardless, it does not state the God exists.

          • JCIL

            “I’m not doing research for you.”

            You should do research for yourself…if you really want to know.

            ” it does not state the God exists”

            “In God We Trust” absolutely states God is real. That’s why it is printed on all US legal tender. But you can deny God in spite of the facts and evidence. He gave you free will to do that…but that decision does carry consequences whether you believe it or not. Those consequences will come due at the appointed time and there’s nothing you can do about it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You should do research for yourself…if you really want to know.”

            You made the claim. If you can’t back it up, then you can’t, and it becomes void.

            “”In God We Trust” absolutely states God is real.”

            No, if it said “God Is Real” then it would be stating that God is real. In addition, there is no mention of which religions’ God is being referenced.

            “That’s why it is printed on all US legal tender.”

            No, it is printed on all legal tender for the reason I provided above. It was added to paper money in the 1950s in the middle of the cold war as a statement against atheistic Russia.

            “But you can deny God”

            I don’t deny God. I have a strong and deep belief in God. I just don’t share your beliefs.

          • Crono478

            You already have the proof that God exists through:

            1) All of the creation we see
            2) Our conscience

            You don’t have any excuse to say that there’s no proof that he doesn’t exist.

          • Paul Hiett

            If that’s what you claim is “proof”, then you must admit that ALL deities attached to any creation myth are just as true.

          • JCIL

            “If that’s what you claim is “proof”, then you must admit that ALL deities attached to any creation myth are just as true.”

            Not at all. There is an abundance of corroborating evidence for the Christian God. Not just one. Have you even looked at the evidence and evaluated it for yourself?

          • Crono478

            Actually I’ll challenge you back on this question then:

            Can all of these deities have what our God did for us?

            1) Created everything including us.
            2) Gave us life
            3) Gave us conscience to know what is right and what is wrong?

          • Richard Truelove

            Energy does not create itself. There must be a force exerted upon an object to transfer energy.

          • dark477

            there’s a scientific explanation for the universe that doesn’t involve any deity. the Big Bang and a conscience is created by a persons environment and experiences not a god

          • Gary

            The “big bang” does not explain anything. Explosions do not create anything.

          • dark477

            calling the big bang an explosion is a gross oversimplification

          • Gary

            But the big bang still is not an explanation for what exists.

          • dark477

            yeah it is you’re just a moron

          • Crono478

            Your argument is basically like this:

            Conscience is created by person’s environment and experience. In other word, it is different for every person. That is also known as moral relativism.

            Moral relativism changes all the time. You can decide today that murder is wrong, but then as your environment and experience changes, you can decide that murder is okay then.

            This does not work with everyone because in their heart, they know that murder is wrong no matter what. This cannot be changed.

          • Paul Hiett

            How funny then, that societies around the world were able to determine that “murder” was wrong, even without knowing about the Bible.

            I wonder how that happened…

          • JCIL

            Did you know we know right from wrong even before birth? How do you explain that?

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s a ludicrous statement to make, and quite possibly one of the most ignorant on here, and with Gary posting, that’s saying something.

            A child has no clue what “right” and “wrong” mean…we teach them that as they grow. If a child is taught that murder is fine, they grow up accepting that. A child brought up on a plantation in the south in 1850 would have been taught that slavery is perfectly ok. Yet, today, we view that as “wrong”.

            If your claim is true, no one born would ever accept slavery, and yet we had it for many years. Next point you’d like destroyed, please…

          • JCIL

            “That’s a ludicrous statement to make, and quite possibly one of the most ignorant on here, and with Gary posting, that’s saying something.”

            As I said, you should take some time to understand the concepts you criticize. Your ignorance on these matters is the problem:

            Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’
            http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

          • Crono478

            Yes, it did happen to all societies around the world when they started to worship creation rather than God.

            For example, Viking people in Scandinavia worshipped their Norse gods. In their society, was completely normal for them to rape, pillage and plunder. It was stopped when Christian missionaries shared gospel with them and their conscience convinced them of their sin. They believed in that. Their immoral actions stopped.

            There are still societies that continue to practice their immoral acts when they haven’t heard the gospel yet. That is exactly why Jesus commanded us to spread His words to all over the world.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, they raped and pillaged and plunder…other societies, not their own. Murder in their own society was not tolerated. How did they come about this morality without the Bible?

            How was any society around the world able to come up with the same morals and ethics found in the Bible long before the Bible came to be?

          • Crono478

            All of us came through Noah and his three sons. All of them have seen God’s judgment up front. All societies and nations came from them. They knew God but it was eventually lost over in time when they worshipped idols and other Gods.

            Chinese people actually did knew God before they forgot about them and gave the way to Confucianism and so on…

            https://answersingenesis.org/genesis/the-original-unknown-god-of-china/

          • Paul Hiett

            So all of the worlds races and cultures…from the Aboriginals of Australia to the large, white Norsemen of Scandinavia…all sprang from a tiny family who landed a boat on a mountain in Turkey.

            Really?

          • Crono478

            Yes, really. We do really come from one race.

            “Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race — the human race.”

            Link: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/082200sci-genetics-race.html

          • Paul Hiett

            So I assume you also think the Earth is 6000 years old?

          • Crono478

            Yes, around that. I don’t know if it is exactly 6,000 years old but I know that it’s certainly not in millions.

            It is also based on the genealogy provided by Bible too.

          • Paul Hiett

            YECers are hilarious.

            Despite all of the proof in the world, you still refuse to accept it. 6000 years…that’s just awesome.

            So all of the worlds races…all of the cultures…sprang from Noah’s little family on a mountain top in Turkey within the last few thousand years. And that makes sense to you? Tribes in South America that have had no outside contact until recently…they also sprang from Noah’s family and what, just forgot?

            If you stop and think logically..just for a moment…how can you possibly believe this?

          • Crono478

            Yes, if it is one race, then it has to come from Noah’s family, which comes from Adam and Eve. That’s only logical explanation for that.

            “Dr. Venter and scientists at the National Institutes of Health recently announced that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race — the human race.”

            They are not young earth creationist but they came to the conclusion that there’s only one race That is same people who are involved with the Human Genome Project (HGP). It is an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.

          • JCIL

            It’s called born with the knowledge of good and evil….the carryover from Adam and Eve. Research has shown babies already have this knowledge when they are born.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Research has shown babies already have this knowledge when they are born.”

            What research has shown that babies know at birth that murder is wrong?

          • dark477

            oh yes they can. murder is wrong except in war or it’s in self defense or if it’s the death penalty or if the person has been deemed “scum”. morality odes vary from person to person and it doesn’t matter how much you deny it.

          • Crono478

            Okay, how do you know when lying is right and when is wrong? What about stealing?

          • dark477

            it depends on the circumstance. lying and stealing to protect your country. to protect yourself or your loved ones.

          • Richard Truelove

            Killing in war is not murder, it is self defense. Murder is defined as:
            1
            : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

            As to my knowledge there is no law against war, or self defense.

          • dark477

            that proves my point, murder is wrong except in these circumstances.

          • Paul Hiett

            The burden of proof is on those who claim the positive.

          • JCIL

            Hardly. If you believe God doesn’t exist, you should have some evidence to support your belief. Do you?

          • Badkey

            Don’t need it. You have no evidence that it does exist.

          • Lance

            Because you can’t prove a negative. The person stating the claim bears the burden of proof.

          • JCIL

            The ‘can’t prove a negative’ argument reflects poorly on you and your rationalization abilities. Most atheists are embarrassed to use that today.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The argument of proving that something unseen doesn’t exist is specious and without validity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, there is evidence.God does not exist. He can’t be seen, he can’t be heard, he can’t be felt.

            Easy peasy.

          • JCIL

            “God does not exist. He can’t be seen, he can’t be heard, he can’t be felt.”

            Are you calling billions of people liars? I experience God all the time. He interacts with me all the time. Are you saying I’m lying? Do you have proof that my experience is false?

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re calling billions of people “liars” too. Those that follow other religions.

            And yes, you are lying if you claim that you experience God all the time.

          • JCIL

            “And yes, you are lying if you claim that you experience God all the time.”

            Incorrect again. I do experience God all the time…and so do billions of other people. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. It just means you don’t believe it. Your disbelief doesn’t negate reality.

          • Paul Hiett

            Same as those who claim Bigfoot exists. Just because you haven’t seen one, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

          • JCIL

            How do you explain Jesus? He walked the earth for real. He demonstrated He is God. Do you have any proof to disprove Him?

          • Badkey

            I don’t.

            If anything he was just a counter culture figure done in by the authorities at the time.

            Nothing magic about it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you have any evidence apart from the Bible to support this claim?

          • JCIL

            Yes. There are 11 non biblical historians who wrote about the historical Jesus. Didn’t you know that?

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh I’m sorry, I don’t see anywhere out of the Bible proof that Jesus is god. Where, exactly, was this evidence?

          • JCIL

            I’ll be blunt: salvation is almost never about evidence, and almost always about the will. No amount of evidence will convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.

          • Richard Truelove

            Roman historian Josephus documents Jesus Christ as an actual living and breathing, individual. The Koran refers to Jesus Christ in several instances and the muslims regard him as a profit.

          • Paul Hiett

            I concede that Jesus was a real person. But outside of the Bible, where is the corroboration of the miracles?

          • Crono478

            Here is what Phlegon, Greek historian, recorded that actually occurred during the crucifixion of Jesus:

            In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.

          • ThunderRoad66

            There were no contemporaneous writings of Jesus. Everything written about him is decades later. It’s a made up story.

          • ThunderRoad66

            Prove Jesus existed.

          • jimv1983

            You can’t disprove the existence of anything. I can claim there are invisible flying monkeys living on Mars. You can’t prove that there aren’t but that doesn’t mean they exist.

            The one making the claim of something existing has the responsibility of providing evidence that the cousin is true. If that can’t be done then the claim doesn’t deserve consideration. It’s called burden of proof.

          • JCIL

            Oh please, not the ‘invisible’ whatever nonsense again. To believe that is a rational argument betrays your intelligence. The ‘can’t prove a negative’ is foolish at best, and completely illogical at worst.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So then his contention that there are flying monkeys on Mars is true, because he believes it’s true and you can’t prove it’s not, correct?

          • jimv1983

            The “can’t prove a negative” argument is perfectly valid.

            If your only reason to believe something is true is because you can’t prove it isn’t then you’ll believe in anything.

            You say my argument is nonsense but how about you answer the question? I’m claiming that there ARE invisible flying monkeys on Mars. Do you believe that is true? Why or why not? You can’t prove that it ISN’T true. Is that proof that it is true?

            Look up Bertrand Russell. He was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian and writer. He posed a hypothetical situation, famously referred to as “Russell’s Teapot”, to illustrate philosophical burden of proof.

            Here is what he wrote:

            “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. 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 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.”

            To put it more simply, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. If verifiable and testable evidence cannot be provided then the claim doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.

          • Badkey

            There it is! “I FEEL it!!!”.

            Yeah… that’s evidence!

            ROFLOL!

          • JCIL

            No, not at all. God is real and interacts in real ways…including speaking audibly. Didn’t you know that?

          • Paul Hiett

            So you’ve recorded his voice?

          • JCIL

            What for? He said what He needed to say. We got the message loud and clear.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you didn’t record his voice and therefore have no proof.

            Gotcha.

          • JCIL

            “So you didn’t record his voice and therefore have no proof.”

            I don’t need any proof for myself. Are you saying you don’t believe me? What proof do you have that I’m lying? Any?

          • Badkey

            They have meds for those that hear voices.

          • JCIL

            “They have meds for those that hear voices.”

            For people with mental issues, yes. I don’t have any. God is real. You can know Him as I do. He wants you to know Him. But that is up to you. You can remain in denial, or get to know the living God.

          • Badkey

            If you hear “god” in your head, you’re mentally ill.

          • JCIL

            I said audibly. But He can speak to your spirit too. God can do all things. Isn’t it naive to suggest otherwise?

          • Badkey

            Insane.

          • JCIL

            “Insane.”

            Can you prove that? You make a lot of unfounded assertions. It would be wise to actually check the facts before wholeheartedly buying in to your opinion.

          • Badkey

            You prove it for me by admitting you hear voices.

          • JCIL

            After all this time, you have not provided one piece of evidence to suggest God doesn’t exist…yet you believe it anyway. And you call me insane.

          • Badkey

            And you’ve offered the buybull… a book written by men.

            Nothing more (except for voices in your head).

          • JCIL

            There is a complete book filled with evidences to support a belief in God. Non believers have nothing…yet they believe anyway. That is great faith based on no evidence.

          • jimv1983

            The bible isn’t evidence. The bible is the claim.

          • JCIL

            The Bible is evidence. The OT is Jewish history, and the NT is Christian history, which happens to be nicely corroborated by other histories, such as Roman, Babylonian, Cananite, Egyptian, and so on. There is so much evidence, the only logical conclusion is that God exists.

          • jimv1983

            There are lots of fictional stories that are based on some historical events. That doesn’t mean the entire thing is true. That is referred to as fallacy of composition: Assuming that because part of something is true the entire thing must be true.

            Evidence is verifiable and testable. The bible isn’t.

          • R34lly

            You are mentally ill, but as is typical of those who are, simply can’t recognise it in yourself, it’s just that society lets you get away with it until you breach some secular law in which case you will get hit with the full force of it like any other person, with no favours granted and your gawd will be no-where to be seen to intercede on your behalf.

          • JCIL

            “You are mentally ill”

            Do you have proof for your assertion? Why is it that non believers make a lot of unsubstantiated assertions and then believe they are true?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            From you:

            “That internal angst you are feeling”

            “Denial works for some people.”

            “It is known. It’s called preference.”

            Why do you make a lot of unsubstantiated assertions and then believe they are true?

          • JCIL

            They are true. Check the research yourself rather than going by your uniformed opinion.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I do not have internal angst.

            Since I do not have internal angst, there is nothing to deny.

            There is no proof that sexuality is a preference.

            So, no, they are not true. They are all lies. How do you reconcile your lying with your supposed faith in Christianity?

          • jimv1983

            If god is real why is there zero evidence for his existence?

          • Lynda Falls
          • JCIL

            There is an abundance of evidence. You can start here:
            http://www.godandscience.org

          • jimv1983

            That site is ridiculous. It’s full of logical fallacies and false information.

          • ThunderRoad66

            Like I said, in your head.

          • Badkey

            You experience the delusions of the mythologically brainwashed.

          • JCIL

            “You experience the delusions of the mythologically brainwashed”

            Do you have proof for your assertion?

          • Badkey

            Your words.

          • JCIL

            That’s all you have to defend your belief is an opinion? That’s it?!

            Non believers have great faith, more than I could muster.

          • Badkey

            That’s all you’ve offered.

          • JCIL

            There are many resources online that have this evidence. If you truly wanted to know the truth, it’s only a click or two away. There is no excuse for not knowing today.

          • Badkey

            There are just as many resources supporting UFOs, Bigfoot, and Nessie.

            And at least they have bad photographs.

          • JCIL

            I don’t recall the USA printing on its legal currency, in Big Foot we trust, or We Trust In Nessie, do you?
            That should be a tip for you.

          • Badkey

            ROFLOL!

            Which god is that? Thor? Vishnu?

            It’s CULTURAL… nothing more. Placed on currency in the 1950s to differentiate us from the “godless commies”.

            It proves nothing.

            Oh… wow… no wonder your kind are disappearing from our cultural landscape!

          • JCIL

            “It’s CULTURAL… nothing more.”

            It’s the Christian God. Can you prove He doesn’t exist? Nope. Yet you believe it anyway. Don’t you think it’s time to challenge your illogical beliefs?

          • Badkey

            Where does it say that?

            Where is your angry sky monster ever pointed out specifically?

          • Oboehner

            Just like the Billions of years mythology.

          • R34lly

            Not lairs, just mentally ill. In any other context, if you claimed to hear voices that no-one else can hear then you would be sectioned. As it is plenty of people are on a regular basis when they claim they heard the voice of God tell them to kill someone. What makes you different from them, the simple fact that you haven’t killed someone?

            It’s just like the guy who recently burned down a porn shop “because God told him to do it”. No court is going to say “Oh God said that? Well be on your way good citizen”.

          • JCIL

            “Not lairs, just mentally ill. ”

            You are mistaken then. There’s a vast difference between having a real relationship with the living God and being mentally ill.

            “t’s just like the guy who recently burned down a porn shop “because God told him to do it”

            The tip off would be that God doesn’t tell people to burn down anything today.

          • ThunderRoad66

            It’s all in your head. Every bit of it.

          • JCIL

            No, that is reality. You can know God and have a real relationship with Him. He is real and does real things.

          • lynn

            Then I might be mentally ill. Since the Lord Jesus Christ saved my soul 57 years ago, He has spoken to me 3 times. Once because I was doing something that He wasn’t pleased with. Another time when I was really worried that I was going to have a heart attack, and another time when I was panning for gold.
            I won’t go into the details, but I will tell you that all three times I heard him call me by name more than once. So for me to believe is not only by faith, but also by experience. However it is important to note that faith in Jesus came first. Now you can call for someone to come and take me to the funny farm if you want to.

          • ThunderRoad66

            You make the claim there is a god. The burden of proof is yours and you have none but nonsensical “warm fuzzy feelings”. Can you prove I didn’t just put a teapot in orbit around Mars?

          • JCIL

            Why do non believers use this silly ‘teapot’ nonsense as an argument. Can’t they see it is completely illogical and foolish?

            But it does demonstrate how far they have to go to manufacture something to support their belief.

          • Lynda Falls

            I experience God, I hear His voice and sense His presence. He leads me and guides me, strengthens me and gives me comfort.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Hmmmm….he interacts with me all the time as well, and he tells me your views are completely wrong. My views are based on a book I wrote. Everything I wrote in the book was inspired by God and he guided me in what I wrote. Therefore, it is true.

          • Richard Truelove

            Prove that you have a brain…It can’t be seen, it can’t be heard, and it can’t be felt…vis a vis you have no brain.

          • Badkey

            You can see it.

            You can hear it if you smack it.

            You can feel it.

            That would involve he be at least unconscious, but… stupid argument is stupid.

          • Paul Hiett

            We can take pictures of it.

            You lost that one easy.

          • R34lly

            Oh, rubbish! If I drill a hole in your skull and take a peek into it I can say “Low and behold, there is a brain”! Except probably in your case, when I will probably find a void accompanied by the sound of air being sucked into what was until then a vacuum.

          • jimv1983

            People have seen brains before. They have been touched and studied. You can put a living person in a machine like an MRI and take pictures of the brain. No such luck with god.

          • John Jacoby

            The heavens declare the glory of God;
            the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
            Psalm 19:1

          • colt721

            There are many things that cannot be seen, heard or felt. At least not without special tools. Atoms, Molecules, Higgs Bosuns, Quarks, Mitochondria… They still exist, or do you doubt those as well? Just because it cannot be sensed by you does not mean it does not exist.
            The Bible is the tool by which we see God the same as a microscope is used to see some of these other things.

          • Cathy Ross

            The same with the wind. You can not see it. You can only see its activity: what it does, or the destruction it has done. There is proof that God does exist. Everywhere you look, you see His creations. From the earth itself to the animals and people on it. He created the stars and the universe. Don’t tell me about evolution.. Evolution is only an element of the imagination, made up by an atheist to try to disprove the bible. The sad thing is, so many people fell for it. And like a lot of other material, was taught as truth in the public schools. There is one thing you need to know. Just because someone believes a thing, it doesn’t mane it so. On the other hand, if you don’t want to believe a thing, you wouldn’t believe it if it jumped up and bit you in the face!

          • John Jacoby

            20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

            21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
            Romans 1:20-22

          • Badkey

            No need. You can’t prove it does.

          • JCIL

            I’ll take your answer to mean you don’t have any evidence to support your belief that God doesn’t exist.

            Aren’t you even a little embarrassed to believe something without any evidence?

          • Badkey

            I’ll take your answer to mean you have no evidence that your sky monster exists.

            You’re asking people to prove a negative without offering anything positive.

            What, are you in the 6th grade?

          • JCIL

            “I’ll take your answer to mean you have no evidence that your sky monster exists.”

            Then you are mistaken. There is an abundance of evidence both practical and personal. Have you taken any time to evaluate it?

            “You’re asking people to prove a negative without offering anything positive.”

            You are mistaken here too. Proving God is not similar to proving a negative. God is already establishes as fact and a matter of the historical record. To not believe in God requires you disprove the already established fact. Can you?

          • Badkey

            You’ve not posted anything to evaluate except “I feel it” which is meaningless.

            To believe in god requires you to prove sky monsters exist.

            You can’t.

          • JCIL

            Have you taken any time to evaluate the abundance of evidence? Any of it?

          • Badkey

            No evidence has yet been put forward.

            Any “evidence” could be used as identical “evidence” to prove there is a magic flying spaghetti monster (My you be Touched by His Noodly Appendage, R’amen).

          • JCIL

            God is a matter of the historical record. God is already established as fact. Can you disprove these?

            Equating established fact to fanciful imaginary beings is illogical. But isn’t it sad that that’s all you have? Silly illogical nonsense in place of a reasoned argument.

          • Badkey

            Where is this “historical record”?

            Where is it “established as fact”?

            You use lots of words… but you’re mentally unsound (hearing voices) so you need some support for such statements.

            You offer nothing.

          • JCIL

            The Bible is a matter of history…Jewish history and Christian history. Non biblical historians wrote about it and Jesus. Other cultures borrow from the Bible to supplement their own histories. Archeological evidence supports Biblical history.
            Scientific evidence support many of the Biblical accounts.

            Those are facts!

          • Badkey

            The buybull is a book of mythology written by men.

            Just like Stephen King novels, it references places that do exist, but in a context of fiction.

            If that’s all you have, you have nothing.

          • JCIL

            “The buybull is a book of mythology written by men.”

            That’s an unfounded assertion. Unless you can prove it. Can you?

          • Badkey

            Your assertion that it is anything more is unfounded. Unproven.

            Can’t prove it, can you?

          • JCIL

            More silly nonsense in place of a reasoned argument.

            Non believers have great faith in their uninformed opinion.

          • Richard Truelove

            There is no evidence that man evolved from a lower primate, still looking for that “missing link”, and yet millions believe that…same argument different aspect.

          • Badkey

            I am not debating evolution with you.

            You have no evidence. Zero.

          • JCIL

            “You have no evidence. Zero.”

            Incorrect once again. There is an abundance of evidence that points to God. Non believers have none.

          • Badkey

            That’s in your head. It is not real.

          • JCIL

            God gave us supernatural events as proof of Him. The universe from nothing is a supernatural event. Life from non life is a supernatural event. Predictive and fulfilled prophecy is another. Jesus rising from the dead is another. Jesus performing miracles is another. The fine-tuning of the universe is another…and so on.

          • Badkey

            Supernatural events?

            BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA!!! oh… I’ve gotta pee!!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA!!! BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAA!!! o

          • JCIL

            Do you have natural explanations for:

            The universe from nothing?
            Life from non life?
            Predictive and fulfilled prophecy?
            Jesus rising from the dead?
            Jesus performing miracles?
            The fine-tuning of the universe?

            Badkey, you have a lot of opinions, but no facts. Why is that?

          • Badkey

            No prophecy has been fulfilled.

            The universe existing is not proof of an angry sky monster.

            Jesus did not raise from the dead nor perform miracles.

            Those are mythology… fantasy.

            You’re fun. A great and powerful ally are you! You seem to thing your opinions are facts… hypocrisy much?

          • JCIL

            “No prophecy has been fulfilled.”

            Yes, over 2000. Unless you can prove some of the wrong. Can you? Asserting your uninformed opinion doesn’t equate to facts no matter how many times you assert it.

            Denying the facts doesn’t negate them either. You prove to be illogical and unreasonable. Those don’t deny the facts either.

          • ThunderRoad66

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

            Watch this if you actually care about the origins of man. It’s irrefutable we evolved from lower primates. Every fossil is a form in transition so the idea of missing links is nonsense.

          • ThunderRoad66

            LOLOL What historical record??

          • JCIL

            The OT in the Bible is Jewish history – a historical record.

            The NT is Christian history – a historical record.

            Both have historical and archeological evidence to support many of their claims.

          • John Jacoby

            If I commit a crime and am sentenced to death in an electric chair, it really doesn’t matter if I believe in an electric chair of not. Whether you believe in God (Yahweh, Jehova, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) or not doesn’t change that He does.
            The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

          • dark477

            i see an electric chair I can observe it’s effects so I know it’s real, you can’t do that with a god

          • Daniele Ruvoletto

            What really matter is the separation from God true our sinful nature and( very important ) the pursuing of that nature which is dictated by the assumptive character of lies: that because satan is the father of lies. he is in total opposition of the Laws which God gave, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. it accomplish his work true the itchy ears of the flash: do what ever you want… is all good….there is no fundamental truth… what you believe is truth… is all within your selves …. so forth and so on! Coexisting like a little bunch of scarity cats waiting in tremble for their demise. Repentance and a change of heart, humbleness, is the beginning of wisdom. The Bible told me so!!!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “We already know how God views homosexuality.”

            More accurately put: You BELIEVE you know how God views homosexuality.

            “It’s not normative behavior, and it never will be.”

            I agree that being homosexual is not normal. Just as it is not normal to be left-handed.

          • JCIL

            “You BELIEVE you know how God views homosexuality.”

            You can read what God says for yourself. Look up Sodom and Gomorrah and many other passages.

            “I agree that being homosexual is not normal. Just as it is not normal to be left-handed.”

            Seriously?! Being left handed is normal for someone who is left-handed or chooses to be. There is a vast difference between being left-handed and choosing immoral behavior.

            It’s sad how far some gay proponents will go to try and justify their immoral behavior. That in itself is telling!

          • Paul Hiett

            JCIL, do you find members of your same gender to be at all arousing to you?

          • JCIL

            “JCIL, do you find members of your same gender to be at all arousing to you?”

            Your questions speak of ignorance on the subject. I suggest you do some serious research into the fluid nature of sexuality before you continue.

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s a simple question. Why can’t you answer it?

          • JCIL

            It’s sad that you have to resort to ignorance on the subject to try and substantiate it. This is also very telling.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes or no…it’s a simple question. Either you do find the same gender appealing, or you don’t. Which is it? Or, are you too embarrassed by the answer?

          • JCIL

            Study the subject and you’ll get your answer.

          • Paul Hiett

            Too scared to answer. There’s a word for that.

            Coward.

          • JCIL

            Childish response. Personal attacks and insults don’t make an reasoned argument.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Neither does not answering a question.

          • JCIL

            I did answer it. You just don’t like my answer. Study, my friend, will set you free from your faulty beliefs.

          • Paul Hiett

            No you didn’t. It’s a yes or no question.

          • JCIL
          • Paul Hiett

            Why are you so scared to answer? Are you afraid of the truth?

          • JCIL

            Either you didn’t read the information about sexual development, or you choose to ignore it.

          • Oboehner

            Are you hitting on JCIL?

          • Badkey

            Spooooooky mythology!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “You can read what God says for yourself.”

            The Bible was not written by God. It was written by men CLAIMING that what they were writing reflected God’s views. Just as every other religious text claims. That you have chosen to believe that the Bible accurately depicts God’s views does not mean that it does. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            “Being left handed is normal for someone who is left-handed”

            Being homosexual is normal for someone who is homosexual.

            “There is a vast difference between being left-handed and choosing immoral behavior.”

            The Pilgrims branded people who were left-handed as being possessed by the devil. So, apparently, THEY did not believe that there was a “vast difference”. Which clearly shows the reason why we do not base on laws exclusively on what one person or group believes is moral or immoral.

            “It’s sad how far some gay proponents will go to try and justify their immoral behavior.”

            While you are certainly free to view it as being immoral, what is considered moral and immoral depends on one’s belief system. My behavior needs no justification.

          • JCIL

            “The Bible was not written by God.”

            The Biblical writers were inspired by God to write the things they recorded. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their evilness. Man didn’t do that, but merely recorded it and the reason it was destroyed. God doesn’t change and neither does His moral laws.

            “Being homosexual is normal for someone who is homosexual.”

            No. Homosexual behavior is not normal. You are confusing the person with his behaviors. A common mistake among gay proponents.

            “The Pilgrims branded people who were left-handed as being possessed by the devil.”

            This is a silly…and stretching…comparison. If you noticed, God doesn’t say anything about left handed people. But He does say a lot about homosexual behavior.

            “While you are certainly free to view it as being immoral, what is considered moral and immoral depends on one’s belief system.”

            Only to moral relativists.

            “My behavior needs no justification.”

            It will to God. You can be sure He’ll raise that with you when you meet Him…and you will.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “The Biblical writers were inspired by God to write the things they recorded. ”

            That is what you have chosen to believe. There is no proof of that.

            “No. Homosexual behavior is not normal.”

            Agreed. Neither is writing with your left hand normal.

            “But He does say a lot about homosexual behavior.”

            That is your belief and you are entitled to it.

            “Only to moral relativists.”

            Then why are the various sects of Christianity unable to come to a consensus on the totality of what is moral and what is not, despite all of them using the same book for guidance?

            “It will to God. You can be sure He’ll raise that with you when you meet Him…and you will.”

            Probably so. You and I, however, disagree on his reaction.

          • JCIL

            “That is what you have chosen to believe. There is no proof of that.”

            You keep saying that, but that ‘s not true. I mention predictive and fulfilled prophecy as one evidence the God of the Bible is real. No other belief on earth has predictive and fulfilled prophecy. This is one example of how God left a way for us to find Him.

            “Neither is writing with your left hand normal.”

            I’m glad you agree that homosexual behavior is not normal. Writing with your left hand is normal for people who right with their left hand.

            “That is your belief and you are entitled to it.”

            That is a fact! You can choose to believe it or not. But your choice doesn’t negate the fact.

            “Then why are the various sects of Christianity unable to come to a consensus on the totality of what is moral and what is not, despite all of them using the same book for guidance?”

            People are people. They exercise their free will to believe anything they choose. Don’t blame God for them wanting their own way and outside of His.

            “Probably so. You and I, however, disagree on his reaction.”

            His reaction isn’t a mystery. He’s made it clear what His expectations are.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            To suggest that because the New Testament contains stories regarding the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, when the OT was available to use as a reference, is not proof.

            “No other belief on earth has predictive and fulfilled prophecy.”

            There were numerous belief systems that predate Christianity that basically cover the same things. A Being came to Earth and provided salvation to people. Christianity was not the first to present this concept. The main cause for the rise of Christianity was due to Constantine making it the official religion of the Roman Empire.

            “Writing with your left hand is normal for people who right with their left hand.”

            Just as being attracted to people of the same gender is normal for homosexuals.

            “That is a fact!”

            No, it is your belief that it is fact. That’s why it’s called “faith” and not “fact”.

            “They exercise their free will to believe anything they choose.”

            Exactly.

            “His reaction isn’t a mystery.”

            That you have chosen to believe that the Bible contains insight into how God will react, you cannot know for certain unless you are God. Are you God?

          • JCIL

            “To suggest that because the New Testament contains stories regarding the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, when the OT was available to use as a reference, is not proof.”

            Predicting something will happen 800 or more years in the future and it happening as predicted is absolute proof!

            “There were numerous belief systems that predate Christianity that basically cover the same things.”

            This is another fallacy non believers use, and it too is completely incorrect.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Predicting something will happen 800 or more years in the future and it happening as predicted is absolute proof!”

            What is written in the NT regarding fulfillment of prophesy is like an open book test. The stories fulfill prophesy because they decided to view them as fulfilling prophesy. It’s like a book showing that the prophesies of Nostradamus came true.

            “This is another fallacy non believers use, and it too is completely incorrect.”

            You are mistaken.

            http://www.nairaland.com/193520/there-many-other-virgin-births

            http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html

            http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm

            http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

          • JCIL

            What a bunch of nonsense! Over 300 predictions of Jesus all came true as predicted, with the majority outside of the control of human forces. And your nonsense does nothing to negate the over 2000 predictions fulfilled before Christ arrived.

            Your naive explanation is telling.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “What a bunch of nonsense!”

            What, specifically, in those links did you find to be “nonsense”?

            “Over 300 predictions of Jesus all came true as predicted”

            What part of “they knew what the predictions were so they could easily write that they came true” do you not understand?

          • jimv1983

            Just because YOU think it’s immortal doesn’t mean others do. It’s really none of your damn business.

          • JCIL

            God says it’s immoral. And it is my business.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You have chosen to believe God says it’s immoral based upon your decision to believe that the Bible contains the word of God. Your belief does not make it fact.

          • jimv1983

            How is it your businesses? How does it effect you at all? And who cares what god says. The United States isn’t ran on biblical law so when it comes to legal rights your opinion doesn’t matter.

          • John Jacoby

            The Lord has given us His Word, of which Jesus Christ is the central theme in both old and new testaments. Sexual immorality is talked about in both books and is considered a sin against a holy and just God. So is lying, stealing and blasphemy, all of which deserve the punishment off death. We cannot be in the presence of a holy, righteous and just Creator when we have committed sins against Him. However, He gives us a way to have our fine paid and our sins forgiven, if we repent of our sins and accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins was buried and resurrected. No matter the sin, if you repent and ask for forgiveness, you will be forgiven and clothes in the righteousness of Christ, that you may be in the presence of God for ever. That is what matters.
            By the way, left handedness is not a sin.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are certainly free to your beliefs. Your choosing to believe something does not, however, make it true.

            “By the way, left handedness is not a sin.”

            Too bad you weren’t part of the Pilgrim settlements. They branded left-handed people as being possessed by the devil.

          • John Jacoby

            Let me say that I respect that you and I are entitled to our opinions and beliefs. “Your choosing to believe something does not, however, make it true.”
            The converse can be said as well. If I commit a crime and am sentenced to death in an electric chair, it really doesn’t matter if I believe in an electric chair of not. Whether you believe in God (Yahweh, Jehova, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) or not doesn’t change that He does exist. Point being that we will all one day stand before a holy and righteous God and have to answer for our sins. Whether you believe it or not, it will happen. If you repent and put your trust in Jesus, you can be forgiven of your sins and will not receive the punishment of death. My friend, this is the gospel of Jesus Christ. That you can have eternal life. He has made a path;
            Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6
            I don’t know much about the pilgrim settlements and their beliefs, but that is certainly NOT biblical. It is superstitious.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Comparing something that exists in the physical world (an electric chair) to the concept of a supreme being that does not exist in the physical world is not a valid comparison.

            I believe that God does exist.

            “Whether you believe it or not, it will happen.”

            While I respect that is your belief, you cannot say with certainty what will happen when we die. Unless, of course, you have died and experienced what happened. Have you died?

            “It is superstitious.”

            That was not their view. Who are you to say that their view of being “possessed” was wrong?

          • Grendel007

            like most post-modern thinkers you don’t even understand how what you say makes what you say irrelevant.

          • amanofgod

            Person A: All views are equally valid and true.
            Person B: My view says “at least one of the many views is not true”
            Person A to Person B: “you are hateful, bigoted, and intolerant, and everyone’s [elses] view is equally true”
            Person B responding to Person A: “except my view, which makes your declaration a non-sequitor”

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Well thank goodness you are here to explain it to. Please, go right ahead and explain how what I said makes what I said irrelevant.

          • amanofgod

            thank you, as a left handed human. I feel absolved. I carry a red-headed gene, and my son is red headed. the Roman Catholic Church has had members burn us redheaded people to death for that genetic expression. Is red headedness a sin? I am with you on the rest of what you have said. Especially the part about REPENTANCE.

          • lynn

            I was left handed but they made me change when I started first grade. Times sure have changed. Some for better and some for worse.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Yes, they have. The specifics of better and worse, however, would depend on one’s perspective.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Gay proponents use the words ‘bigot’ and ‘hate filled’ in an attempt to silence anyone who disagrees with their opinion.”

            Complete hyperbole. Have you been silenced? Anyone on here who has expressed views similar to yours? Has anyone attempted to silence you?

            Having a different view does not make one a bigot. Anyone who suggests differently is simply wrong, as that is not the definition of “bigot”.

          • JCIL

            “Has anyone attempted to silence you?”

            Yes, by using terms like ‘bigot,’ ‘hate-filled,’ and bully. Also by lying about homosexual behavior in order to silence critics.

            “as that is not the definition of “bigot”.

            Really. Then why do gay proponents use ‘bigot’ so often?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Yes, by using terms like ‘bigot,’ ‘hate-filled,’ and bully.”

            It hasn’t worked very well. Why would stop sharing your views because other people refer to you as a bigot or hate-filled?

            “Also by lying about homosexual behavior”

            Why lies and how would someone else telling lies require that others be silent?

            “Then why do gay proponents use ‘bigot’ so often?”

            “Gay proponents” don’t use the word “bigot so often”. SOME people use that word and, if used to describe a person who simply has a different point of view, it is used incorrectly. There are times, however, when the word fits. Just as it fits for those who express intolerance for all people who belong to any group.

          • JCIL

            “Why would stop sharing your views because other people refer to you as a bigot or hate-filled?”

            I don’t. But many do because they don’t like to be put down or made to feel bad.

            “Why lies”

            Because the truth wouldn’t be palatable. So gay activists lied to people. That also speaks of how desperate they are to have their behavior deemed ‘moral.’

            “Just as it fits for those who express intolerance for all people who belong to any group.”

            Gays don’t belong to a ‘group.’ They engage in immoral sexual acts. That’s not a group anymore than ped – o files belong to a ‘group.’

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            My apologies – my question should have read: “What lies?” rather than “Why lies?”.

            So if you don’t, then all opposition is not being silenced – your statement was hyperbole.

            “That also speaks of how desperate they are to have their behavior deemed ‘moral.'”

            Who is “they” and what are some examples?

            “Gays don’t belong to a ‘group.'”

            Actual they do – that group is homosexuals. They also belong to the human group. Some belong to the male group. Others belong to the female group. A group is based on any number of traits.

          • Grendel007

            You need to change name to cluelessfromflorida as you haven’t been laying much attention if you really believe the things you say

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            How so?

          • Grendel007

            You are completely clueless

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            How so?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You keep saying the things I want to say before I can!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            LOL

          • Grendel007

            So all the leftists calling others bigots are wrong? Going on record with that?
            Also, it seems you havent been laying attention to the news if you don’t know about the people who have lost jobs just because they disagree w gay marriage.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “Your comment is like saying math is wrong because you don’t understand it.”

            I never said that.

            “if you don’t know about the people who have lost jobs just because they disagree w gay marriage.”

            Please, tell me about them.

          • Lizzy

            There are those who have been silenced, lost their livelihoods and their jobs because of homosexuals persecuting those who oppose them. Please read the attached article to see what is really happening in our country regarding homosexual rights.

            http://www.wayoflife.org/database/homosexualitylegal.html

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please tell me who is no longer allowed to share their views.

            “lost their livelihoods”

            If you are referring to people who violated anti-discrimination laws, then yes, there are consequences to breaking the law. Do you feel that Christians should be above the law?

            “and their jobs”

            Do you believe that employers should NOT be allowed to determine appropriate workplace behavior? Do you believe that Christians should be above such policies?

            The link you provided is not what is “really happening in our country regarding homosexual rights”. It is a hyperbolic, lie-filled, deceptive piece that is no more reality than Harry Potter.

            If you want me to show you how wrong it is, point by point, I’d be more than happy to.

          • Death defeater

            Your on the wrong side of history and our country will be further destroyed by hateful sodomites who only care about self…..God help us.

          • Ralston Hughes

            Actually the federal judge has overstepped by attempting to nullify a law approved by a majority of the voters of a state. Constitutionally the fed cannot over ride the state. There have been many past challenges of this type and the fed rarely wins. Only when a law is considered to violate the us constitution can the fed legally override the state.

          • dark477

            and the federal judge ruled that these bans violated the Constitution.

          • Jack Rohde

            You must be a person that grew up with demonic doorways to the spirit world, that’s sad, I know what you went through man, but don’t let the demons and their spirit world twist your logic brother, and turn you thoughts over to Jesus because he is love and satan is hate man cant you see you are the one that hates Jesus and his way? satan is the one who hates gays, Jesus and Christians love the gays and everyone else, satan and his demons want to send gays and you and everyone else to hell by tricking them into a life without God.

          • dark477

            piss off

          • Lgbpop

            No, Dork, the federal government does not outrank the State governments. The federal government, State governments and the people all are guaranteed certain rights and granted certain powers. The Feds have no purview in matters whose ramifications lie entirely within a State’s borders, no matter how strongly they push to usurp state power. Read your Constitution.

          • dark477

            apparently you’ve never heard of the Supremacy Clause

            “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
            made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be
            made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
            of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,
            anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
            notwithstanding.”

            if a feral judge rules that any state law is in violation of the Constitution then they must follow that ruling.

          • Lgbpop

            That is true, as far as enforcing that which the Constitution stipulates as the rights and powers of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment states that those rights and powers not SPECIFICALLY allocated to the federal government are reserved to the various States, or to the people.

            Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government power to overrule state law where the law is enforced strictly with that state, and where no federal constitutional rights are broken. For the feds to overrule state law regarding homosexual marriage requires a constitutional amendment stating that homosexual marriage is a right and privilege guaranteed by the federal constitution.

            Stop trying to overturn state laws illegally, and get to work on that amendment. Just for once, you leftists, do something by the book.

          • dark477

            the federal judge ruled that Alabama’s ban on SSM was unconstitutional don’t you understand that?

          • Grendel007

            Normal is irrelevant? I hope you realize you have destroyed any possible credibility with such a ludicrous statement.

          • dark477

            “Normal is an illusion. What is normal for the spider is chaos for the fly.”


            Charles Addams

          • familyvonbarnhart

            Please see my comment above as to why the Alabama Supreme Court does have legal authority on this subject.

        • Pirate

          Real love sees no color, no gender, no race, nothing but another human being.
          Sorry you christians can’t get over this.
          Besides – have you stopped eating shellfish? Stopped touching footballs? (pigskin), stopped wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? Stopped getting tattoos?

          • Harry Oh!

            How about loving your dog or your own child sexually? By your definition, as long as its love, it’s ok. Your argument could never win on reason, or common sense, so the only weapon you have is to jam, vilify and hope that crazy judges unilaterally force gay marriage upon society. That might make you feel good for a while in this life, but you will be in for a big shock in the next one.

      • bowie1

        That sounds like a top down dictatorship does it not?

        • dark477

          no it’s just the way things work in this country.

      • The Last Trump

        Says the bigot obsessed with being on the wrong side of a Christian website, with absolutely no authority whatsoever to overrule the Word of God.

        • dark477

          the word of your god is irrelevant and powerless

          • The Last Trump

            You tell Him when you see Him.
            Not long now… 🙂

          • dark477

            Stop trying to making Armageddon happen. It’s not gonna happen

          • The Last Trump

            Uh huh.
            Don’t watch the news much eh? Too busy trolling Christian websites?
            Back to sleep little LGBT troll. Pay no attention to the Israeli Prime Minister who travelled to Washington only yesterday to warn the United States and, indeed, the world of the impending and unavoidable war in the Middle East. You know, that little speech before the United States Congress that the media have been buzzing about for weeks? No?
            Figures. Back to sleep…”gay rights, gay rights! Rah, rah, rah!”

          • dark477

            All i saw was a leader trying to make something seem like a bigger threat than it is to get more support.

      • Lgbpop

        Ahem….the States created the federal government, and representatives of the various states laid out the boundaries of the federal government’s purview, Interfering in intrastate affairs was expressly forbidden. Alabama, and the other 49 states are entirely within their rights to reaffirm their sovereignty under the Constitution and to repulse federal intrusion into State affairs.

        Just because you disagree with the people of Alabama who determine their own laws, you have no right to call them bigots merely because you disagree with them. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to live there or visit there. I am sure they mutually would appreciate that.

        • dark477

          Alabama cannot violate the Constitution no matter what the people want I don’t give a damn about the ‘”state rights” if the federal government tell you to do something then you do it

          • Lgbpop

            Look, Dork – the Constitution was written with limits to the federal government’s power. READ IT. They do not have the power to override state law in matters that are entirely intrastate. That is why the feds go to such great lengths to extend the Commerce Clause to everything under the sun, just to claim that an intrastate matter somehow affects interstate “trade” and therefore can be regulated by the feds. This has been going on for 80 years. There is no right in the federal Constitution being violated that gives the feds any right to interfere with Alabama state law here.

            The Founding Fathers anticipated this creeping power grab which is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. The States created the federal government; if it gets too far out of control, they also have the power to change it. That movement is now underway amongst the various States; 25 of the 34 states necessary to call for a Constitutional Convention already have passed resolutions calling for precisely that.

          • dark477

            take a civics class moron. the states don’t have the authority to overrule the federal courts and there is no moment it’s just the delusions of a bunch of pathetic right wing pigs

      • http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net Stephen Bratton

        dark477, Actually, they do have the authority to overrule a federal judge. It’s called the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate and it has been common practice for thousands of years. It’s also the doctrine that gave birth to the United States of America. A lesser magistrate has the duty and authority to obey what is MORALLY RIGHT regardless of what the higher authority says.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Excellent! Outstanding rebuttal!

        • dark477

          no they don’t, a federal judge outranks a state judge even if they are apart of the state supream court. but I wouldn’t expect a christan pig to understand that

          • http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net Stephen Bratton

            The fact that you have to move to ad hominem attacks proves that you have no basis for your argument. That seems to be the modus operandi of the left. A federal judge does NOT outrank a state judge in matters of the state.

          • dark477

            this is a matter of the Constitution, it is unconstitutional to deny someone the right to marriage without a valid reason.

      • Grendel007

        And you are a fool who doesn’t know history and whose intellectually abilities do not exist beyond regurgitating talking points

        • dark477

          what history do I need to learn?

      • Rob Brown

        Communism is on the wrong side of history(never worked), Multiculturalism is on the wrong side of history(Europe dying), Secular Humanism is on the wrong side of history(China will eventually declare itself a Christian nation), Profligacy is on the wrong side of history(Rome). Who’s really on the wrong side of history? I mean, if you people were consistent, since you believe the Bible was written waaaaaay after Christians say it was, then you would have to admit that it is a much newer concept than stone age collectivism, sniff and mount and sniff and mount anything on 2 legs(multiculturalism, which is really white guilt and the desire to atone by being bred out of existence)

        • dark477

          Europe’s not dying.

          • Rob Brown

            Well, I beg to differ. I have friends in many European countries. Italy, in 10 years will be New North Africa. It’s called Italy for a reason, It’s because Italians live there. Not any more. Spain and France will be the next to go. Your proximity to Africa and the Middle East depends on how quickly you will be destroyed. China, is state capitalism nation. OK, it might not technically be purely communist but just as the left lumps all Christians together without allowing for distinctions when discussing something like the Crusades, I will just lump all commies together as a festering malignancy.

      • familyvonbarnhart

        You are wrong. Here is why: The United States is a collection of Autonomous (self-governing) States. Unless the Constitution of the US gives specific authority to the Federal Gov’t on a topic – the authority over that topic belongs to the individual state governments. For example: the Constitution gives specific exclusive authority to print money to the Federal Gov’t. The individual states therefore have no authority to print money. The authority over the legal definition of marriage is not specifically given to the Federal Gov’t – therefore the authority over that topic belongs to the State Gov’ts. The Federal Gov’t can make it’s opinion known, but it has no legal right to “strong-arm” the states into doing what it wants in areas that belong under state authority. This is why the probate judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, (Rightfully) “asked the court for further guidance”. The Alabama Supreme Court rightfully has exercised it’s authority on a topic over which it has complete jurisdiction.

      • Terry Slade

        And where does a federal judge get the authority to overrule the constitution of the state of Alabama? And don’t say the U.S. Constitution because it says nothing about marriage. Last time I checked, marriage is a state institution not a federal one. I’ve never seen a marriage license issued by the U.S. government. The 10th Amendment guarantees that any power not given to the federal government by the states remains the power of the states. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

        • dark477

          the supremacy clause. no law can conflict with the Constitution the federal judge ruled that Alabama’s ban on gay marriage was in violation of the Constitution.

          in Loving Vs Virginia and other such cases the supreme court ruled that marriage was a fundamental right and the 14th amendment guarantees all rights to all citizens no matter who they are.

          the 9th amendment says that something doesn’t need to be mentioned specifically in the Constitution for it to be considered a right

      • Conservative seer

        Why force ur opinion on the rest of the nation, we don’t want gay marriage, no thanks, let us be

        • Bill

          I doesn’t matter what you want. you’re not the one being denied marriage

        • Bill

          It doesn’t matter what you want. you’re not the one being denied marriage

    • Gary

      They understand that there is no basis for the legalization of ssm found in the US Constitution, and no prohibition of heterosexual-only marriage laws.

    • Steve

      To bad these are not our U.S. Supreme Court judges.

  • dark477

    aw they think their opinion matters

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    George Wallace would be proud.

  • thoughtsfromflorida

    Given that they are elected, this may well be nothing more than an effort to ensure they keep their jobs in the next election.

    • JCIL

      Not at all. What you are seeing is good people standing for truth.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        “Not at all.”

        So you know for a fact that they have no interest in being reelected and that they gave no consideration to the political implications of their decision? How do you know this?

        • JCIL

          I believe it’s desperate of you to trying and confuse the issue. They made a ruling based on sound judgement. Period.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you don’t know for a fact that they have no interest in being reelected and that they gave no consideration to the political implications of their decision. Therefore, you comment “Not at all” has no basis and is just something you made up. Period.

          • JCIL

            More stretching to confuse…. not work….

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            What are you confused about?

            So, again, you don’t know for a fact that they have no interest in being reelected and that they gave no consideration to the political implications of their decision. Therefore, your comment “Not at all” has no basis and is just something you made up. Period.

          • JCIL

            Still trying to confuse the issue…

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you DON’T believe that elected officials may make decisions based upon how it would affect their ability to get reelected?

          • JCIL

            Still trying to confuse the issue…a demonstration of desperation.

    • Gary

      Even if true, it does not change the fact that they are right in their decision.

      • Badkey

        It doesn’t change the fact that this is futile… a waste of resources.

        All states will see legal marriage between gay couples.

      • Paul Hiett

        It’s only “right” in your imagination. Your Bible is not the law of the land, and never will be. You know what SCOTUS will rule, and there’s nothing you can do about it. The only thing Alabama has done is ensure the rest of the nation will just roll their eyes and remember that this is one of those states that fought tooth and nail against equality for blacks, so it comes as no surprised they’re on the wrong side of this civil rights issue as well.

        • Gary

          The Alabama SC is right about the Alabama marriage laws being in accord with the US Constitution. Heterosexual-only marriage laws are Constitutional.

          • Badkey

            Gay marriage laws are constitutional.

            You know you’re going to lose.

            And like North Carolina, no harm will befall anyone or their marriage.

          • Gary

            ssm legalization is not required by the Constitution of the US.

          • Badkey

            Yes, I know how you feel.

            You have not been harmed. You will not be harmed.

            Yet gay marriage will be legal in all states.

          • Paul Hiett

            No law calling for the discrimination of a group of people will ever be considered “constitutional”. Come June, after SCOTUS rules, you and your hateful cronies will only be able to kick and scream and thump your Bible to no avail.

          • Gary

            There is no discrimination involved. Everyone is under the same laws. You don’t care what the US Cons. says, you just want what you want.

          • Badkey

            I love this… Gary’s already lost his home state, but he has to grab onto futile wailing and gnashing of teeth from bigots in other states.

            Priceless.

          • Gary

            But I have the US Constitution on my side.

          • Badkey

            No… you have a flawed interpretation by an uneducated mind on the matter.

            What will you do in June?

          • Gary

            What will you do in June if the SC rules against you?

          • Badkey

            I’m confident that they will not. Why?

            Because you cannot offer a rational legal defense for the bans. Because not one argument put forward by your side carries any real legal weight. It’s all just “Icky!”,”Babies!”, and “Gawd!!!”.

            None of those arguments work.

            However, if they DID find in your favor, I’d not be affected. Gay marriage will remain legal in my state with full legal recognition. I will continue to financially support those fighting for the good guys against you and yours.

          • Gary

            Federal judges are not allowed to overturn laws unless the laws violate the US Constitution. Heterosexual -only marriage laws do not violate the US Constitution. THat means judges who are legalizing ssm are behaving unconstitutionally. THey are violating their oath.

          • Badkey

            Oh, Gary.

            You poor little thing.

          • Badkey

            Tell us, Gary. How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

          • Gary

            How do hetero-only marriage laws violate the US Constitution ?????

          • Badkey

            Now, now… it’s all there in the court transcripts. Scribd has them all.

            Go read, Gary.

            Why haven’t you answered the questions?

            How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

          • Gary

            It is likely that you have never read the US Constitution and have no idea what it says.

          • Badkey

            Come on old man… Read the court cases and you’ll find that answer. It fits just fine. If you have no rational arguments for upholding the bans and the harm they cause, you will lose.

            How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

          • Gary

            Your side needs to prove that man-woman marriage violates the US Constitution. But you can’t.

          • Badkey

            No, we don’t.

            The provisions of equal protection and benefits/immunities found throughout the constitution work fine in lieu of a rational argument otherwise.

            And… you offer no rational argument.

          • Gary

            Everyone already has equal protection under the traditional marriage laws, which apply to everyone. You want an exception from the rules for homosexuals. That is not equal treatment under the law.

          • Paul Hiett

            So did the KKK for a while.

          • JCIL

            “No law calling for the discrimination of a group of people will ever be considered “constitutional”.”

            Gays aren’t a race of people. They choose immoral behavior.

          • Paul Hiett

            If you weren’t too much of a coward to answer a simple question, I could happily prove you wrong on this.

          • Badkey

            Christians are not a race of people. They’ve chosen to grovel before a mythology.

            Precedent is set. Race does not matter.

          • JCIL

            “They’ve chosen to grovel before a mythology.”

            Do you have any proof for your assertion? I’ve been asking for the last hour and not one non believer has provided anything to support your faith. Do you have anything? At all?

          • Badkey

            Yes.

            You.

          • JCIL

            Silly answers don’t make a reasoned argument. Do you have one?

          • Badkey

            I’m still waiting for you to offer one.

            All you have said is “cuz I said so”.

            That don’t work.

          • JCIL

            I’ll take that to mean you don’t have any reasoned arguments, just uninformed opinions…as I suspected.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Not according to the Federal Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

          • Gary

            I am talking about the text of the US Cons. Not about some judge’s statement

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Gary, again, it would really behoove you to show some humility sometimes. You know, like Jesus commanded.

            In this case, you continue to stubbornly insist that the law works the way you want it to, not the way it actually does. You obviously have no training in the law, which is fine; I don’t expect everyone to.

            But what I do expect is that someone who doesn’t understand something would admit that to himself and others. You, however, continue to cling to your misunderstanding of how law works and expect everyone else, including the legal establishment, to conform to it.

            Why do you do that?

          • Gary

            What you mean is that it only matters what judges say, not what the US Constitution says.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, what I mean is that when the Constitution is ambiguous, it needs to be interpreted. And if your interpretation disagrees with the Federal Judiciary, that’s nice, and your right as an American, but it isn’t law.

            Only one interpretation can be law, and it’s not yours.

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        You are certainly entitled to your opinion on that.

  • JCIL

    Homosexuality is not a ‘rights’ issue, but a moral issue. It’s great to see these judges see this clearly. It’s sad that so many others have bought into the gay propaganda and social bullying.

  • Paul Hiett

    Leave it to the Bible belt to always be behind the rest of the nation when it comes to civil rights, and treating others with any semblance of equality. Come June though, this won’t be an issue anymore.

    • JCIL

      Leave it to non believers to want to wallow in sin. Come judgement day, this will be a huge issue with eternal consequences.

      • Paul Hiett

        I don’t believe in your judgement day, so it’s of no concern to me at all.

        • JCIL

          “I don’t believe in your judgement day, so it’s of no concern to me at all.”

          Denying it doesn’t negate it. Unless you can prove there isn’t going to be a judgement day. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, since there hasn’t been one. Ever. Not once. Until it happens, you can’t prove it will. I’ve got 2000 years to point at as proof.

          • JCIL

            How do you explain predictive and fulfilled prophecy over thousands of years? God said we would know Him as the one and only God because only He knows the future.

            There are over 2000 prophecies in the Bible that have all come true as predicted. The vast majority are very specific and defy logic.

            God said He would send a Messiah. Jesus arrived. Jesus said that Jerusalem would be destroyed in less than 40 years. It was. These two alone let us know that God knows what is going to happen. Based on his track record of 100 percent, that is proof enough that the judgement day will happen as well.

            Unless you can prove all of these prophecies didn’t come true? Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s not one single “prophecy” you can point to that’s been “filled”. Not one. Sorry about that, but truth is truth.

          • Crono478

            Isaiah 17 and Ezekiel 38-39 are two I can think of right now. Both aren’t fulfilled yet.

          • JCIL

            There are over 2000. Your comment demonstrates you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Here’s one:

            Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel’s long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be “cut off,” killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia’s King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ’s ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus’ crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m sorry, but the Bible is not proof of the Bible. Kindly provide the prophecy detailed in the Bible and support it with proof external of the Bible.

          • JCIL

            “but the Bible is not proof of the Bible.”

            Of course it is. The Bible is a historical record. Unless you can prove the Bible is untrue. Can you?

            And, if the Bible wasn’t true, why do so many other cultures use it to supplement their own histories?

            Your comments demonstrate you have little knowledge of what you are criticizing.

          • Paul Hiett

            A historical record? Talking snakes? World wide floods that never happened? People rising from the dead left and right?

            What, exactly, makes you think it’s a historical record?

          • JCIL

            The error you are having is taking parts of the Bible literally and not in the intention of the writer. The Bible is a literary work, which uses literary devices to communicate its meanings. Learning how to read the Bible correctly would solve the confusion you are having.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so it requires interpretation now. And what you’re saying, is that your interpretation, one of over 42,000, is the right one?

          • JCIL

            Of course it does, like all literature. If you don’t read it with the intent it was written, you’ll come away with the wrong meaning…like all literature.

  • Badkey

    What a waste of time. Gay marriage will come to Alabama no matter how much they wail and gnash teeth.

    • Paul Hiett

      I’m hoping they’re the last state…nothing says “hate” like being the last state to implement civil rights.

      • Badkey

        Certainly is one state that can’t have the federal government stopping the flow of cash.

        It’s going to be fun to watch.

  • David Morales

    Has anybody here ever been to the Holy Cities and seen the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah? You can’t cover THAT with your hand! And people still don’t GET why it’s called “Sodomizing” It does’nt even lubricate by itself,.. Un-natural? Thank you!

    • Badkey

      Mythology.

      Not gonna help you.

    • MattFCharlestonSC

      Insane– I was unaware that self lubrication is a quality of nature.

  • Gary

    The US Constitution would have to be amended before it could require ssm to be legal. Those who now claim that the Constitution requires legal ssm are liars.

    • Badkey

      Poor Gary.

      Tell us, Gary. How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

      You never seem to be able to answer any of those questions.

      • Gary

        You can never prove the Constitution requires the legalization of ssm.

        • Badkey

          I don’t have to. The courts do, and have.

          Tell us, Gary. How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

          • Gary

            The courts have not proven the US Cons. requires the legalization of ssm.

          • Badkey

            Can’t answer? Why is that?

            How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

            You cannot put forward a rational legal argument to uphold the bans.

            As such… you will lose.

          • Gary

            A reason for heterosexual-only marriage does not have to be made. Your side would need to prove that heterosexual-only marriage violates the US Cons., but you have not done that, and you cannot do it without amending the Constitution.

          • Badkey

            Yes, Gary, it does.

            If it didn’t, you’d not be losing. And… you’re losing. Poor, poor, little guy.

            Now, tell me why you can’t answer my questions?

          • Paul Hiett

            Because they know their answers don’t jive with their hatred.

          • Gary

            The judges who have ruled in favor of ssm have not done so by following the US Constitution. They are making their rulings without regard to the Cons.

          • Badkey

            Why can’t you answer simple questions?

  • Lesli Spice

    See Dr. Ben Carson’s interview on CNN. A lot of people go into prison straight and come out gay. If it is not a choice, what causes this? Very good point.

    • Badkey

      ROFLOL!!!

      Oh… wow!

      • Paul Hiett

        Where do they come up with this crap?

        • Badkey

          Sheer, unadulterated ignorance of the world around them.

  • Gary

    The supporters of ssm want homosexuals to be exempted from the marriage laws. They do not want equal treatment under the law for everyone. And, they don’t care that the US Constitution does not support what they want, they just want it anyway.

    • Paul Hiett

      If two men or women marry, how is that preferential treatment? How does it affect a man and woman couple that want to marry? How does it affect a couple already married?

      Can you actually address the questions, or are you just going to spew more crap about the constitution?

      • Gary

        Where man-woman marriage is the legal kind, ssm would require an exemption in order to be legal. That is not equal treatment. Heterosexual-only marriage is in accord with the Constitution of the US.

        I hardly consider the US Constitution to be “crap”. But since you want to lie about what it says, or ignore what it says, apparently you do. As do those judges who claim ssm is required by the Constitution.

        • Paul Hiett

          Yep, not a single question answered. I wonder why you have no ability to answer those questions?

          • Badkey

            He knows there are no rational answers to these questions.

            And he knows that is his loss?

        • Badkey

          Poor Gary.

          Tell us, Gary. How has harm befallen North Carolina since gay marriage was legal? Who has been harmed? How has anyone’s marriage changed?

          You never seem to be able to answer any of those questions.

          What rational legal argument do you have that defends bans on gay marriage?

          • Gary

            I don’t need an argument for heterosexual marriage. YOU need Constitutional proof that ssm is required. But, you have none.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Actually, Gary, that is not how our system works. Rights are assumed. If the state wishes to create laws which restrict rights, then the burden of proof falls upon the state to justify those restrictions.

          • Badkey

            Then you will lose.

            I’m winning.

            What does that tell you, Gary?

            I find it fascinating that you admit you have nothing but animus and bigotry to defend your view.

            You’re a powerful ally, Gary. I appreciate all that you do.

          • Gary

            You are “winning” because of corrupt judges.

          • Badkey

            We’re winning due to your (and your allies’) lack of rational arguments defending these bans.

            Thanks, sweetie. I sure appreciate all that you do.

    • Badkey

      This is so much fun!

      You can’t even answer simple questions, Gary.

      You’re going to lose.

  • Badkey

    What is the rational legal argument defending bans on gay marriage?

    Come on guys… you want to stop it. You need to put forward something that will stand in court. Screaming about gods, babies, and your “ick factor” doesn’t do it, as you’ve seen so far.

    • Paul Hiett

      But…but…THE BIBLE!!!!

    • Gary

      The US Constitution does not require ssm to be legal, and does not say hetero-only marriage is a violation of the Constitution..

      • Badkey

        Thanks Gary. I know you have no rational argument.

        That’s how I know you will lose, just like you did in North Carolina.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      I can’t believe you fail to understand this. Let me see if I can help.

      Two citizens of the same gender should not be allowed to pursue their happiness or have access to a right that is offered by the state, and should be legally and financially harmed in the process because:

      1. The Bible says it’s wrong
      2. Some people don’t like something being legal they don’t agree with
      3. The Bible says it’s wrong

      Does that clear it up for you?

      • Badkey

        Clear as mud! LOL!!

  • John

    It is sad to read temporary happiness coming from some Christians as the result of innocent people being treated poorly. I have gay family and friends and have taken the opportunity and time to understand their lives. If your disapproval of ssm is coming from your religious beliefs, I ask you to consider that the Bible is not perfect. If it was I would not be able to read scripture that says women are second class human beings or that one person owning another person is okay. I would not be able to read that God gave Samuel a command to have King Saul settle an account with the Amalekites for attacking the Israelites when they came from Egypt. King Saul was instructed from God to completely destroy the Amalekite nation – men, women, children, babies, cattle, and donkeys. This was to kill innocent people for something that happened ~420 years earlier. Also I would not be able to read Psalm 137 which says “happy is the one that takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks”. The Bible is not perfect as we know killing the innocent, treating women as second class human beings and accepting
    slavery is wrong! The war against homosexuals is now in a similar situation that women faced with not being able to vote and when American slavery was justified by some Christians because of what was written in the Bible. Instead of having your temporary celebration please use your time to educate yourselves to the truth that homosexuality is not a sin.

    • Gary

      According to the Bible, homosexual behavior is immoral. A fact that you cannot change. Supporting immoral behavior is also immoral. You should expect Christians to believe the Bible.

      • Badkey

        Your buybull does not matter.

        It is not a rational legal defense for marriage bans.

        • Gary

          It is for Christians.

          • Paul Hiett

            And yet you seem incapable of understanding that your religion is not the only one.

          • Gary

            I understand that you and Badkey have a different religion from Christianity.

          • Badkey

            I understand you’re incapable of answering simple questions.

            This bodes well for me… notsomuch for you.

          • Gary

            There is a difference between being incapable and being unwilling.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re unwilling because you know answering truthfully kills your argument. You’re incapable because the truth flies in the face of your religious beliefs.

          • Gary

            The truth supports and agrees with my religious beliefs .

          • Paul Hiett

            Then answer the question that Badkey keeps asking and you keep avoiding.

          • Badkey

            He can’t.

          • Badkey

            So cute!!!

            Your fantasies are just adorable!

          • Badkey

            I’ll win either way.

            And your life won’t change one bit.

          • Logic&Emotion

            What relevance does that have Paul. I know there have been over 42 claimed religions since the days of Christ and I know that there are currently 47 known religions currently. We as Christians certainly give credit to any “religion” that believes and supports God’s ways. The conflict easily arrives when someone of no interest in the deep seeded roots of resources such as the Bible, and other books of study that can be used to present ideals that frame our values and ethical standards. I see nothing wrong with that, except for the ideology of Atheism of whom most have more to say about God than some Christians I know. I’ve been told by Atheist countless times they have no agenda, and in the same sentence present their agenda. So what is it. Agenda or no agenda, just a non belief in Deity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Today’s grammar lesson, free of charge…never capitalize “atheist” or “atheism”, as they are not pronouns.

            Now, there are actually a lot more religions than 47. There are also over 42,000 denominations of Christianity alone. There is no proof, not a single shred of proof, to suggest one religion has any more validity than another religion.

            In fact, the only reason Christianity “took off”, so to speak, is because it was declared the official religion of Rome in 313. If that doesn’t happen, the cult dies out. But, that means nothing in terms of which religion is “true”. They all have the same small “chance” of being real.

          • Logic&Emotion

            My choice is to capitalize Atheism, since I believe it to be a false religion

          • Logic&Emotion

            You will never achieve your purpose when religions are cultural. The only reason for Christianity period is because people follow Christ. You are certainly in error, and a point to be made is Christianity outlived the Roman Empire. The difference between what you say is “chance” of being real is that Atheism will never get that opportunity.

          • Paul Hiett

            History lesson for the day, again, free of charge…

            Christianity thrived BECAUSE of the Roman Empire. When the Edict of Milan was issued in 313 by Constantine Augustus, and Licinius Augustus, it established Christianity as the official religion of Rome.

            This did two things, actually. One, it was the catalyst that thrust Christianity into the forefront of religions, and two, it actually started the downfall of Western Rome as we knew it.

            I know this is probably unsettling for you to learn, but history is what it is. Regardless, Christianity is where it is today because the worlds biggest empire, at the time, decided to embrace it and force it on its subjects.

          • Logic&Emotion

            You have started your transition WAY too late, these things were in progress during the Roman control of the Jews. What is interesting is your last statement about History. I’ve been trying to state that the Bible and other sources in those time periods relate to Historical information. Why do you think the Roman’s embraced Christianity after murdering Christ. What drove them to make that decision. What about Greece, the Jews who turned away from the Jewish religion to embrace Christianity. What about the painstaking documentation that went into providing the history of such an event. If ever that proves the existence of Christ, and the authenticity of the Bible it would be your very argument.

          • Badkey

            Because they’re brainwashed.

        • Logic&Emotion

          I have not seen a rational argument yet, from you concerning a “rational legal defense for or against marriage bans. The Bible is a source for study concerning these issues. To say the Bible doesn’t matter is an indication that you base your position on something else. What is that resource if you don’t mind me asking? The Bible as I often discuss is by all standards of scholars, philosophy, archeology and many other sources which 1000’s of people work on, and work with that shows it is an authentic work. Even in translation to over 26 different languages Bible accuracy is about 92%. That is outstanding considering the length of time its been in existence. There is a reason for utilization of the Bible. I would like to ask you what that reason may be?

          • Paul Hiett

            And yet, not one single story in the BIble has ever been corroborated as being true. Why do you think that is?

          • JCIL

            “And yet, not one single story in the BIble has ever been corroborated as being true.”

            God said He would send a Savior 800 years before Jesus arrived. Jesus arrived 800 years later.

            God said He would destroy Sidon and Tyre. They were destroyed.

            God said He would destroy Babylon. It was destroyed.

            For all of the rest of the true stories, start at Genesis 1:1 and read to the end. Then check the histories of the other cultures at that time. You’ll see everything lines up.

          • Badkey

            Such sweet mythology.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I would invite you to prove that statement since you are now the Claimant of such

          • Badkey

            No reason whatsoever.

            Until you guys have proven beyond doubt that your angry sky monster and the fables that prop it up are true, there’s nothing to dispute.

            However, it fist the definition of mythology perfectly. Do I need to post the definition?

          • Paul Hiett

            If you can’t prove God is real…if you can’t prove any miraculous story from the Bible…then guess what? It’s mythology, no different than the mythology of the Greek gods, or the Roman gods, etc.

          • Logic&Emotion

            A circular argument. By the way I have a question. Why do you use the same material over and over again in debates. Harry Potter? Why not “The Hobbit”. Greek gods = Zeus. Oh and Unicorn, Flying Spaghetti monster (my favorite). Coming right out of the Richard Dawkin’s How to become an Atheist in 60 seconds. It’s to the point of hilarious, seriously it is. You guys need some new material. Its getting old

          • Paul Hiett

            Using the Bible as proof of the Bible does not work. Sorry, but you’ll have to provide external sources to prove the stories of the Bible true.

            Oh, and did you know not one single other culture has all of the worlds races and animals originating from a small mountain top in Turkey?

          • JCIL

            “Using the Bible as proof of the Bible does not work.”

            Of course it does. It is a historical document attested to by history and archeology. Your comment is like saying you can’t use Egyptian history to support Egypt’s history.

            But you can test the Biblical account to see if it is true?

            “Oh, and did you know not one single other culture has all of the worlds races and animals originating from a small mountain top in Turkey?”

            Don’t you find it interesting that many cultures have a flood story?

            Here again is where you are making an interpretation mistake. The Biblical flood didn’t encompass the entire world. The language used to describe this account is hyperbole to emphasize the severity of the flood, not the science of the flood.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so now you’re going to claim that the Bible does not say that the entire world was flooded.

            Tell me, where does the Bible say that the entire world was not flooded?

            And yes, MANY cultures have flood stories. Do you know why? It’s actually quite simple. What does man need above all else to survive?

            I’ll make it easy on you. Water. Where does man build his villages? Rhetorical, again…near sources of water.

            What happens to major sources of water from time to time? They flood!

          • JCIL

            “Oh, so now you’re going to claim that the Bible does not say that the entire world was flooded.”

            Look up hyperbole and you’ll get your answer.

            Floods are common, but not epic floods, as the ones mentioned in many cultures. That should tell you something.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, “epic” floods are pretty common around the world. Also, what we call epic today probably wouldn’t be considered so back then. All large sources of water flood. Rivers, lakes, etc. Large floods of these sources would have been cataclysmic to the people living near them at the time.

            Also, you might want to look up the Atrahasis Epic story, and see where the story of Noah actually originated from.

          • JCIL

            “Atrahasis Epic story, and see where the story of Noah actually originated from.”

            No it didn’t. Did you look up hyperbole?

          • Paul Hiett

            What part of the story of Noah is hyperbole? Did you make this up yourself? Do all denominations of Christianity agree with you?

            Tell whom interpreted the Bible and decided it was hyperbole and not “God’s Word”?

          • Badkey

            Lots of promoted incest in the bible.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Allow me:

            The New Testament

            Autographs

            45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the
            Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from
            45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late
            as 95 A.D.

            Manuscripts

            There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New
            Testament that are still in existence. The oldest
            manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on
            leather called parchment.

            125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the
            original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the
            original. It is designated “p 52” and contains a small portion of
            John 18. (The “p” stands for papyrus.)

            200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of
            the Gospel of John.

            200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline
            Epistles and Hebrews.

            225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.

            250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the
            four Gospels and Acts.

            350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament
            and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German
            scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.

            350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was
            cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475.

            Translations

            Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the
            underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated.

            180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin,
            Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D.

            195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments
            into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from
            the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father
            Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote
            treatises on theology.

            300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the
            Greek into Syriac.

            300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt.
            The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects.

            380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome. He translated
            into Latin the Old Testament from the Hebrew and the New Testament from
            Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the Bible of the Western Church until the
            Protestant Reformation in the 1500’s. It continues to be the authoritative
            translation of the Roman Catholic Church to this day. The Protestant
            Reformation saw an increase in translations of the Bible into the common
            languages of the people.

            Other early translations of the Bible were in Armenian, Georgian, and
            Ethiopic, Slavic, and Gothic.

            1380 A.D. The first English translation of the Bible was by John Wycliffe.
            He translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was a
            translation from a translation and not a translation from the original
            Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe was forced to translate from the Latin Vulgate
            because he did not know Hebrew or Greek.

            The Advent of Printing

            Printing greatly aided the transmission of the biblical texts.

            1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first printed Bible in Latin. Printing
            revolutionized the way books were made. From now on books could be published
            in great numbers and at a lower cost.

            1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament was printed for the first time by Erasmus. He based his Greek New Testament from only five Greek manuscripts,
            the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With
            minor revisions, Erasmus’ Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus
            Receptus or the “received texts.”

            1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was published. The Old Testament
            was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Latin and
            Greek. Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise later editions of his New
            Testament. Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his translation
            on the Old Testament into English which he did not complete because he was
            martyred in 1534.

            1611 A.D. The King James Version into English from the original Hebrew
            and Greek. The King James translators of the New Testament used the Textus
            Receptus as the basis for their translations.

            1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies 4th Edition of the Greek New
            Testament. This Greek New Testament made use of the oldest Greek manuscripts
            which date from 175 A.D. This was the Greek New Testament text from which
            the NASV and the NIV were translated.

            1971 A.D. The New American Standard Version (NASV) was published. It makes
            use of the wealth of much older Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now available
            that weren’t available at the time of the translation of the KJV. Its
            wording and sentence structure closely follow the Greek in more of a word
            for word style.

            1983 A.D. The New International Version (NIV) was published. It also made
            use of the oldest manuscript evidence. It is more of a
            “thought-for-thought” translation and reads more easily than the
            NASV.

            As an example of the contrast between word-for-word and
            thought-for-thought translations, notice below the translation of the
            Greek word “hagios-holy”

            NASV Hebrews 9:25. “…the high
            priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own.”

            NIV Hebrews 9:25. “…the high priest enters the Most Holy Place
            every year with blood that is not his own.”

            The NIV supplies “understood” information about the Day of
            Atonement, namely that the high priest’s duties took place in the
            compartment of the temple known specifically as the Most Holy
            Place.
            Note that the NASV simply says “holy place” reflecting the
            more literal translation of “hagios.”

            The Integrity of the Manuscript Evidence

            As with any ancient book transmitted through a number of handwritten
            manuscripts, the question naturally arises as to how confident can we be that we
            have anything resembling the autograph. Let us now
            look at what evidences we have for the integrity of the New Testament
            manuscripts. Let us look at the number of manuscripts and how close they date to the
            autographs of the Bible as compared with other ancient writings of similar
            age.

            Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote his Annals of Imperial Rome in
            about A.D. 116. Only one manuscript of his work remains. It was copied
            about 850 A.D.

            Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote The Jewish War shortly after 70 A.D.
            There are nine manuscripts in Greek which date from 1000-1200 A.D. and
            one Latin translation from around 400 A.D.

            Homer’s Iliad was written around 800 B.C. It was as important to
            ancient Greeks as the Bible was to the Hebrews. There are over 650
            manuscripts remaining but they date from 200 to 300 A.D. which is over a
            thousand years after the Iliad was written.

            The Old Testament autographs were written 1450 – 400 B. C.

            The Dead Sea Scrolls date between 200 B.C. to 70 A. D and date
            within 300 years from when the last book of the Old Testament was
            written.

            Two almost complete Greek LXX translations of the Old Testament
            date about 350 A. D.

            The oldest complete Hebrew Old Testament dates about 950 A. D.

            Genesis-Deuteronomy were written over 1200 years before the Dead
            Sea Scrolls.

            Codex Vaticanus
            is an almost complete Greek translation of the Old Testament dating
            around 350 A.D. The Aleppo Codex is the oldest complete Old Testament
            manuscript in Hebrew and was copied around 950 A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls
            date from within 200-300 years from the last book of the Old Testament.
            However since the five books of Moses were written about 1450- 1400 B.C.
            the Dead Sea Scrolls still come almost 1200 years after the first books
            of the Old Testament were written.

            The New Testament autographs were written between 45-95 A. D.

            There are 5,664 Greek manuscripts some dating as early as 125 A.
            D. and an complete New Testament that dates from 350 A. D.

            8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts.

            8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic, Coptic, Slavic, Syriac, and
            Armenian.

            In addition, the complete New Testament could be reproduced from
            the quotes that were made from it by the early church fathers in
            their letters and sermons.

          • Paul Hiett

            You just…again…tried to use the Bible as proof of the Bible!!! Stop it. It doesn’t work.

            It’s like trying to claim Harry Potter is real because the books exist.

            Prove the world was flooded. Prove that Egypt had Jewish slaves that crossed the Red Sea.

            Prove that people could easily come back from the dead as the Bible claims.

            Prove anything in the Bible to be true…just one miraculous story, that’s all.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Go to Youtube and put the words near death experiences, especially a woman that is currently on a board of scientists because she is a scientist that is investigating the truth about this phenomonen. Than come back to me about miracles. Do the work and you’ll question even your own thinking. Especially related to her, and the science discussions that happened as a result of her drowning in a canoe. Even Atheist who have had these experiences cannot be explained by modern science although they admit what they found to be true, changing their lives forever. It certainly provides insight into our spirituality especially the ones that came from Atheist’s themselves.

          • Logic&Emotion

            We are looking at the historical transformation in real time of how the Bible came to be, not using the Bible to prove the Bible. The Bible is the resource, so prove to me that those things did not, or could not happen.

          • Paul Hiett

            I can prove two things that did not happen.

            The Flood.

            Exodus.

            Those are two prominent stories in the Bible we know to be false, as they are written. Both geographical and archeological evidence proves these stories false.

            Now, can you provide proof of any of the stories using sources outside of the Bible?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Your not correct. If I need to, I’ll show evidence that both are correct related to the Hebrew language, which most likely was written by Moses. Try again.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Hmm, let me provide you with a contrast on your thinking: The A.V. 1611 King James Bible has 1,817 prophecies contained within. So far, 1,530 prophecies have been fulfilled. That is a lot of prophesies! Some are very simple one-item prophecies, and some are very complex multi-item prophecies. These prophesies are 100% fulfilled and 100% accurate! For a very well researched book on Biblical fulfilled prophesies, please check out “Encyclopedia of Bible Prophesy” by J. Barton Payne. It’s a nice several-hundred page book documenting all the fulfilled prophesies in great detail…
            Now, you do realize that secular Anthropologists and Archaeologists use the Bible to search for ancient civilizations, etc. don’t you? They sure do… scientists use the Bible for their own work! Go figure…

          • Paul Hiett

            Logic seems to escape you, despite being in your moniker.

            Can you provide an external source that proves one of the stories in the Bible true? Is there geographical evidence of a world wide flood? No, there is not. In fact, the geographical data actually proves the world was never flooded.

            Is there archeological data that proves the story of Exodus? No, there is not. In fact, the archeological data proves that Egypt never had Jewish slaves, rendering Exodus an untrue story as well.

            In fact, there is no data or evidence that proves any story in the Bible to be true.

            As for your claim that scientists use the Bible, I will grant you that they do…only so far as they use it to prove it wrong time and time again. Even the Pope admits that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Refer to resources I just provided, there is more. An opinion by you on logic has no bearing on my presentation in logic or emotion since you do not know me.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Hmm and just last week one of your brethren stated the Earth was 18 Billion years old. I believe it is 4.5 Billion years old, which I will concur with you on that one statement. As for empirical evidence, are you prepared for me to list everything including scientist’s and their view on “evidence” I’m ready to provide it all.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sure, list all of your non-religious website links to support your claims.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I prefer a different method. The source of the Statements themselves. Ex: Published in Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God–and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”(1)

            The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of “supernatural plan” or “Agency” behind it. Here is what they say:

            Scientific Testamony of God and Fine Tuning.

            Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

            George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)

            Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

            Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)

            Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)

            John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)

            George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)

            Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)

            Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)

            Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)

            Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)

            Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)

            Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)

            Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” (15)

            Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

            Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)

            Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)

            Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)

            Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)

            Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)

            Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)

            Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)

            Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)

            Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)

            There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)

            Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science.” (27)

          • Paul Hiett

            Even just doing a search on your first example, Fred Hoyle, I can’t help but laugh. This guy holds the belief that evolution is caused by mutating life forms falling from
            space, and that therefore flu epidemics are triggered by sunspots. You want to use this guy as an example?

            Let’s take a look at the last guy you reference, Frank Tipler. This genius believes he’s figured out time travel, as well as writing papers on the Omega Point, a mechanism for raising the dead.

            I have no doubt I could go through that list of people and everyone of them would probably be listed as a quack.

            I’m guess you probably read some religiously biased paper on religion and science and simply did a cut and paste job without actually checkout the validity of the information.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Show your evidence of all of these men, and the statements they have made. Each one of them mind you. Then report back to me, how relevant these scientists are to science and mankind. Thanks

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve already debunked two of them. Do you at least admit that those two examples were poor choices?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Not really, after all they are scientist’s, the very people that the Atheist world worships.

          • Paul Hiett

            So despite them having outlandish ideas that fly in the face of religion, you’re still going to cite their work?

          • Logic&Emotion

            LOL, I could show you some outlandish ideas from scientists if you like. You and I know this isn’t about God, this is about your minority rights as an Atheist, that is why this issue stands out to you. You believe that if you moan enough about how religion (especially the Christian religion) won’t give you as an Atheist rights to remove God from Society in public places, your going to continue this ridiculous argument about God not existing. How would that possibly matter to you? You don’t believe in God, it should be logically irrelevant and yet you continue this fruitless effort to explain away belief systems that have been around for over 4000 years, and continue to this day. No more lies just come out with what you want. Live the life you want to who cares. Just don’t insult me or anyone else who believes in God, tries to live by what Christ said, and be happy. Simple.

          • JCIL

            You haven’t debunked anything. You’ve just offered your opinion and that is hardly fact.

          • Logic&Emotion

            In reference to cut and paste, my studies and resources are the strength of my discussions. I did the homework, and that justifies my presentation. A good student is always going to assemble knowledge from other people and sources.

          • Badkey

            You cannot enter religion as a valid rational argument in a US court.

            You do know this, right?

            If you allowed it, Sharia law would be just fine.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I’ve not said that. However you can use principles and presentations based on values in a court of law, and have the right to speaking for or against an issue.

          • Badkey

            Yes, and how will that affect a rational legal argument against gay marriage?

          • Logic&Emotion

            I’m currently not in that situation. If you are, simply explain what would affect a rational legal argument. My point is simply what I said.

          • Badkey

            It’s not up to me, darlin’… it’s up to the courts.

            Thus far, nothing your side has put forward has been able to stand on its own merit in court.

            You can see that in all the losses, and in all the transcripts.

            I fail to see how your mythology is helping you in any way.

      • John

        Gary, you also can’t change the scriptures that I stated above. Unless you believe killing the innocent, women are second class human beings and slavery is okay, then you must also accept the possbility that what is written in the Bible about homosexuality is wrong. Educate yourself as to why some people are gay.

        • Gary

          God has every right to kill anyone He wants. I don’t care why anyone is a pervert. I am trying to oppose them, not understand them.

          • Badkey

            Alluah Akbar!!!

    • Paul Hiett

      I mean no disrespect by this, but your post is yet another reason why there are over 42,000 denominations of this one particular religion. It’s really a shame that more people can’t choose to live by the message of love that Jesus presented, rather than trying to figure out which groups to hate.

      • John

        Well said Paul. If the Bible was perfect then you might expect only one denomination. And if CHRISTians were true, they would follow the love that Jesus presented and have less time for hate.

      • TheBBP

        You can cite the message of love, but you can’t ignore the standards of purity. God does not set His standards by man. His standards are set from a perfect and holy platform. Those are the standards as to which a Christian strives to abide by. Because man says something is OK, does not make it OK.

        You also continuously and purposefully bring “hate” into the equation. You could not possibly believe that a person is not able to disagree and not hate.

        • Badkey

          Marriage doesn’t require your god.

        • Paul Hiett

          Based on the responses on this site, it’s safe to say that ya’ll “hate” gays.

          Would you disagree, again, based on the comments here?

          • TheBBP

            I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that it is more than possible to disagree and not hate just as it is more than possible to disagree and love.

            I do agree that there are some comments around here that lean from disdainful but I do not see outright hate. At the same time, I also see that when someone offers an unbending stance on the Word of God, that they are seen as being hateful.

            God IS love, but sometimes love is tough. God is perfect and holy and it is His standards that we Christians strive to live by. As I eluded to above, those standards are far more stringent than man’s.

            A fervent disdain for sin and the acceptance of immorality in no way is a hatred for anyone. A fervent disdain for sin and the acceptance of immorality in no way means that we do not struggle with our own sin or that we are perfect. But, just as we are not to be accepting of our own sin, we are not to be accepting of the world’s attempt to make sin “OK”.

            I understand that you will respond with “Not everyone believes as you do.” or something along those lines and that is fine, because you are correct. I am only speaking from a Christian point of view. Other faiths do not hold court over my faith or my opinion.

    • TheBBP

      Your theology is dangerous and irresponsible. Try taking the Bible in context rather than cherry-picking verses that will help you sell your point. That’s what faith-healers and charlatans do.

  • Badkey

    As of this moment, ONLY Mobile County is abiding by this court’s orders.

    Cool!

  • SFBruce

    The Supreme Court of Alabama did the state no favor with this ruling, one over which they have no jurisdiction. By doing so, they only introduce more confusion where there’s already too much. This is what true judicial activism looks like.

    • Asemodeus

      Alabama is just bitter that they won’t be the last state to discriminate against gays, so they are over reaching to keep their bigotry cred up.

      • JCIL

        Aren’t your comments bigoted?

        • Asemodeus

          The truth by definition cannot be bigoted.

          • JCIL

            “The truth by definition cannot be bigoted.”

            By your own statement then, homosexuality is immoral. That is the truth. Which makes your comment bigoted.

          • Asemodeus

            ” That is the truth.”

            Wrong. What you think is immoral behavior is something straight people do more often than gays.

          • JCIL

            “Wrong.”

            How can you say my belief is wrong? What source are you using to gauge my values on morality?

          • Asemodeus

            “How can you say my belief is wrong?”

            Statistics.

            “What source are you using to gauge my values on morality?”

            See above.

          • JCIL

            “Statistics.

            My authority is God. Yours is public opinion. No comparison.

          • Asemodeus

            Your authority is yourself. Something you need serious work on.

    • Gary

      I disagree completely. They did exactly the right thing. It is the judges who are trying to force in ssm who are the judicial activists.

      • Badkey

        Yet you can’t find a single rational defense of gay marriage bans.

        Oh, Gary, you’re so sad.

        • Gary

          Sure I can. But you lack the mental capacity to understand them.

          • Badkey

            No, you can’t.

            If you could, if ANYONE on your side could, you’d not be losing by somewhere like 64 – 4.

      • SFBruce

        Under what legal theory does a state supreme court have jurisdiction over a case like this? I get it that you don’t like the outcome, but every court decision results in one side loosing, who naturally won’t like the result. Claiming I don’t have the capacity to understand is a total cop out, and surely you know that.

        • Badkey

          Cuz Gary said so!!!

        • Gary

          There is no constitutional reason to overturn the Alabama law.

          • Paul Hiett

            What, exactly, does the Constitution say about marriage?

          • Gary

            Nothing. How does that help your side?

          • Badkey

            What does the constitution say about privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizenship?

          • Gary

            The constitution says laws should apply to everyone.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then there’s no objection to it.

            Thanks!

          • Gary

            There is also no requirement for it.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s no requirement for marriage at all, so you really have no argument against it.

            Again, thanks!

          • Gary

            The argument is that heterosexual only marriage laws are perfectly constitutional, which means no judge has the right to overturn them.

          • Badkey

            Come on sweetie… What does the constitution say about privileges, immunities, and benefits of citizenship?

          • Gary

            I told you already, you moron.

          • Badkey

            Where?

            Where have you told me what the constitution says about privileges, immunities, and benefits (as well as protections) of citizenship?

            Now you’re reduced to lying.

          • SFBruce

            A federal court disagrees with you. I’m waiting for the legal theory under which a state supreme court has jurisdiction to overturn a federal court.

          • Gary

            I’m waiting for the constitutional reason a federal court has the authority to overturn laws they cannot prove are unconstitutional.

          • SFBruce

            I see. You’re unable to come up with a legal theory to justify the court’s action, so you deflect.

          • Gary

            I don’t know what the legal theory is to justify the Alabama S.C. But i heartily applaud them for what they have done. But I do know that a court needs to prove a law violates either the state or US Constitution in order to overturn it.

  • Stan Ables

    Time to Push Back Against Evil: May all the other Traditional Marriage States stand up to the degenerate advocacy of these Activist Federal Judges and push back against their unconstitutional rulings and their playing God by legislating from the bench.

    • Badkey

      Gay folks ARE pushing back against evil!

      That includes sky monsters from various mythologies.

    • Gary

      I agree.

    • Paul Hiett

      Ah yes…if someone believes something different than you, label them evil. How tolerant.

  • Skillet Chitlins

    This is 2015 and there is still someone namely the Alabama Supreme Court that has common sense and uses logic. Wow!

    • Badkey

      How is it logic?

      SCOTUS will trump them… all they’re doing is showing how much they love wasting tax money and LOVE “big government”. Nothing more.

      • Skillet Chitlins

        How is it logic? Simply read the paragraph starting with:

        “Traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender: All men and all women are equally entitled to enter the institution of marriage,….”

        What follows logically deduces from their premise into:

        “…Put in the negative, traditional-marriage laws do not discriminate on the basis of gender because all men and all women are equally restricted to marriage between the opposite sexes.”

        You may not agree with their reasoning but it is logical.

        • Badkey

          Traditional marriage laws DO discriminate based on gender.

          Sorry… you’re seeing it over and over and over.

          • Skillet Chitlins

            That is inductive reasoning based on preference.

          • Badkey

            As is heterosexual marriage.

    • Paul Hiett

      And by “common sense” and “logic”, you mean “someone who follows my own religion”. At least be honest.

      • Skillet Chitlins

        Do not presume on what I mean, that is dishonest on your part at what you intimate and it is even dishonest to yourself.

        • Paul Hiett

          I didn’t presume anything, I can see it quite easily.

          • Skillet Chitlins

            You wrote: …you mean “someone who follows my own religion”. At least be honest.
            You therefore presumed on subjects I did not mention. FYI I mean exactly what I write, and you understand what you think you “see”.

          • Paul Hiett

            You claimed that they used “common sense” and “logic”. Since the article written is clearly written in support of your choice of religion, it can only mean that your agreement is not based on such, but on blind faith in your religion.

            My statement was not a presumption, but merely a statement of fact based on observation.

  • Gary

    Since heterosexual only marriage laws are constitutional, what right do judges have to overturn them?

    • Paul Hiett

      Since the constitution says nothing about marriage at all, what right does anyone have to say that SSM is illegal?

      • Gary

        ssm can be legal, but only where a state legislature, or the people of the state vote it in. It cannot be made law by a judge, or a court.

        • Badkey

          Sorry, Gary.

          That’s not what’s happening, is it?

          • Gary

            Because of judges who are violating their oaths.

          • Paul Hiett

            Like SCOTUS did when they overturned the Jim Crow laws?

          • Gary

            Federal judges are supposed to be limited by the US Constitution. In this case, most of the federal judges are ignoring the US Cons.

          • Paul Hiett

            Because they know an unjust law when they see it. DOMA is gone, Gary…forever.

          • Gary

            Really? Heterosexual marriage is unjust? Where does it say that in the Constitution?

          • Paul Hiett

            When you can point to anything in the constitution regarding marriage, then we’ll discuss that aspect. Until then, adios DOMA.

          • Gary

            Federal judges are supposed to be limited to what is written in the US Cons.. They are supposed to justify their decisions from the text of the US Cons. If the Cons, does not address it, they are not suppose to rule on it. They are abusing their power..

          • Badkey

            HOW is it different than overturning Jim Crow laws?

            They are justifying their decisions… something you cannot do… from the text of the constitution.

            The constitution does address it as it addresses privileges, benefits, protections, and immunities of citizenship… and all of those are found in marriage law.

          • Badkey

            How are they “violating their oaths”?

            In detail, Gary.

          • Gary

            They are violating their oaths by overturning laws that are constitutional. They swore to uphold the Cons., not ignore it.

          • Badkey

            They are upholding the constitution.

            It is you who put forth no rational argument for your views.

            How do you expect to change anything if you can’t?

    • Badkey

      Because you can put forward no rational legal argument to deny gay couples the same protections, benefits, immunities, and privileges of similarly situated citizens. The claim that gender is an acceptable factor in upholding discrimination of these protections, benefits, immunities, and privileges has not been proven in court.

      As such… YOU LOSE.

      Does that make sense to you Gary?

      • Gary

        If you are trying to argue that heterosexual only marriage laws violate the US Constitution, you are failing. There is no discrimination against either men or women in man-woman marriage laws. The rights of no one are denied. Everyone is treated the same under the law. Your argument I bogus.

        • Badkey

          That is not what I said, now is it, Gary?

          Oh, there most certainly is discrimination… as found in court after court after court… and you and yours have been challenged to demonstrate a legal justification for that discrimination. Yet you have not done so.

          Thus… you will lose.

          My “bogus” argument is winning… your religious and hostile nonsense is not.

          • Gary

            Your argument is not constitutional. Judges have no authority to overturn constitutional laws.

          • Badkey

            Says the guy who keeps losing…

            And nothing for him changes.

            Thanks, sweetie!

          • Paul Hiett

            I can’t wait to see him lose it completely come June.

          • Gary

            Obviously, the Constitution means nothing to you and Badkey. It also means nothing to those judges who are overturning constitutional laws. This results in a loss of respect for the laws and the system.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, you can voice your meaningless opinion, while the rest of the country moves forward. It means nothing, in the end.

            All of the wailing and crying and thumping your Bible will not stop SCOTUS from their ruling.

          • Gary

            Maybe not. But if they rule against the US Cons., which they will have to do if they support ssm nationwide, then they will have forfeited any further respect.

          • Badkey

            They’ll rule in favor of our equal protection clauses.

            You obviously have no valid reason why they should not.

            And you won’t be harmed a bit. Nothing for you will change.

          • Gary

            IF they rule in favor of the 14th Amendment, they will not overturn any heterosexual-only marriage laws.

          • Badkey

            Wrong.

          • Badkey

            In order to NOT do so, they would have to be given a justifiable reason to continue the discrimination in terms of equal protection.

            You’re not doing that.

            So you will lose.

          • Gary

            There is no discrimination or unequal protection under current man-woman only marriage laws. And you cannot prove there is using the text of the US Constitution.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nor can you prove that allowing SSM is a violation of anything in the Constitution.

          • Gary

            I have never said ssm violates the Constitution. But it cannot be made legal by judges. Judges are not law makers.

          • Badkey

            Marriage is already legal.

            All that is changing is that like situated citizens can all take part now.

            It’s not complicated.

          • Paul Hiett

            Guess what SCOTUS will do?

          • Gary

            If they make ssm legal nationwide, they will have overstepped their boundaries. They have no authority to make ssm legal anywhere.

          • Badkey

            How is it different than Loving v. Virginia?

          • Gary

            Probably isn’t different.

          • Badkey

            Gary, you’re SO funny!

            Hang in there my sweet old man… you won’t be harmed a bit!

          • Badkey

            Okee dokee!

            Keep standing on that rock, Gary… as it sinks, it’s fun to watch you.

          • Badkey

            The constitution is just fine, Gary.

            Those who are chosen to protect and enforce it are doing just fine.

            Loss of respect for the laws and the system? More unsubstantiated and impossible to prove rhetoric, Gary?

            You can do better than that.

  • Daniele Ruvoletto

    If the application of God’s love for this Nation is on our forehead and in our heart we will ensure a healthy and just tomorrow. When we override the principle that God gave true the Bible, it will only bring pain and suffering, no matter how we see it.

    • Paul Hiett

      And what of those who made the choice not to follow your choice of religion?

      • JCIL

        You’ll reap the consequences of your behavior.

        • Badkey

          Ah, there it is! The threat of christianity!

          How quaint! Control through intimidation, fear, and threat.

          Nice!

          • JCIL

            How is stating the truth a threat?

            If you don’t believe in God, why would you even consider it a threat?

          • Paul Hiett

            We don’t, but we point out the hypocrisy in your mindset.

          • JCIL

            Obviously, Badkey did. You are mistaken again.

          • Badkey

            Because you wield it as one.

          • JCIL

            No threat. It’s called boundaries: state the behavior and the consequences for it. You are the one receiving it as a threat.

          • Badkey

            Consequences implies a threat.

            “Do as we say or else” is the christian battle cry.

          • JCIL

            “Do as we say or else” is the christian battle cry.”

            Christianity is not about us. It’s about God and what He asks of us. You can reject me and I don’t care. There are no consequences for that. But there are eternal consequences for rejecting God. That’s a fact.

          • Badkey

            Oh, I forgot… it’s not christians… it’s the sky monster they claim to speak for.

            Riiiiiiiiiight.

          • JCIL

            You still haven’t provided any evidence for your belief that God doesn’t exist. I’ll take that to mean you don’t have any.

          • Badkey

            Because until you offer more than your buybull, there is no need.

            You make the claim it’s real yet can’t prove it… my job is done.

          • JCIL

            “You make the claim it’s real yet can’t prove it… my job is done.”

            I’ve given many examples which you haven’t refuted at all. Your job is done because you have nothing but opinion.

            How about some evidence to support your belief? Do you have any?

            There’s no point in answering because I’ve asked this question to non believers for many years, and still not one reasoned answer. That’s because there isn’t one and non believers know it…or else they would give one.

          • Badkey

            You have given nothing but mythology and supposition.

            You offer zero tangible, physical evidence.

            You even talk about “supernatural” nonsense!

            There’s really nothing to anything you’ve posted. That is why it is ignored by our government, our courts, and anybody with any sense.

          • JCIL

            “You have given nothing but mythology and supposition.”

            This is reflection of your uninformed opinion. Opinions aren’t facts.

            “You offer zero tangible, physical evidence.”

            I’ve provided examples of evidence. You choose to ignore them. Ignoring them and off-handedly discounting them aren’t facts or arguments either.

            “You even talk about “supernatural” nonsense!”

            How do you square your comment with evidences of supernatural forces? Again, your opinion isn’t a reasoned argument or facts to the contrary.

            “There’s really nothing to anything you’ve posted. That is why it is ignored by our government, our courts, and anybody with any sense.”

            How do you square that with the fact that the US government does recognize God. The courts, as well. And many countries?

            Once again the facts betray your unfounded and unproven assertions.

          • Badkey

            Recognizes the roles of gods and their place in culture.

            NOT law.

            There’s a reason this culture war has been so much faster than previous ones.

            Your mentality would be it.

          • JCIL

            “Recognizes the roles of gods and their place in culture.”

            No. Emphatically state God is real.

            Yes, the legal system as well.

            “There’s a reason this culture war has been so much faster than previous ones. Your mentality would be it.”

            Another unfounded assertion. How about some real facts? Evidences? Why don’t non believers provide straight answers? Is that because you don’t have any?

          • Badkey

            No, they don’t state that god is real.

            That is a direct lie.

            It could be Thor… Vishnu… Odin… Allah…

            You can prove nothing to the contrary.

          • JCIL

            “No, they don’t state that god is real.”

            Yes, they do. Why would the government (or the legal system, or other countries constitutions) put their trust in something that’s not real?

          • Badkey

            Okee dokee.

            I can see the insanity is strong in you.

            Buh-bye.

          • JCIL

            Typical non believer. No reasoned and substantiated arguments, so they posit based on their uninformed opinions, then run when cornered.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, it’s an opinion, not a fact. Not one single person has ever come back from the dead and said, “Dang, I went to Hell…better get it right this time!”

          • JCIL

            Jesus died and came back to prove He is God and there is life after death. Notice, He is the only one who has done that. That’s how we know who the real God is….plus many more examples. Since you claim to have studied this, you should have known this.

          • Paul Hiett

            If you think Jesus is the only person to die and come back to life, you haven’t read the Bible much.

          • JCIL

            Did the others come back to life of their own power? Who brought them back to life?

          • Paul Hiett

            1 Kings 17:17-24

            For someone who claims to know the Bible, you aren’t very good at this game.

          • JCIL

            As I suspected, you don’t know the Bible very well. If you read the text you’ll see that it was God working through Elijah that brought the boy back to life. No prophets had power of their own, but God working through them, as did Moses.

          • Lance

            There are many other “gods” who have either died and been reborn/resurrected or have ventured to “hell” and walked right back out.. nothing too fantastical about this claim when you compare it to other religions.

          • JCIL

            “There are many other “gods” who have either died and been reborn/resurrected ”

            People make that claim, but it’s untrue. You really should do your own investigation rather than believing someone else’s uninformed opinion.

          • Lance

            What makes the claim that Zeus is a God any more false than Yahweh or Yeshua?

          • JCIL

            Do you mean you can’t tell the difference between folklore and historical fact? This may be the reason you are confused about God.

          • Lance

            What event changed Christianity from local lore into a state religion?

            By historical fact I do hope you were referring to this event and not something that happened in the book of Job or Acts…

          • JCIL

            The OT is a testament of God separated from people by sin. The NT is a testament of God restored to people through Jesus Christ.

            Jesus is a matter of the historical record, and so is many other historical events that prove God is real.

          • Lance

            That wasn’t the event I was talking about. I’m thinking when Rome adopted Christianity as its state religion in the 4th century….

        • Paul Hiett

          Again, since I don’t believe in your choice of a religion, I am therefore not subject to your rules or consequences.

          • Crono478

            Paul, you are right that it’s not JCIL’s rules or consequence. You are still subject to God’s rules and consequences for them.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, I’m not. I choose not to believe in your religion, and therefore I am not subjected to whatever rules and consequences are in your book. I don’t think you quite understand how this works. There are nearly 8 billion people on this planet. Not all of them follow your choice of religions, but that doesn’t make them wrong…nor does it make you right.

            After all, religion is just a choice…and most times the choice of the parents and not the individual themselves.

          • Crono478

            Paul, I’m curious, did you grow up attending church? What was your parents’ religion?

          • Paul Hiett

            My family is mostly Presbyterian (we also have two pastors in the family). I grew up partly in Texas, and partly in California. I consider myself fortunate to live in America though, where knowledge and freedom to seek that knowledge helped to build this country.

            I began to question religion when I was about 14, and you can imagine the internal backlash of my family. But, it wasn’t until I dove into religion headfirst in college courses that I simply didn’t believe, and what I found cemented that belief.

            When it comes to religion, most people are simply a product of demographics and/or upbringing. Most people are indoctrinated as a child to believe what their parents believe. Do conversions happen? Sure…of course they do. Not in any large scale, and primarily from religion to atheism, but some people do switch from one religious belief to another. Of course, they do so mainly in more the westernized countries where it’s not illegal.

            So, with so many religions, and so many people believing theirs is the right one, it simply makes the most sense that none of them are right. If you could imagine it, think about how fervently devoted you are to the idea that your religion is “right”. Now, imagine if you were a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Hindu, etc. That’s exactly how devoted they are to their religion, and I get the same arguments from them as well.

            What makes more sense, Crono, that you somehow have picked the right religion, and everyone else is wrong, or that we simply don’t know?

          • JCIL

            Non believers often say they have a background in religion. Yet, when questioned, their knowledge is superficial at best. The answers you provided earlier betray your claim.

          • Paul Hiett

            Most “non-believers” typically do know more about religion in general than those who think their religion is all they need to know.

          • JCIL

            Hardly. Another unfounded assertion. Non believers are great at making unfounded assertions.

            How do you explain newborns knowing right from wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            Is cannibalism “right” or “wrong”?

          • JCIL

            We’re not talking about cannibalism. How about answering my question: How do you explain newborns knowing right from wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            Answer my question then I can answer yours…my answer hinges on yours.

          • JCIL

            I believe cannibalism is wrong under most circumstances.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Korowai of South Guinea are a tribe that still practice cannibalism. Granted, they aren’t the only ones, but they’re probably the most famous.

            Obviously, they have children. These children are born into this society, and are taught that cannibalism is “right”. If your claim were true, they would not have to be taught that it’s wrong, they would simply know. Again, this is your claim.

            But, the fact remains that this tribe continues its practice even today. Your claim is incorrect.

          • JCIL

            The fact that newborns know right from wrong is not my claim, but proven as fact numerous times over.

            After talking with you these last few hours, you really don’t know what you are talking about. You have a lot of opinions, but not the real facts on the subjects you profess to know about. Wouldn’t it be wise to understand that which you criticize?

            I’ve discovered that you are a good example of most non believers…you have an opinion, but very light on actual facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            I see you don’t address the point at all. Typical.

          • JCIL

            Even though we humans know right from wrong, we can still override this knowledge with preference and desire…as you are doing. This is called a guilty conscience.

            Humans can suppress the truth…but it remains deep down. This is called a ‘seared conscience.’

          • Lance

            They don’t.

          • JCIL

            Yes they do. Check and see for yourself. It’s been well documented.

          • Lance

            Can you cite this documentation?

          • JCIL
          • Lance

            ..and if you look to your left you’ll see Lance’s collection of over a dozen bibles, and even one in hebrew (torah)!

          • JCIL

            Are you a non believer?

          • Lance

            For the last six years, yes.

          • JCIL

            What changed your mind?

          • Lance

            I read the bible one too many times. I experienced this thing called Cognitive Dissonance. It’s when your told or shown something you know not to be true and your brain has a hard time accepting it and in most cases rejects it completely.

          • JCIL

            This problem often occurs, not because of the Bible, but because of how the person is reading the Bible. This is an understanding problem, not a problem with the Bible.

            If you have an example, I could demonstrate.

          • Crono478

            I grew up attending two different churches which was My mother’s non-denominational Christian church and my father’s Catholic church. I knew and understood what both churches were saying. However, when I was 13 when I got to access Internet on my computer for first time (which was in late 1990s). I gradually lost interest in church as I got to see more things for myself. Also, more I learned more in classes at my high school and college, more I started to push Christianity as well as other religions away. I had a difficult believing that Bible was true when I accepted all facts that scientists found for us.

            I was sure that I will not be involved with any religion. I even got angry at my brother for talking to me about Bible. I told him to stop talking about this and just talk to me about anything but this.

            It is God’s grace that I am led back to God’s word despite years of my disbelief in Him. He opened my ears and eyes to understand His Words. I finally understood and repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as My Savior.

            After a long time, I finally believed in God and I found myself to change completely. That’s when I knew it was for real. My friends and co-workers saw something very different in me too.

            To answer your question, To know that it’s real, you have to believe that God exists and that He rewards you for earnestly seek him.

          • Paul Hiett

            I know that you think it’s real…you believe it’s real. That’s fine.

            But think logically for a moment…outside of your comfort zone. As fervently as you believe in your religion, so too does the believer of a completely different religion.

            There’s nothing factual in existence to prove you wrong or right, or anything to support their claim that their religion is wrong or right. The two of you will forever be in conflict about your beliefs (look at how Jews and Muslims treat each other, for an example). But yet, neither he nor you should be subjected to the rules held within each others religions, should you?

          • Crono478

            It’s not that I think. I put my faith in Him. That’s two different things.

            Yes, Jew and Muslims will be in conflict with each other because both comes from Abraham. Don’t you know about that?

            Yes, my belief WILL be in conflict with anyone else who does not have same belief that I do have.

            “There’s nothing factual in existence to prove you wrong or right, or anything to support their claim that their religion is wrong or right.”

            Right, that boils down to belief. I trusted in science rather than God until few years ago.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not really…faith is simply having belief in something without facts. A belief is actually just an opinion about something.

            Jews and Muslims and Christians all suffer from the same problem…”My version of God is right and yours is wrong!” All three have spread at the point of the sword. First, the Jews went around slaughtering in the name of God (yes, I’ve read the OT), next it was the Christians during the crusades (coupled with Rome declaring any other religion illegal), and then finally Islam doing it’s damndest to catch up.

            Yes, you believe in your deity, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have chosen, based upon your research, to believe in Christianity. So, too, does your Muslim counterpart. You are both convinced you are right.

            So, who gets to make the rules about how we live?

          • Crono478

            Definition of belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

            It’s not my opinion about something, it is my acceptance that God exists and is real.

            There are many religions in this world including three million gods in India, it would be very easy for us to decide our own rules. It would be easy for one group of people with their beliefs to impose their rules on another group.

            That can easily turn into a chaos situation in the whole world. How come do we still have this in check in this world? How can all of us have an universal set of “right” and “wrong”?

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s a second definition of “belief” though, one your situation is more apropos towards.

            Regardless, religion is and always has been a choice around the world. It’s a choice for someone to believe in, but belief does not require facts, which is why we use the word “faith” in regards to religion. Yes, I accept that you believe your version of religion is real. I also accept that all followers of all religions believe their religion is real. Unfortunately, we know that can’t be true, but neither can we prove any religion to be false.

            So, we get together in our societies and decide as a whole what is best for everyone. In our country, we have chosen not to be ruled by religious law. Some countries around the world have chosen differently. I think it safe to say those countries haven’t exactly been a modicum of peace, or an example of a “civilized” nation.

            In countries like the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, where a religion is not used to rule by, we see progress. We see a much higher standard of living. We see far more tolerance of different beliefs and ideas.

            And while the majority may not always make the right choices (Jim Crow laws, women not being allowed to vote, gay marriage rights), we have also elected people to step in and make those decisions based not on a religion, but on what we consider to be equality for everyone.

          • Crono478

            It’s not apropos for me. Othwrwise, I would change my religion based on my situations that happens.

            The definition I gave you is the correct one to describe what it means when I believe in Him. Our living standard are slowly sliding. See this with our economy? Our level of debt? Our birth rate is slowly falling.

            20-30 years ago, our economy were much stronger and more of laws were based on Bible. Yeah, except some unjust laws.

            I’m sure we can talk more about topics like this, I have to go. Take care.

          • Lance

            And so are you bound by the rules of Odin, good sir. Dont-ever-forget-that…

            See how you don’t feel scared when someone threatens you with make believe?

          • Crono478

            If you only believe that we should be bound to rules and laws in US, then that is fine. The problem is, do you really know what will happen to us when we die? Since you don’t believe in Bible or any “make believe” religions, how do you really know????

          • Lance

            We know quite well what happens when we die. None of it involving any hokus pokus or spirit warding…

          • Crono478

            If you know quite well what happens when we die then please share your knowledge with us.

          • Lance

            Youtube it, I dont have time to go over fourth grade science with you.

          • Crono478

            No, that means you don’t really know the answer to my question.

          • Lance

            All cellular activity stops, brain functions cease, muscle and flesh decompose until there is only bone left. Quite some time later the bone too with decay and turn to dust.

          • Crono478

            I do know very well that our body will decompose when we die. What I am really referring to our consciousness. Do you have any idea what will happen to our consciousness when we die?

          • Lance

            It ceases seeing as it is a product of the brain.

          • Crono478

            Do you believe that everything will be dark and nothing when we die? That is it?

          • Lance

            It’s not that I believe that, it’s that the evidence to prove otherwise has not been demonstrated. I want their to be a soul, because that would kinda be cool, regardless of that desire reality does not work like that.

          • Crono478

            Are you saying that you really don’t know what will happen when we die (except physical state of our body)? That hasn’t been demonstrated to us?

          • Lance

            The physical state, the corporial state, of the body is the only state it has demonstrated to exist in. Show me evidence..

          • Crono478

            Yes, we do have conscience and have ability to make decisions. That is both evidence of us being created in the image of God. Our soul is eternal because of this.

          • Lance

            No it’s not. Dog’s have the ability to make decisions, too.

          • Crono478

            They do not have same abilities that we do. We have intelligence that nothing can match. Also, we have free will too. We do exercise dominion over animals all over the world.

          • JCIL

            “I am therefore not subject to your rules or consequences.”

            Not subject to our rules. But you are subject to the consequences, which you can’t escape no matter how hard you try or deny. Facts are facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            There’s nothing factual about religion.

          • JCIL

            God created the heavens and the earth. Fact. Unless you have a natural explanation. Do you?

            God created life from non life. Fact. Unless you have a natural explanation. Do you?

            God created the fine-tuning of the universe so that it can sustain life. Fact. Unless you have a natural explanation. Do you?

            God created all of the animals according to their kind. Fact. Unless you have a natural explanation for that. Do you?

            God sent Jesus. Jesus arrived. Historical fact. Unless you can prove Jesus didn’t come. Can you?

            God gave us predictive and fulfilled prophecy…over 2000 examples. Fact. Unless you can disprove them all. Can you?

            I don’t want to hear your opinion. I want to hear a reasoned argument and evidence. Opinions aren’t facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            Everything you just said is just an opinion, period. There is nothing to back up any of those claims, and truth be told, many religions claim similar things.

            There’s an actual label for the argument you just used, it’s called the “God of the Gaps” argument.

            And you’re right, opinions aren’t facts…which makes me wonder why you just chose to use them?

          • JCIL

            Your opinion isn’t a refutation. Where are your natural explanations to the contrary?

            “There’s an actual label for the argument you just used, it’s called the “God of the Gaps” argument.”

            Not at all. God is active in all manner of life, but some He left very obvious so unbelievers like you would be stumped. And you are since you haven’t provided one reasoned argument. All you’ve been doing is expressing your opinion…but no actual facts or evidence to support your belief. You have great faith in your unsubstantiated opinion.

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t think you understand what a “fact” is.

          • JCIL

            You said that to me before and I replied: a piece of information used as evidence.

            I’ve given many. You’ve provided none. That should be an indication as to what is true and what isn’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, that’s not what a fact is. The definition of “fact” –

            : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

            : a true piece of information

            Everything you have said has been an opinion, and nothing more. I know you don’t understand the difference, but at least you can’t claim it hasn’t been explained to you.

            A fact must be proven to be true, that’s how it works. Since you have failed to prove a single opinion as being true, you cannot then claim them to be facts.

          • JCIL

            Are you saying dictionaries are wrong?

            “Everything you have said has been an opinion, and nothing more.”

            God predicting the arrival of Christ, and Christ arriving isn’t just my opinion. It is historical fact. As have been many others you so quickly discounted.

            “A fact must be proven to be true, that’s how it works.

            That’s not true. There are many facts that remain to be unequivocally proven true. Gravity is one. Gravity is a fact, yet no one knows how or why it works. We just see the result, not the acting force.

            Love is another. The mind is another. Morals are another.

          • Paul Hiett

            You just claimed that no one knows how gravity works.

            I don’t really know what to say, except that maybe you didn’t pay attention in school? I mean…seriously…how do you not know how gravity works?

            Where you home schooled or something?

          • JCIL

            “I mean…seriously…how do you not know how gravity works?”

            Gravity has always been a theory. The mechanism never proven. You really should study up on what you criticize. You’ve fallen victim to your ignorance on these subjects many times today already.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just…wow. I feel so sad for you.

          • JCIL

            If you actually took the time to verify my claim, you’d see that it is true. But to do that, you have to swallow your pride and look for the truth.

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok…we’ll just let this be your little secret. We won’t tell anyone else that no one knows how gravity works.

          • JCIL
          • JCIL
          • JCIL
          • Lance

            Do you know what a theory is, in the scientific context?

          • JCIL

            Of course. Do you?

          • Lance

            Per the National Academy of Sciences

            A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

            (One day I’ll memorize this) 🙂

          • JCIL

            Notice it’s an ‘explanation’ not an established truth. There have been many ‘theories’ that have been overturned, modified, and revised because, for the most part, scientists are guessing based on the knowledge they have at the time. Gravity remains a theory, with the mechanism speculated at this time.

          • Lance

            They aren’t guessing. Scientists make decisions based on the evidence of the time. Yes, sometimes scientists are wrong because they lacked the evidence then as they have now. What I love about science though.. pay attention here.. when science realizes its wrong.. it changes!

            Follow the evidence where it leads,
            Dont lead the evidence where you wish to follow..

          • JCIL

            “What I love about science though.. pay attention here.. when science realizes its wrong.. it changes!”

            Your statement alone conveys that ‘theory’ is just that. Not a proven truth, but a best explanation at the time. There’s quite a difference between proven truth and a good guess.

          • Lance

            Can you give me an example of what scientists are guessing at. While you’re doing that, here’s an example of someone guessing..

            A man and a woman try and conceive multiple times and fail. Concerned, they turn to the church in search of answers. The young couple is told that it simply was gods will that these two not have children. A little time down the road the young woman is in the clinic getting a check up and through some chit chat with her doctor she lets slip about the failed attempts to get pregnant. The doctor asks the young woman if it will be ok to do a procedure, just a swab that will only take a minute. She agrees to the procedure, the doctor swabs the young woman and sends off the swap to the lab. Four days later the young woman gets a call asking her to come into the clinic to review the results. Turns out the young woman has Polycystic ovary syndrome, well documented and treatable with medication. Now, the young woman being from a religious background is scared to take medicine and the young man grew up in a home that was anti-government and anti-pharma, naturally they are at a loss. After a while of thinking to each other the two finally look at each other and the young woman says shes willing to try it. The woman starts taking the meds and they keep trying to have a baby. Eight months pass, the young woman has been feeling sick and after talking with her mother, she is concerned the pills are to blame. She tosses them in the trash as she heads for the doctors. The doctors run some tests and after a small wait come in and confirm, the young woman is PREGNANT.

            This is a true story. It’s my sons story, he’s three now.. three years against gods will.. so many more to go…

          • Paul Hiett

            Nah, that was just God answering your prayers!!!!

          • JCIL

            “Can you give me an example of what scientists are guessing at. ”

            The origin of the universe. Life from non life. Why there is fine-tuning in the universe when random processes produce randomness, not order and purpose. All theories are best guesses, including evolution.

            The advice was wrong from the start. Luke was a physician. It’s not wrong to seek medical treatment where necessary.

          • Paul Hiett

            JCL doesn’t even know what the difference is between a fact and an opinion, so I doubt you’ll get anywhere with logic.

          • Lance

            I know of a few historians who would disagree with you, there actually is no factual evidence that Jesus existed, out side of the bible of course. Speaking of books.. Read ‘Nailed’ By David Fitzgerald.

            Oh and as far as morals are concerned, those appear to be a moral construct based on the society that forms them.

            Fact: slavery is in the bible.
            Fact: slavery is an immoral act.

            Was is that slavery was once “A-OK!” but now it isn’t? Or, does it make more sense that slavery has always been, and always will be wrong and people are speaking out about these things.

            Just because it’s in your holy book doesn’t make it right.

          • JCIL

            These historians are mistaken. No true historian today disputes the reality of Jesus. Yes, there are detractors, but they are considered fringe…as every subject has them.

  • Pirate
  • Lance

    So now, based on an opinion that not everyone shares, good people who just want to love one another won’t be granted the same treatment as the rest of us… Things like this make me sick..

    • Paul Hiett

      Come June, SCOTUS will render all of this hatred moot.

      • Lance

        Ready with popcorn and soda! I’m sure it’ll be fun to watch. I live about ten minutes away from the FL-AL state line, I think I might go into a Chik-Fil-A on that day and order me some chicken 🙂

        • Paul Hiett

          Right before you go shopping at Hobby Lobby?

          • Lance

            LMFAO! I totally should. I’ll wear my “A” hat and my Science Time t-shirt with Neal Tyson and Carl Sagan.. I’m sure it will go over well.

          • Paul Hiett

            I prefer the fish symbol on my truck with four legs, and an open mouth eating the “other” fish symbol.

  • MisterPine

    I kind of like the idea of Alabama being the sole remaining pocket of faith-based hatred in the US. Almost wish they had a chance of winning this one so it could turn Alabama into the boil on the backside of the U.S. on the map, just the steaming turd where all the hate and intolerance congregates and the rest of the nation avoids.

    • JCIL

      If homosexual behavior was ‘normal,’ why do so many gay proponents have to try and silence a different opinion by using words like ‘hate’ and ‘intolerance?’ Aren’t your comments hate filled and intolerant of a different belief?

      • Paul Hiett

        If it wasn’t normal, why did your “god” include that behavior in over 1500 species of animals in the world?

      • Lance

        No ones trying to silence you ffs.. you’re on social media declaring your opinion… not the definition of silence..

      • MisterPine

        Tell you what.
        Why don’t you go find me as many homosexuals as you can name who are trying to ruin the lives of Christians.
        Then, go find me as many Christians as you can name who are trying to ruin the lives of homosexuals.
        Can’t you practice your faith without insisting someone else follow your rules? I know of plenty Christians who are content to leave homosexuals alone, why is it so hard for you?

        • JCIL

          “Why don’t you go find me as many homosexuals as you can name who are trying to ruin the lives of Christians.”

          How about the couple that forced the closure of a bakery shop?

          “Can’t you practice your faith without insisting someone else follow your rules?”

          Why are you not following your own advice? Why are gays trying to change the definition of marriage? Suppress anyone who disagrees with homosexuality?

          Gay proponents are some of the most vicious and intolerant in society.

          “I know of plenty Christians who are content to leave homosexuals alone, why is it so hard for you?”

          Why are you here spreading gay propaganda?

          • MisterPine

            How about the bakers just do their job and bake cakes and not judge others, as their Bible tells them to do?

            “Why are gays trying to change the definition of marriage? Suppress anyone who disagrees with homosexuality?” How about because they want the right to live their lives unmolested by other people’s superstitions and bigotries. to have the right to fall in love and be happy like everyone else?
            And that’s got nothing to do with suppressing people who disagree with homosexuality – they aren’t doing that. You have a problem with homosexuality, express it all you want, just don’t try to force your religious beliefs on those who are not bound by it. Their lives don’t affect you in any way. Mind your own business.

            “Why are you here spreading gay propaganda?” How dare you. I am supporting human rights and the right to live free of hatred and superstition.

          • JCIL

            You wanted an example, I gave you one. Why couldn’t the couple respect the beliefs of the bakers and get their cake somewhere else?

            “How about because they want the right to live their lives unmolested by other people’s superstitions and bigotries. to have the right to fall in love and be happy like everyone else?”

            Don’t get me started about molestation…which is very high among gays. So is abuse.

            People can fall in love with all kinds of things and people. That doesn’t mean it is right.

            “And that’s got nothing to do with suppressing people who disagree with homosexuality – they aren’t doing that… Mind your own business.”

            Don’t you see the contradiction?

            “How dare you. I am supporting human rights and the right to live free of hatred and superstition.”

            It’s not about human rights. It’s about morally right. There is a difference. Isn’t calling my belief in God a superstition hate?

          • MisterPine

            Why couldn’t the couple respect the beliefs of the bakers and get their cake somewhere else? Because it’s not against the law to go into a bakery to order a cake.

            I have no idea why you mention molestation and abuse, homosexuality has nothing to do with either of those things. It’s two consenting adults who don’t need anyone else’s opinions of what’s “right”.

            There is no contradiction.

            Morals are not dictated by your religion which I find morally repugnant. I am not calling your belief in God a superstition, I’m calling your hateful religion which urges you to treat homosexuals this way a superstition.

          • JCIL

            “Because it’s not against the law to go into a bakery to order a cake.”

            This wasn’t about a cake, but about making a point at the expense of someone else’s beliefs…and now livelihood.

            “I have no idea why you mention molestation and abuse, homosexuality has nothing to do with either of those things.”

            Yes it does. Gays have the highest level of domestic abuse. They also have the highest incidence of child molestation. These facts alone should be a reason to help gay individuals, not increase its prevalence.

            “It’s two consenting adults who don’t need anyone else’s opinions of what’s “right”.

            Who decides what is right? Man or God? If it’s man, it won’t be long before sin is rampant…because man desires sin.

            “Morals are not dictated by your religion which I find morally repugnant.”

            Yes, you do because you want the right to determine your own morals. This is moral relativism. If that’s what you advocate, then you can’t blame ISIS for their agenda.

            “‘m calling your hateful religion which urges you to treat homosexuals this way a superstition.”

            Belief systems aren’t superstitions.

          • MisterPine

            “This wasn’t about a cake, but about making a point at the expense of someone else’s beliefs…and now livelihood.”

            Too bad the law doesn’t see it that way, and neither do most reasonable people.

            “Gays have the highest level of domestic abuse. They also have the highest incidence of child molestation.”

            That’s ridiculous. Please present facts to prove this otherwise it is just hot air and hatred. It is not your place to “help” gay people with ridiculous things like conversion “therapies” which are fraudulent. If you want to help them, let them live their lives, just as they would have you do.

            Man can decide what is right without the abstract concept of a God.

        • Paul Hiett

          And cue the Christian florist story in 3…2…1…

          • JCIL

            Another fact you have to deal with. I noticed you didn’t admit you were wrong about gravitational theory. You’ve been wrong most of the day. Facts are pesky that way.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh yes, a business owner breaks the law, but somehow it’s the customers fault. Great “theory” you have there.

            Seriously, you haven’t won a single point all day. Not one. You even claim people don’t know how gravity works. That’s your claim, btw.

          • JCIL

            You didn’t even read the links I posted, did you? You continue to speak from uninformed opinion. Sad.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m assuming you never took a physics class in college. OH hell, you probably didn’t even go to college did you?

          • JCIL

            Obviously, you didn’t read the links. It’s called gravitational theory for a reason.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, didn’t think you did.

          • MisterPine

            Right on cue. The good old Christian right to hate, suppress, judge and condemn.

          • JCIL

            “The good old Christian right to hate, suppress, judge and condemn.”

            You comments are hate, trying to suppress mine, and condemning. Gay have a lot of bitterness. That comes from their internal struggle with their desire and the truth.

          • MisterPine

            I am not gay, and my statement refers only to the specific brand of Christian, namely the fundamentalist or evangelical right-wing brand who feel they are morally superior and have the right to push others around.

          • JCIL

            I don’t feel morally superior. I still struggle with sin, too. The difference, however, is that I’m not trying to make sin unsinful. Im also not trying to make others sin, too.

          • MisterPine

            There is nothing sinful about homosexuality, we know this from mental health experts and science and modern medicine.

          • JCIL

            “There is nothing sinful about homosexuality, we know this from mental health experts and science and modern medicine.”

            Sin is an offence against God. Man is no judge of that. Man is sinful. Of course they will condone it if they can get away with it.

          • MisterPine

            Sin may be an offense against God, but to love another human being does not constitute sin.

          • JCIL

            If the love involves immoral behavior, yes it does.

          • MisterPine

            I know of no homosexuals who are immoral. No more than straight people.

          • JCIL

            Who are you getting your moral code from, yourself?

          • MisterPine

            Like most people, I initially got it from my parents, who taught me to treat others the way I would want to be treated, to not hurt people, to have a duty to family and friends, and to be happy.

          • JCIL

            The world will be in a world of hurt if everyone subscribes to moral relativism. if you do, then you shouldn’t have any problem with ISIS. They are doing what they believe is right and moral. Is that the kind of society you want?

          • MisterPine

            No…how insulting and ridiculous.
            The ISIS people are murdering and torturing people. I don’t require religion to know that is wrong. Do you think that after all these years on this earth my moral compass is suddenly going to steer that way, as though I have never understood the value of human life?

          • JCIL

            “No…how insulting and ridiculous.”

            Not at all! In a morally relativistic society, it ends up being they with the most power wins. The problem you are having is not extrapolating moral relativism out to its logical conclusion.

          • MisterPine

            I don’t see an issue as long as people don’t try to legislate their morality. Frankly I don’t see the difference between a large group of terrorists who want to kill infidels and a large group of fundamentalists who want to kill homosexuals.

  • Ally

    F*king Possums! Ugly, nosy, meddling, fearful and ignorant!

    • JCIL

      How tolerant of you. I’m sure your gay brothers and sisters would be proud.

      • Ally

        Tolerant of intolerance? Never! Aren’t ya’ll supposed to be ready for the zombie Jesus to return? As in, getting ready? But no, you have to try to execute your self-righteous, mental illness behaviors, built on the imaginations of men. MYOB (mind your own business/bedroom) and you could actually be a better citizen.

        • JCIL

          Your comments are offensive, hate-filled and intolerant. Why are gays so intolerant? Abusive toward others?

          • Paul Hiett

            Could be from those 1700 years of hatred and persecution at the hands of Christians? You used to kill them, remember?

          • JCIL

            96 percent of all major wars in the last 2000 years were caused by non religious reasons. Atheism is responsible for much of the oppression in the last 200 years. You need to get your facts straight again.

          • Lance

            Cite. Examples.

          • JCIL

            Above

          • Paul Hiett

            *spits coffee*

            Dude, seriously, you were really done a disservice by being home schooled.

          • JCIL

            From 184 AD until 2005, Wiki lists 28 major wars. Of those, only 4 (14 percent) were attributed to a “Religious” war.

            The total casualty count of these 28 wars (using the highest estimates) is approximately 493,400,000. Of that, casualties from “Religious” wars is estimated at 20,500,000. This represents 4.2 percent of casualties attributed to “Religious” wars.

            As you can see, non religious wars account for the great majority of major wars throughout history.

            What’s more telling, is that most Genocides and alleged Genocides were caused for non religious reasons.

            For example, 1894 – 1923, the Ottoman Empire conducted a policy of Genocide of the Christian population. It’s estimated that that campaign claimed approximately 50,000,000 lives (if you were to extend that period to 1959, the number of casualties would exceed 66,700,000). This one campaign alone is double (and more than triple if using the 1959 end date) the number of casualties caused for religious reasons from 184 AD to 2005.

            One only need look to other countries for more evidence of how religiously motivated wars are in the very small minority of wars and conflicts in comparison to non religious conflicts.

            That’s not to say that religious wars are warranted. Most religions teach tolerance and love. People who committed wars and atrocities in the name of God during those years weren’t actually abiding by God’s principles. So even in these religious wars, ulterior motives were at play.

          • Lance

            a “non-religious” war doesn’t mean it has anything to do with atheism, just that they were fighting about god heads this time, it was something else.

          • JCIL

            Atheist regimes and the slaughter they caused:

            Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered

            Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered

            Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered

            Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered

            Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered

            Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered

            Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered

            Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered

            Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered

            Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

          • Lance

            Adolf Hitler was Christian. His cause has been –> DOCUMENTED <– as a Christian endeavor. The fact that these people were, and in some cases still are, HORRIBLE PEOPLE, has no bearing on what religion they claim.

            Key example.. FU*KING Hitler.. as Christian as they come.. and dont dare say something stupid like, thats not a real christian…

          • JCIL

            “Adolf Hitler was Christian.

            No he wasn’t. Non believers often make this mistake in an attempt to discredit Christianity.

            I notice you have nothing to say about the other items on the list.

          • Lance

            We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

            -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928

            I actually did address this… “the fact that these people were, and in some cases still are, HORRIBLE PEOPLE, has no bearing on what religion they claim.” …

          • JCIL

            The opening line should have tipped you off. People can profess to be anything, but their behavior reveals the truth.

            Hitler was no Christian.

          • Lance

            Yes. He. Was.

            Just because you don’t like what he did doesn’t change the fact that he was christian and that his actions were christian, says so in the manifesto…

          • JCIL

            No he wasn’t! You really should check the facts and not go by uninformed hearsay.

            Funny how you will believe Hitler’s writing, but not those from God. Your bias is showing.

          • Lance

            I’ve got hitler on video, kinda one-ups god there.

            Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

            — Extract from Inside the Third Reich, the memoir of Albert Speer

          • JCIL

            Many people will say Lord, Lord, and Jesus will say, I don’t know you.

            Anyone can claim whatever they want. As I said, the proof is in Hitler’s behavior.

          • Lance

            Ahh there it is, the no true scottsman fallacy! The fact remains that the main stood up on podiums and shouted that his movement was a christian movement and ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL those soldiers and people cheered. Believe me, he was a christian. His actions are on key to what is displayed in the bible.

          • JCIL

            He was no Christian, and I don’t believe you because you have proven to have many ‘facts’ wrong. Why won’t you evaluate the truth? Why do you have to cling to your faulty opinions?

          • Lance

            You don’t have to believe me, Mein Kampf is in print, you can check it out from your local library or even purchase it.

          • JCIL

            As I said, people will say and do anything they want. But that doesn’t mean it is true. I could write book saying I played professional hockey, but that doesn’t mean I actually did.

            Besides, you didn’t address any of the other deaths I listed. I hope you can see you were wrong about that, too.

          • JCIL

            Hitler’s Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer’s private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great “scourges” of history, and said of the Germans, “Let’s be the only people who are immunized against this disease.” He promised that “through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity.” In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.

            Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler’s leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.

          • Ally

            No, I love my Christian brothers and sisters. They can be just as sane as the rest of us, if they CHOOSE to.

          • JCIL

            Really. Your comments don’t demonstrate that. Christians love the person but hate the sin.

            God said homosexuality is a sin that carries the consequences of sin…but still loves the sinner. That’s how I try to model my life.

            What bothers me is that sin is trying to become perceived as ‘normal’ and not sinful. That’s when I challenge that notion.

          • Ally

            I happen to hate religion, but love those deceived by it. That’s how I model my life. The golden rule predates anything in your book of ignorance, that you deem ‘holy’.

            Sin is an invisible sickness, created to sell you an invisible ‘cure’.

          • JCIL

            “I happen to hate religion, but love those deceived by it.”

            What evidence do you have that Christians are deceived?

            “Sin is an invisible sickness, created to sell you an invisible ‘cure’.”

            Can you prove that? What is the cause of evil?

          • Lance

            One doesn’t have to prove that something doesn’t exist. We HAVE been over this.

          • JCIL

            If you believe God doesn’t exist, you should have some evidence to support your belief. Do you?

          • Lance

            I do not have to prove a negative. Try this little experiment that should help you out..

            We believe that gravity exists, I mean after all it is JUST a THEORY.

            Convince yourself that gravity and the theory of gravity are wrong! Believe it will ALL OF YOUR HEART AND SOUL.

            Take as long as you need for the last step, its crucial.

            Now that you have a firm belief that gravity doesn’t exist, step off of this skyscraper. Did you float? Did you stay at the same elevation? Did you start to drop despite your belief? Record your answers below to share with the class…

          • JCIL

            For someone who has a lot of Bibles around, you don’t know much about Christianity.

            “I do not have to prove a negative.”

            Your argument is flawed. God is already established as historical fact. If you don’t believe the fact, you will have to prove the fact wrong. Do you have such proof?

            “We believe that gravity exists, I mean after all it is JUST a THEORY.”

            Nice to see you now agree that it is just a theory. We can’t see the force, or understand how it actually works, but we see the effect. This is the same for God. God is immaterial so it’s unrealistic to expect to see Him (unless He reveals Himself to you, which He has for some people). But we can discern His effect…and many times.

          • Lance

            Where in history was god established as fact? which god by the way? I stand by the THEORY of gravity because i understand the weight (snicker snicker) that the word holds.

            You ignored the purpose of the example i gave. You cannot convince yourself of something that has been demonstrated to be true. Thats how your brain works. It process information and computes a result.

            Sufficient evidence has yet to be given to prove that ANY god exists, let alone the christian one.

          • Ally

            None of that is for ME to prove, as I don’t believe ANY of it. From it’s nonsensical stories, to it’s evil main character…it is SO OBVIOUSLY created by a Bronze Age man in his ignorance.

            It is for YOU to validate, not the unbeliever. The beginning of ‘faith’ is the end of ‘reason’. Good luck with that! lol

          • JCIL

            No, if you believe God doesn’t exist, it’s up to you to substantiate your belief. Do you have any evidence to support your belief?

          • Ally

            Sorry…it never works that way. I believe in the Easter bunny….YOU prove to me that he doesn’t exist! I ‘believe’! lol
            No, that would be for ME to validate.

          • JCIL

            Do you believe God exists, or doesn’t exist?

          • Lance

            I do not have any evidence that a God exists.

          • JCIL

            Have you evaluated the evidence?

          • Lance

            Yes, it produced my Atheism..

          • JCIL

            I hear that all the time. When in fact, it wasn’t evaluated at all.

            How do your account for 100 percent predictive and fulfilled prophecy? How do you square that with over 2000 events predicted and fulfilled…over 300 about Jesus alone?

          • Lance

            That number is exaggerated and as the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day!

            What seems more logical? A higher being has begat special knowledge to me! I must abide! -or- I’m hearing voices, that’s never happened before, maybe I should seek help?

          • JCIL

            The number is not exaggerated. In fact, the number is much greater than 2000. So much for your study.

            How about some reasoned arguments rather than your uninformed opinion. Do you have any evidence they didn’t happen?

          • Lance

            Show me one?

          • JCIL

            You have Bibles. How about picking one?

          • Lance

            Wont play that game. Might as well open my sons nursery rhymes and try to figure out how the cow jumped over the moon..

          • JCIL

            In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel’s Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

          • Lance

            Yes! The best example he has is over 2000 years old.. how convenient.

          • JCIL

            If you actually studied the Bible, you would have known that most of the OT points to Jesus and the events leading up to Him, which includes about 2000 prophecies. The rest of the prophecies are about the final judgement and after. The approx. 2000 have all come true, including over 300 about Jesus. Of course they are over 2000 years old.

            Nevertheless, the prophet wrote what God told him would happen…which is a matter of Jewish history. Jesus being born in Bethlehem fulfilled it about 700 years is written by people far removed from the original prophecy. How do you explain this?

          • Lance

            Much like how in an issue of Spiderman if someone says something and it comes true in a later edition, that person is a prophet! I totally get it now.

          • JCIL

            No. It’s like saying something will happen, and 700 years later it does exactly as predicted. Not with one event, but over 300 hundred. God said we would know Him because only He knows the future.

            This is just one example of a prophecy. There are over 2000 more.

            Does your lack of an explanation mean you don’t have one?

          • Lance

            No its simply a matter of you not ackowleging that the bible is a work of fiction, that why I compared it to a comic book

          • JCIL

            Where is your reasoned answer? I don’t want your uninformed opinion, but real proof? Evidence to prove the prophecies were wrong? Do you have any?

          • Lance

            Once again, I’m not claiming that the prophecies are true, you have yet to present evidence .. outside of the buybull .. that these things actually happened.

            Here’s my favorite failed prophecy:

            Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.“ (Matthew 24: 25-34)

            All the people who were alive at that time are effing DEAD.. requirement not met, fail.

          • JCIL

            Jesus is predicting the fall of Jerusalem, which did happen within the generation He was talking to. Again, yours is an error in reading and understanding, not that the Bible is wrong.

          • Ally

            It’s not about ‘belief’ it’s about evidence.. something you cannot come up with or test. I need EVIDENCE, not ‘self proclaimed’ evidence from the very book that is completely flawed.

            Again, it’s for you to substantiate…YOU are the one’s with the great ‘claims’…but sadly, no evidence.

            No, there is no supernatural ANYTHING that can be proven. I rest my case…not ‘belief’.

          • JCIL

            Is your answer yes or no?

          • Ally

            No, until proven.

          • JCIL

            What evidence do you have to support your belief that God doesn’t exist?

            I’ll wait.

          • Ally

            So instead of just numbering and naming facts of his existence, you cheaply throw your responsibility on someone who has absolutely NO reason to believe this nonsense?

            There is NO evidence that this entity you speak of or anything remotely like him exists…so therefore there is nothing to work with to disprove him. God cannot be disproved…but your problem is, he cannot be proved.

            Hearsay is not evidence of any kind.

          • JCIL

            You said you believed God doesn’t exist. You should have evidence to support your belief. Do you?

            There is a lot of evidence that points to God. You, on the other hand, have none to the contrary. Aren’t you concerned about that? Having no evidence to support your belief?

          • Lance

            You believe that God exists.
            Ally rejects your belief or claim that god exists, she never had her own belief that god doesn’t exist…

            Maybe that explains it better?

          • JCIL

            You are saying the same thing. But let’s ask Ally. Ally, do you believe God is real?

          • Lance

            I don’t see them gays burnin’ people at the stake for wearing the wrong shoes with that dress..

          • JCIL

            Jesus never said to burn people at the stake. Don’t blame some peoples’ bad behavior on God.

          • Lance

            I don’t need to. He drowned all but Noah and his select simply for being the beings he created in the first place… if you believe that story..

          • Paul Hiett

            And all of the worlds races today sprung from that little family in the boat!

          • Lance

            Ah-huck! We’re cousins Paulee!

          • JCIL

            No. Wrong again.

          • JCIL

            You don’t believe in justice?

          • Lance

            Yes I do. However that leans more towards genocide.. even if it were true..

          • JCIL

            Rejecting God alone requires death. Then, the rampant sin on earth at that time was sufficient for an all loving, merciful, and patient God to say enough is enough.

            While I don’t expect you to comprehend this, since humans use their limited intellect to understand the things of God, it should tell you just how wicked the earth was at that time. We’re heading back there now.

          • Lance

            If I can’t be expected to understand it, how can you be expected to.. and in turn explain it to me? You actually have the account backwards, we are coming out of our infancy.. we aren’t so afraid of the dark any more and we have no use for boogeymen anymore. We now have ways to test and document how the world and the universe work, we don’t have to guess anymore or make things up.

            Also, if you really read the bible you will understand that the Jewish and even the Christian gods are anything but loving, merciful or patient..

          • JCIL

            “We now have ways to test and document how the world and the universe work, we don’t have to guess anymore or make things up.”

            Really. How did the universe come into existence out of nothing? How did life come from non life?

            “Also, if you really read the bible you will understand that the Jewish and even the Christian gods are anything but loving, merciful or patient.”

            God is loving and patient. None of us has the right to live, yet we do. The moment we reject God, He has the right to snuff us out. But He doesn’t. That’s an example of His mercy and patience.

          • Lance

            Life came into being through what we have come to understand as abiogenesis. We do not know that the universe came from nothing, that theory is changing with the times thanks to new *EVIDENCE*.

            Also, before you get too excited, the new evidence does not in any way support any religious claim.. period.

          • JCIL

            “Life came into being through what we have come to understand as abiogenesis.”

            No it didn’t. That was disproven years ago.

            “We do not know that the universe came from nothing, that theory is changing with the times thanks to new *EVIDENCE*.”

            Science knows you can’t get something from nothing. The start of the universe defies the very laws it created. In other words, the universe came into existence ‘unnaturally.’ This requires a supernatural force because a natural force doesn’t work.

            The new evidence actually does support the Big Bang – a beginning from nothing.

          • Lance

            Where is the evidence that abiogenesis was disproven. I would LOVE to see that report. You appear to be a little behind the times when it comes to the sciences, we’re actually looking into the existence of a multiverse.. which is increasingly more the case versus ANY god, not just Yeshua…

          • JCIL

            Modern understanding of molecular biology allows scientists to calculate the probability of abiogenesis. Such calculations are not a proof, but since neo-Darwinism is based on random mutations, they are an important predictor of its validity. Probability was not an issue up through 1965, when scientists believed an infinite amount of time was available because the universe was eternal. But it is a critical issue now that science estimates Earth is only ~4.6 billion years old, which allows substantially less time for slow evolutionary processes to produce the planet and life we observe.

            As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of 10 to the power of 75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10 to the power of 75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

            But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of 10 to the power of 313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires approximately 1,500 – 2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of 10 to the power of 40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of 10 to the power of 100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

            How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10 to the power of 50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10 to the power of 150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!

            Could the genetic code have been spontaneously generated? Biologists J. T. Trevors and D. L. Abel conclude:

            “The argument has been repeatedly made that given sufficient time, a genetic instruction set and language system could have arisen. But extended time does not provide an explanatory mechanism for spontaneously generated genetic instruction. No amount of time proposed thus far, can explain this type of conceptual communication system. It is not just complex. It is conceptually complex.”

            These probability arguments are irrefutable. Richard Dawkins admits “the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard.”

            And these calculations do not even consider the seemingly insurmountable obstacle first discovered by Louis Pasteur. Life consists of only “left-handed” amino acids and “right-handed” sugars, but a random primordial soup would have contained equal proportions of molecules in left-handed and right-handed configurations.

            Even in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

            “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”

            Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible.

          • JCIL

            Multiverse sufferers the same problem. Where did they all come from?

            This doesn’t even consider there is absolutely no proof at all for the multiverse wishful thinking.

          • Lance

            There is proof to support the theory. There are anomalies in the microwave background radiation that oddly enough, like the the product of two “bubbles” pressing against one another.. I know, this is really top level stuff and it can be quite hard to wrap your head around it..

          • JCIL

            “There is proof to support the theory. ”

            That’s not proof, but that they don’t know what is causing the anomalies. All the rest is wishful thinking.

            Besides, multiverses have the same problem. How did they come from nothing? Rather than solving the problem, you’ve just multiplied it.

          • Lance

            I don’t see the products of space telescopes as “wishful thinking”. You don’t seem to grasp the concept that we don’t have to guess anymore or use a scapegoat like #GodDunIt. While the multiverse theory might share the same issues as to where it came from I doubt any explanation will point to the supernatural.

            Pop quiz folks! Name the scientific theory that was refuted and replaced with an explanation from a holy book? Ready? GO!

          • JCIL

            I grasp the concept well. There is no evidence of another universe, just anomalies in ours. All the rest is imagination.

            But you didn’t answer my other question. How did the other universes come into existence?

          • Lance

            I don’t know, and neither does Christianity. What we cannot do is stop looking, give up.

            The Atheist community, growing mind you, isn’t satisfied with what the bible has to say and we have found out that when we test most of these claims, they simply aren’t true.

          • JCIL

            “I don’t know”

            Fair answer. Christianity knows because God always does what He says He does. That is His track record.

            “isn’t satisfied with what the bible has to say and we have found out that when we test most of these claims, they simply aren’t true.”

            You keep saying that yet haven’t shown one example of it being false. Just like Hitler, you can claim something, but it’s quite another to prove it. Can you?

          • Lance

            Leviticus 14? The cure for leprosy that totally is NOT a cure for leprosy… I know it’s not technically a prophecy but its demonstrably wrong and is a good example. The bible also predicted that Jesus would return “within their lifetime”, if taken into context of the story, Yeshua meant the lifetime of those already living at that time, not to a future generation…

          • JCIL

            If you took the time to read it, you would see that it’s not a cure, but to determine if is is leprosy and what to do if it is.

            This isn’t a matter of the text being wrong, but you not reading it correctly. This makes up the vast majority of so-called ‘errors.’

            Regarding your second claim, Jesus didn’t say He would return within their lifetime. This again is an error on your part, not the Bible.

          • Lance

            Its taken straight from the King James Version. It Clearly states :

            2 This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought unto the priest:

            4 Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be cleansed two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

            Operative word, cleansing, cleansed.

            What you described is actually just PART of it, the priest does check for the disease:

            3 And the priest shall go forth out of the camp; and the priest shall look, and, behold, if the plague of leprosy be healed in the leper;

            I particularly like Levisticus 13:44 He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean; his plague is in his head.

            Where it describes leporacy as a mental illness.. give me a break.

          • JCIL

            First, the KJV is a poor translation from a Latin translation. There are many errors in it, such as verse 2. What the writer is referring to is someone who has been healed from leprosy, not that the concoction will heal leprosy.

            Also the cleansing they are talking about is the ‘overall cleaness’ (or acceptable to God).

            They knew what leprosy was and how to deal with it. Again, your comment is in error.

          • Badkey

            ALLUAH Akbar!

          • JCIL

            There’s a big difference between the real God, and the Islam god. Don’t confuse the two.

          • Lance

            I don’t see one..

          • JCIL

            Why would you expect to see God? He is spirit. He only reveals Himself to those He chooses. But Jesus walked the earth. Thousands of people witnessed Him at that time, and wrote about it.

          • Lance

            An entire civilization worshiped Ra, your point?

          • JCIL

            I thought you had Bibles. You don’t know the difference between the real God and a man-made god?

          • Lance

            Thats a trick question, nice try sir.

          • JCIL

            It wasn’t trick at all. I’ll explain:

            Ra was man made. There was no evidence that Ra existed other than people thought so.

            The God of the Bible has made Himself known through many supernatural acts, such as predictive and fulfilled prophecy…and the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

            Ra was fiction. No evidence to support the notion.

            God is real, an abundance of evidence to support His reality.

          • Lance

            Actually in the times there was plenty of evidence that Ra was real and existed… As much evidence as the Christian god has now. Both have their texts, deities, miracles, villains and prophecies.

            What these two examples have in common is that they are BOTH man made.

            No ones going to hades..
            No ones going to hell..
            No ones going to heaven..

          • JCIL

            Where do you see Ra coming to earth to prove His divinity? How about rising from the dead? How about predictive and fulfilled prophecy?

            Ra none.
            God all.

            Pretty clear who is the real God.

        • Gary

          Keep it in the bedroom then. When you demand legalization, it is no longer in private.

          • Ally

            What an asinine statement. Your ‘legal’ sexual business is no one’s business…and if it is, you need help!

          • JCIL

            Why are you so abusive? Can you answer in a mature manner?

          • Ally

            Ignorance is not to be winked at…especially when one is trying to deny the very right they personally have based on nothing but ignorance. Equal is not ‘equal’, until it’s EQUAL. Doesn’t take that many brain cells to figure out.

          • JCIL

            People are equal. Morals aren’t. Don’t confuse immoral behavior with human rights.

          • Lance

            What exactly is immoral about homosexuality?

          • Gary

            God said it is immoral. And since God has the authority to define right and wrong, it is His decision to make.

          • Lance

            Not all follow the same book as you, Gary. You can’t impose your beliefs on other people, it’s just not right.

          • Gary

            How am I imposing my beliefs on anyone?

          • Lance

            Are you in favor of this action by their government? If it came down to a vote, a tally if you will and your mark was counted, would it be yay or nay, sir?

            When you attempt to introduce legislation, vote for such legislation or simply support the idea of it around the water cooler, you are imposing your belief on another person.

            It really makes NO difference if two men, two women or a man and a woman decide to get married. It has no bearing on anyone elses lives. If others think that because Tom and Larry down the block are married now effects their lives at all then, those people need to seriously take a step back and look at themselves.

          • Gary

            My Christian beliefs require me to oppose legal recognition of ssm. I don’t believe the right to ssm exists.

          • Lance

            That’s where you are

            a) wrong
            b) cross a line

            a..
            Christianity didn’t define marriage, marriage predates christianity

            b..
            Christianity is a “personal relationship with christ”. that being said, if its personal, only have to do with you and christ, what business is it of yours what anyone does

          • Gary

            God defined marriage when he made Adam and Eve. That does predate Christianity.
            I want to live in a decent society. In opposing homosexuality and ssm I am defending myself and my family. I am trying to keep society from rotting. I don’t want to live next to a casino or a whore house, or a crack house. If that means I am meddling in the business of others, then I guess I’m guilty.

          • Lance

            There is no reason to believe that what the bible has to say is true, or that a god exists.

          • Ally

            There’s that ‘immoral behavior’ nonsense, quoted from the same Bronze age nonsense that says YOU are not to have shellfish, and that it’s an abomination. Homosexuality is found in over 1000 species…and always have…and ALWAYS will. One cannot argue with those that have been proselytized and programmed in religious nonsense.

            Enjoy your delusion, I will continue to fight it’s ignorance and intolerance until I’m dust.

          • Gary

            Time is running out.

          • JCIL

            “Homosexuality is found in over 1000 species…and always have…and ALWAYS will.

            No it’s not. That’s propaganda hogwash. Very few animals engage in true homosexuality. Humans are above that…unless you think it’s okay to eat your young and eat feces, too? Kill your mate?

          • Ally

            Your talking points are as ignorant as your belief system. Again, enjoy your delusion.

          • JCIL

            An indication of a faulty belief system…insults and putdowns.

            As I said earlier, gays are abusive. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “As I said earlier, gays are abusive.”

            All of them? Every single one?

          • JCIL

            Pretty much…which is why gays have the highest incidence of domestic abuse and violence.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So by labeling everyone in a group as being associated with something negative, you show your bigotry. Got it.

          • JCIL

            Just stating facts. Facts are pesky that way. People who disagree with them don’t like them…and often resort to name calling in place of a reasoned argument.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Please cite the source for your “fact” that every gay is abusive.

            “often resort to name calling in place of a reasoned argument.”

            Please cite where I called you a name.

          • JCIL

            One can’t argue with someone who doesn’t want to hear the truth. Sin is sin. There will be an accounting and there’s nothing you can do to escape that fact. Unless you can prove God doesn’t exist. Can you?

          • Gary

            I am not trying to deny the rights of anyone. Everyone is free to marry under the same rules that I am under.

          • Lance

            When “personal relationships” with christ appear on the ballot, we have an equal problem.. do you see it?

  • Mr. Avatar

    Scripture says to renew the mind. In order to do that one must put into the mind what makes it healthy. Christ like means to have the mind of Christ, which is our endeavor. Those that follow the flesh are subject to having their mind become reprobate, This clouds the mind and they can not think clearly. Now you know why they perverted the meaning of the 1st amendment and have tried to take God out of every place public. They do not want people to have clear thinking minds.

  • Gary

    Those who follow the Christian religion cannot support homosexuality, ssm, or efforts to legalize and legitimize those things.

    • Badkey

      Who cares? That chanes nothing… Affects nothing.

      • JCIL

        I care. God cares. You should care because your eternity is at stake.

        • Lance

          No it isn’t.

          • JCIL

            No it isn’t what?

          • Lance

            Badkeys’ eternity is not at stake.

          • JCIL

            “Badkeys’ eternity is not at stake.”

            Can you prove that, or is that just your opinion?

          • Lance

            You made the claim sir, three posts above my rebuttal. So, as tradition goes, you must:

            a) define a soul
            b) prove Badkey has a soul
            c) prove the soul exists eternally
            and
            d) prove that homosexuality by someone else other than Badkey has any bearing on his soul..period.

          • Badkey

            He’ll scream BUYBULL at you.

            That’s all you’re gonna get.

          • JCIL

            You have nothing but wishful thinking,

          • JCIL

            I don’t have to define any of those things. You said Badkey’s eternity is not at stake. You should have proof of that assertion, correct. Do you?

            God said Jesus was coming. Jesus arrived. Jesus said Jerusalem would be completely destroyed 40 years before it was. Jesus said He would be killed, but rise again to prove His divinity and that there is life after death. He did. Based on God’s track record, it’s safe to assume all of the rest is true.

            Where is your evidence to the contrary? Do you have any?

          • Lance

            The fact that reality, mainly history, do not account for any of that. I mean the first recorded evidence of “Jesus” in history is 300 years (at least) after he would have died. Even so, that SOLITARY reference, was proven to be a hoax long ago. History speaks, it’s account is different than that of the bible.

          • JCIL

            No it doesn’t. Paul wrote about Jesus within 3 years after Jesus ascended to heaven. Much of the NT was written within 30 years of Christ by eye-witnesses.

            Your assertions are wrong.

            History’s account is not different.

          • Lance

            Don’t get me started on the gospels, they dont even match up 1:1… If you would like to watch this is a lecture by a historian I know, David Fitzgerald

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE

          • JCIL

            I’m fully aware of the misconceptions about the Gospels. But just as you are in error about how you are reading and understanding the Biblical text, so are the sources who cite these ‘inconsistencies.’

            Most moderately educated Christians can dispel these ‘inconsistencies’ easily. For someone who said he studied the Bible, you should know this elementary information.

          • Lance

            The inconsistencies are easily explained, the whole thing is made up.

          • JCIL

            Nope. They are errors in reading and comprehending. You’ve demonstrated a few yourself.

          • Lance

            I can assert that the entire thing is made up, which would produce inconsistencies. I base this on the fact that there are texts in existence that pre-date the bible and say roughly the same thing only with twists and turns of the culture that created the myth.

          • JCIL

            “I can assert that the entire thing is made up, which would produce inconsistencies.”

            There aren’t inconsistencies.

            No, there aren’t texts that essentially say the same thing. You’ve bought into a lie. Check the facts out for yourself.

          • Lance

            Yes there are. Time didn’t start with Christianity. People were around and making up gods and religions well before Jesus was even a twinkle in someones eye. The fact remains that there are gods/epics from many different religions and people who, in their respective parts, say the same thing.

          • JCIL

            That’s true. God has been known from the beginning of time. But people will be people. They will believe whatever they choose, true and untrue.

            You really should evaluate the ‘same gods’ epics for yourself. You’ll see that they aren’t even close to Christianity.

            We have divergent beliefs today, too. But that doesn’t mean they are all correct. It just means man wants his own way.

          • Lance

            If you take the components of the christian religion and compare them to other religions you will find there are similarities.

          • JCIL

            Of course there are some similarities. Many were borrowed from Christianity. That doesn’t disprove Christianity in the least. There are similar beliefs about many things. That’s the human condition.

            When you line up all of the evidences, the only logical conclusion is God. Then, when you accept Christ, He shows up to those who truly seek Him. But there is a vast difference between a said faith and a real faith. God knows the difference.

          • Lance

            You’ve got the connection backwards again, main religions that predate christianity have similarities in their gods. Seeing as they came before the bible the bible would have to have borrowed the idea from those other gods.

          • JCIL

            “You’ve got the connection backwards again, main religions that predate christianity have similarities in their gods.

            Give me an example.

          • Lance

            Romulus.

          • JCIL

            Which Romulus are to you referring to?

          • Lance

            The Ancient Roman God, Romulus. Ya know.. the one that was born of a virgin…

          • JCIL

            While the overall concepts may be similar (many were at that time) the major differences are in the details. The other major difference is the Christian God is grounded in historical fact. The others are unproven myths.

            For example, most people don’t believe the myths today since they aren’t real. But many people believe in God because they know Him personally.

            Even today there are similar beliefs. Yet, they remain unsubstantiated.

            The other thing to consider is that man knew God from the beginning. Of course there are going to be versions of mans quest to realize Him. This actually is another evidence for the existence of God.

          • Lance

            ” The other major difference is the Christian God is grounded in historical fact. The others are unproven myths.”.

            He is? Where?

          • JCIL

            The historical record of the Jews. The historical record of Christianity. Roman history. Babylonian history. Cananite History. Egyptian history. And so on.

          • Lance

            Can you cite those historical references from each of the nations and people you listed above?

          • JCIL

            You can do your own research. It’s all available.

          • Badkey

            I told you so.

          • Lance

            Tru dat.. lol.. I don’t know why I expected anything less. If anything I’ve dusted off these old lectures and am now watching them 🙂

          • JCIL

            It’s the blind leading the blind. If you really want to challenge yourself, evaluate the truth too.

            I was a proselytizing atheist for many years. I know the position well and all of the ‘arguments’ against Christianity. But when I actually took the time to understand, I found atheism was wrong and empty. Also without good reason. And illogical.

          • Lance

            The door does swing both ways. I know PREACHERS who swore by Christ for over a decade who have denounced their belief and moved on.

          • JCIL

            When you experience the real God, you can’t deny Him. That’s like denying you were born of a woman. People who leave the faith do so for two main reasons:
            1. They never had a real relationship with God.
            2. They are upset with God and don’t want to have anything to do with Him.

            The upset isn’t caused by God, but by man’s expectations of God. That’s a human thing, not a God thing.

          • Lance

            1. Fallacy
            2. Fallacy

            There are many other reasons someone would reject god/religion. One being that someone can think rationally and weigh evidence correctly.

          • JCIL

            “One being that someone can think rationally and weigh evidence correctly.”

            You haven’t even done that much. In fact, atheism is the most irrational belief on earth. There is no evidence to support it, yet you believe it anyway.

            From the conversations we’ve had, you’ve been wrong on all accounts. How is that thinking rationally? How is that actually weighing the evidence?

          • Lance

            Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s the lack thereof. Just like “people who dont play golf” aren’t Agolfian, their just people…who..don’t play golf..

          • JCIL

            Of course it’s a belief. It’s also a faith.

            A belief is something you believe to be true. You believe it’s true that God doesn’t exist. This is a belief.

            Since you have no evidence to support your belief, you have faith that your belief is true.

            Atheists have great faith in their belief. Some consider it to be a religion too.

          • Lance

            I don’t “Believe god doesn’t exist” — once again you can’t prove a negative.

            Atheism is not a faith or a religion. It’s the lack of a position. Like if you ask if I’m democrat or republican and i say neither, then you would more than likely call me some form of liberal but in reality i have no political affiliation..

          • JCIL

            Lance, I used the ‘can’t prove a negative’ argument years ago. It’s illogical and misplaced. The concept is completely wrong. You should stop using it as you aren’t doing atheists any favours, especially if you say atheists are rational.

            Atheism is a faith. Like it or not. It’s not a lack of position, since you have stated your position. Your logic requires some work.

          • Lance

            My logic may need work, still doesn’t prove god exists or people exerting their beliefs on others who do not believe the same is right.

          • JCIL

            There is a lot of evidence that points to God. From talking with you, you haven’t evaluated it honestly. Your talking points are standard atheist rhetoric. I frequented that information regularly, but it’s not true nor does it stand up to scrutiny, as you are finding out.

        • Badkey

          Uh-huh…

  • Jack Rohde

    Praise the Lord! now the rest of the world should do this.

    • Lance

      Never going to happen.

      • JCIL

        Yes it will. Even if only on the final day.

  • timetorun

    Praise God for the Alabama Supreme Court. We shall see if the fed administration will be patient and wait for the federal supreme court to cave into this moral corruption of a nation. But my feeling is they wont be patient and will attempt to send some kind of coercement lesson to Alabama to change their minds…we need to pray for protection for the judges on the Alabama’s supreme court and Judge Roy Moore!

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Sweet Home Alabama! God bless this courageous Supreme Court of Alabama!

  • Lynda Falls

    Government is by the people for the people. Nobody should have tried to overturn the vote in the first place or the laws that were already in place. Anyways good on these judges who did the right thing and stuck to truth.

  • Lynda Falls
  • thoughtsfromflorida

    I hope all the anti-american, anti-freedom, folks in Alabama who support this action enjoy the next 3 months. This will be a legal non-issue by the end of the June.

    • Gary

      If it is anti-American and anti-freedom to support real marriage over fake marriage, then all of the founders were anti-American and anti-freedom, as have been almost all americans throughout history.

      • Paul Hiett

        It’s extremely naive to think marriage is a Christian only term, Gary.

        • Gary

          I never said it is. But marriage means only one thing: the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.

          • Paul Hiett

            Based on what law?

          • Gary

            Based on God’s law. And based on American law since the founding of the country.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh that’s right, your “Christian’s only” law. Yeah, how’s that working out right now?

          • Gary

            Working fine. You think you are winning something by trying to change what a marriage is. You are going to learn that what you thought was a win was really a loss. You are cutting your own throat.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not at all. Come June, it’s over. We all know what SCOTUS is going to do. Even you see the writing on the wall.

            Then, your hate will be all you have left to cling to.

          • Gary

            It won’t be over in June any more than now. We are NEVER going to accept ssm. We are not going to stop fighting it. We are not going to stop discriminating against sodomites and their supporters.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, and many people who protested racial equality said the same thing about 50 years ago. How’s their fight going these days?

            You’re in a shrinking minority in this country. Every year, there will be fewer and fewer of you. Eventually, such bigoted views will only be a part of a few crotchety old men in their retirement homes, and once they pass…no one will care anymore.

            The youth of today are more educated and more tolerant of diversity than ever before, and antiquated mindsets like yours will soon be a thing of the past.

          • Gary

            As long as there are Christians on earth, there will be opposition to you and to other perverts.

          • Paul Hiett

            OH, there are always people who hate. The KKK still exists today, but the majority of the world looks at them and shakes their head and laughs. You sure you want to be in that same group?

          • Gary

            I am going to be on God’s side. God’s enemies are my enemies.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh noes, a Warrior for Christ!!!! Yes, yes, we know all about your hate and marshmallow threats.

          • JCIL

            Based on God’s law. Or else marriage will mean anything man wants it to mean: guy/girl, guy/guy, girl/girl, guy/girl/guy, girl/girl/guy/guy, guy/girl/pet/ guy/guy/mother…and so on.

    • JCIL

      This will be an issue throughout eternity…for those who don’t seek Christ and repent.

      • Paul Hiett

        No, it really won’t. After SCOTUS ends this argument, it’s done. A few years from now, those who opposed it will only look like the same folks who wore white sheets and hosed down the blacks back in the 60’s. 10 years from now, only a few bigots will remain, telling anyone who comes near their porch what a horrible thing it is that those gays were allowed to marry.

        20 years from now, no one will care.

        • Gary

          20 years from now you will be in Hell screaming and moaning. There will be a world-wide theocracy headed by Jesus Christ. Homosexuality will be a capital crime with a mandatory death penalty.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…you believe your loving, caring Jesus is going to come down here and exterminate homosexuals?

            Man, are you in for a rude awakening…

          • JCIL

            Jesus will punish and exterminate sin. God views homosexuality as a sin. 2 + 2 = 4.

          • Paul Hiett

            And where does “God” say that homosexuality is a sin?

          • Gary

            Leviticus 18:22, 20:13

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so Leviticus is now part of the law. I see. Why do you cherry pick only the laws from Leviticus that you like, and disobey other laws from that book?

            Reeks of hypocrisy, Gary.

          • JCIL

            The civil and ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ. The moral law remains. It’s not cherry picking, it’s reality.

            There are many other passages as well. Sodom and Gomorrah is a very good example of what God things of homosexuality. It was wiped out because of that very sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            Well, you can believe Sodom and Gomorrah is a true story, but the rest of the world will just laugh.

            Yeah, yeah, I know you think those towns were discovered, but they haven’t been. Nor have any pillars of salt made of a woman been found either.

            Keep trying.

            And if Gary is going to use Leviticus to justify a law of God, then ALL of Leviticus needs to be used. You don’t get to cherry pick which laws of your religion you follow.

            Hypocrites.

          • JCIL

            “Well, you can believe Sodom and Gomorrah is a true story, but the rest of the world will just laugh.”

            Sodom and Gomorrah were so vile, God wiped it off the face of the earth. No remains.

            Have you noticed Jericho has been discovered. The ruins of Babylon have been discovered…and many other cities and nations God destroyed because of their wickedness. Yet, not S&G. That is how detestable that sin is to God.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh look, more “evidence” which is no evidence. Can’t find those cities, so we must assume that God wiped them off the earth!!!!

            That’s like me claiming that Atlantis was home to a planet hopping group of aliens, but a massive nuclear war from another race wiped it off the Earth. You can’t prove it didn’t happen, so by your own logic, it must have happened.

            And yes, the Bible referenced real places. So do many works of historical fiction. Babylon was a real place. So was Jericho. What point do you have by that?

          • JCIL

            The point is, homosexuality is a sin. Period! God takes sin seriously, yet many humans don’t. Just because God is merciful and patient, doesn’t mean He isn’t real or just. He is both.

            I find it sad that humans, with their limited intellect and false beliefs think they know better than God…or that He isn’t real. Then, base their entire eternity on their uninformed opinions.

            God always punishes sin. It’s not if, but when. History is replete with examples, yet some people don’t learn.

            Christians challenge homosexuality because it is sinful behavior, and because they love the sinner and don’t want them to experience them being separated from God…a fate far worse than death…not because God is unfair, but because without God, all you have left is evil. Imagine being locked away with unrelenting evil for ever. That is hell.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sin is only a word that affects how you, a Christian, live. It matters not to me, since i choose not to believe in your parents choice of religion for you. You only use your Bible to pick and choose who to hate.

            If you could put your hate aside even just for a little while, and step back, you might see how much religion has changed over the years, and what was once not tolerated, is today.

            The Bible clearly states that women are inferior to men. Yet, today, we have women pastors and priests. So much for that idea, yet it’s clearly in the Bible (hello 1 Corinthians).

            If you’re really devoted to your religion, why aren’t you taking matters into your own hands and killing off the gays? Why aren’t you forcing women to remain silent in church? Why aren’t you stoning adulterers?

          • JCIL

            “It matters not to me”

            It matters to the God that created you, and so it should matter to you.

            “If you could put your hate aside”

            I don’t hate gays. I love all people, but don’t approve of, nor condone, sinful behavior.

            “The Bible clearly states that women are inferior to men.”

            Not inferior, but play a different role. Men are the providers. Women are the nurturers.

            You misunderstand the Biblical text and the purpose in its writing. This is an error on your part, not the Bible.

            “If you’re really devoted to your religion, why aren’t you taking matters into your own hands and killing off the gays?”

            God doesn’t ask us to kill anyone. He asks us to represent Him on earth. God gave us free will. I’m not entitle to take it away, nor would I want to. But I will challenge sin and speak for God. That’s what He has asked us to do.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’ve seen you reference 1 Corinthians before. Tell me, exactly what does Corinthians 14-34 say about women in the church?

          • JCIL

            To understand the Biblical text, you need to know who wrote it, for what audience, and for what purpose.

            Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians to address certain church issues they were having. At that time, women were largely uneducated on church matters, which is why Paul recommended that they keep silent in church. This wasn’t a rule to be followed by all Christians, but in the Corinthian church that was having the problem.

            Also keep in mind, that in those days, men were the authority. In keeping with this tradition, Paul reinforced this cultural norm for those who were rebellious.

          • Badkey

            The buybull has no bearing on this issue of a secular civil contract.

          • JCIL

            It does on your eternity, of which you can’t escape. God will allow you to thumb your nose at Him only for a short while. When that time is up, you’ll reap the consequences of your behavior and decisions.

          • Badkey

            There’s the threat of eternal pain again.

            So cute!

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…oh yes, more cherry picking. “Well at that time they didn’t really know much…”

            Sorry, JCIL, but it’s in the Bible, and you don’t get to decide what is and what is not “pertinent”. That passage clearly supports the idea that women are inferior.

          • Gary

            For me personally, I don’t want you to ever change what you believe. I just want you, and everyone else, to know that Christians will never support homosexuality, or ssm, or laws that protect perverts from discrimination, or laws the protect the supporters of perverts from discrimination. We are anti-homosexual, just as God is, and that will never change.

          • Badkey

            And you don’t have to.

            You will change nothing.

          • JCIL

            1 Jude 7; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 for starters

          • Gary

            YOU are the one who is in for the rude awakening. Imagine your surprise when you arrive in Hell.

        • JCIL

          You will care more than you know. Unless you can prove the historical God false. Can you? You didn’t yesterday. Do you have something today?

          • Paul Hiett

            Nor can you prove your version of your parents choice of religion for you is real. You didn’t yesterday. Do you have something today?

          • JCIL

            My parents have nothing to do with this. The real God, however, does. I gave you many evidences yesterday that you dismissed without careful evaluation. Your uninformed opinion remains uniformed by choice.

            I also noticed you still haven’t got any evidence for your faith. Do you?

          • Paul Hiett

            Your parents chose your religion for you. Did you really think you came to your beliefs all on your own?

            Man, you really are gullible.

          • JCIL

            Your are big on false assumptions, which is one of the reasons you don’t think clearly.

            I was a proselytizing atheist for many years. I know there aren’t any good arguments for it, which is why atheists have to resort to obfuscation and misdirection.

            I came to Christ because I wanted some good arguments against Christianity. As I researched, I came away with a completely different conclusion. God is real. He is knowable, and does what He says He does.

            Christianity is based on solid evidence. It doesn’t take much faith after that. Atheism is based on nothing and requires complete faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re a liar, and nothing more. You’ve been a Christian your whole life, raised as a Christian by your parents, and you’ve known nothing else.

            Lying is a sin, JCIL, didn’t you know this?

          • JCIL

            More false assumptions on your part.
            Why do you think I keep asking you for evidence for a belief that God doesn’t exist? Because there isn’t any.

            All atheists have is ‘can’t prove a negative’ nonsense and the ‘invisible teapot (or whatever)’ nonsense. Neither are logical or rational. But that’s all atheism has. It is the most bankrupt of all beliefs. Yet, atheists think they are enlightened.

            They think they are enlightened because they are so illogical and ill-informed.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yeah, you were never an atheist. Nothing as sad as a “Christian” who has to lie about his past.

          • JCIL

            Calling me a liar again. You are so blinded by your bias, you can’t even tell truth from error. And atheists say they are ‘free thinkers’ and open-minded. Not hardly!

          • Paul Hiett

            No, I just recognize a liar when I see one. You’re ashamed to admit the truth which is you were raised a Christian by your parents, like most folks who follow a religion.

            Why are you so ashamed of how you were indoctrinated?

          • JCIL

            I was raised a Christian, but hated it. I rebelled for many years, which is why I become a proselytizing atheist with a hate on for any Christian.

            But when I looked at Christianity with a critical eye, it turned out to be the truth, and can be proven over and over again.

            My upbringing did me great harm as a Catholic. But the real God made all of the difference.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, you’re nothing but a liar. You were never an atheist. Oh, you might have said something to tick off mom and dad one day, but be honest…you were never an atheist. You were merely indoctrinated as a child and have known no other religion in your life other than the one you were threatened with growing up.

            Don’t be ashamed of your religion, or the fact that you didn’t choose it, it was chosen for you. 95% of all religious people had theirs chosen for them too.

          • JCIL

            You clearly don’t know the truth even if it bit you in the nose. Your false assumptions are your undoing.

            It’s no wonder you don’t believe the Bible. You don’t even believe someone talking with you today. Why would you believe eye witness accounts from history?

            So prove me wrong. What reasonable arguments support the atheist faith?

          • Paul Hiett

            Nothing I have said has been untrue. You were never an atheist. You’ve been a Christian all your life. At least be honest. Why are so you so ashamed of not having chosen your religion? Most people don’t.

            As for atheism, it’s the default position we have when we’re born. No one pops out believing in a deity, it has to be taught.

          • JCIL

            “Nothing I have said has been untrue”

            How quickly you forget. Let me quote you: “You’re a liar, and nothing more.”

            And again: “You were never an atheist.”

            “No one pops out believing in a deity, it has to be taught.”

            How do you square that with the majority of people, even down through the ages, searching for God?

            A very small minority of people are atheists. There’s a reason for that.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, there’s a reason atheists have been a smaller group til now. It’s called “persecution”, you know, that thing you claim to be suffering from?

            Atheism is growing exponentially though.

            And no, nothing I said was incorrect. Yes, you lied about being atheism.

          • JCIL

            “Yes, there’s a reason atheists have been a smaller group til now. It’s called “persecution”, you know, that thing you claim to be suffering from?”

            Not at all. Think of this. If it weren’t for Christian values, you wouldn’t have the option of speaking your mind. Your very freedom is based on Christian values.

            If you don’t agree, do you think an atheist values would allow Christians the freedom to express their opinions? A review of history provides that answer.

            Do you think a strict Islamic state would allow you to be a professing atheist?

            You are free to believe what you want because of Christian values. There’s no oppression.

            Atheism is only growing (very slowly) because people are becoming more egocentric, not because God doesn’t exist.

            Do you know where an egocentric society ends up? In turmoil and destruction from within.

            “Yes, you lied about being atheism.”

            That’s another lie.

            BTW, where is you evidence to support your faith? You have yet to answer that.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I believe you are a very interesting astute person. It seems that Paul like others cannot separate discussing and Idea, concept, or worldview without attacking the person, the first no no in any debate. But he is desperate and you can see this happening as he continues.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Again you support my comment. Atheism is actually on the decline, and I’ll present that evidence if you like and this comes from an Atheist, who is trying her best to offer the olive branch to believers. There has never been a bigger time than now that structured religion (which I don’t support fully) but belief in God is on the rise, and in a big way. Your calling a man a liar without knowing the person. That is a total lack of logic. It is not possible for you to know if that person is a liar or not. Your attempt at personal attacks are illogical on the grounds of the communication median being used. If your going to attack an Idea, or Ideal, that is different. (My free lesson to you on debate strategy and rules for debate)

          • Paul Hiett

            http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

            This, and many, many articles/studies like it, prove that atheism is growing, not shrinking.

            Sorry about that.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Unbelievable, recording “None” isn’t even Atheism. It’s a privacy issue. And you used that as your source? Atheism has been around for 441 years, I’m not expecting it to disappear. Now, did you look at youtube yet, especially the near death experiences by claimed Atheists? I’m very interested in you looking at that. VERY! Many teachers especially in science in colleges select none as a preference, although some 65% of them believe in God. You can certainly show information, but at least read it first.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Your incorrect in your assumption. An example of this is in a study done by psychologist’s that believe that children at the age of 2 can relate to supernatural elements in the world. In fact children at birth consider their mothers to be deity and learn to communicate almost immediately after being born. We have an enate built in system that looks for Deity, otherwise there would be no need for love and comfort by a child and mother. That is according to the recent study. I’ll find the source for you, since you’ll ask for it.

          • Paul Hiett

            By all means, I’d love to read that study.

            I do so hope it’s not from a religious website.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Ok I have the study here. Over the past few weeks, a theme of discussion on the Internet has been the proposal that atheists may not exist. Of course people who think they’re atheists exist, but a study discussed in Nature proposes that people really aren’t functionally atheists because we’re innately predisposed toward religion. In an article titled “Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke,” Science 2.0 has a nice summary:

            While militant atheists like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.
            Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

            While this idea may seem outlandish — after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God — evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

            This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

            This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say. Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, with a belief in karma, or cosmic justice, as our default setting. “A slew of cognitive traits predisposes us to faith,” writes Pascal Boyer in Nature, the science journal, adding that people “are only aware of some of their religious ideas”.

            Boyer’s article in Nature continues this line of argument: “Religious thought and behaviour can be considered part of the natural human capacities, such as music, political systems, family relations or ethnic coalitions.” He continues, “religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.” In a striking comment, he points out that these religious predispositions exist in humans from a very young age:
            Humans also tend to entertain social relations with these and other non-physical agents, even from a very young age. … It is a small step from having this capacity to bond with non-physical agents to conceptualizing spirits, dead ancestors and gods, who are neither visible nor tangible, yet are socially involved.
            Boyer gives every sign that he himself is an atheist, writing things like, “When people proclaim their adherence to a particular faith, they subscribe to claims for which there is no evidence,” or “Religious concepts and activities hijack our cognitive resources.” So it’s not surprising that he suggests evolution is the ultimate cause of our religiosity:
            Is religion a product of our evolution? The very question makes many people, religious or otherwise, cringe, although for different reasons. Some people of faith fear that an understanding of the processes underlying belief could undermine it. Others worry that what is shown to be part of our evolutionary heritage will be interpreted as good, true, necessary or inevitable. Still others, many scientists included, simply dismiss the whole issue, seeing religion as childish, dangerous nonsense.
            Here’s my take. Evolutionary explanations of the origin of religion typically have two things in common: First, they’re dreadfully predictable. They simply look at some aspect of religious life or faith and ask how that behavior (or belief) might aid survival by endowing us with a beneficial trait (we’ll call that “X”). Second, in doing so, they utterly fail to explain the totality of religious experience and belief. Trait X might indeed aid in survival, but there’s no reason why evolving Trait X would imply or necessitate evolving anything like the full-fledged religion that’s so common throughout human societies today. Thankfully that’s not Boyer’s approach. Instead, he simply sees religion as an extension (or “hijacking”) of human “standard cognitive capacities,” however they might have arisen:
            So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than “religion” in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities.
            At least Boyer is being honest that it’s difficult as of yet to provide a full-fledged evolutionary account of the origin of religion. He argues, however, that evolutionary attempts to explain the origin of religion challenge key tenets of religion:
            The findings emerging from this cognitive-evolutionary approach challenge two central tenets of most established religions. First, the notion that their particular creed differs from all other (supposedly misguided) faiths; second, that it is only because of extraordinary events or the actual presence of supernatural agents that religious ideas have taken shape. On the contrary, we now know that all versions of religion are based on very similar tacit assumptions, and that all it takes to imagine supernatural agents are normal human minds processing information in the most natural way.
            So the fact that all religions think they’re right and involve belief in supernatural agents mean they’re all basically the same? That discounts, in a naïve way that one comes to expect from atheists, the profound differences among the world’s religions. And why should our being predisposed to faith somehow mean no religion is correct? That doesn’t follow at all. If anything, it would seem to support a key premise of theistic religion: that God gives us a capacity and desire to believe.
            The philosopher and author Paul Copan cuts right through such arguments with clean logic. He writes:

            The inventor Thomas Edison said that humans are “incurably religious.” History certainly bears this out. But why have humans been so religiously inclined across the millennia and civilizations? Neo-atheists Dawkins and Dennett interpret the phenomenon this way: theology is biology. To Dawkins, God is a “delusion”; for Dennett, religious believers are under a kind of “spell” that needs to be broken. Like computers, Dawkins says, we come equipped with a remarkable predisposition to do (and believe) what we’re told. So young minds full of mush are susceptible to mental infections or viruses (“memes”). Charismatic preachers and other adults spew out their superstitious bilge, and later generations latch on to it and eventually create churches and religious schools. Even if there isn’t a “God gene,” humans have a certain religious urge — an apparent hardwiring in the brain that draws us to supernatural myths.
            Some conclude, therefore that God doesn’t exist but is simply the product of predictable biological processes. One big problem with this statement: it is a whopping non sequitur. It just doesn’t follow that if humans are somehow wired to be religious, God therefore doesn’t exist. This is what’s called “the genetic fallacy” — proving or disproving the truth of a view based on its origin. In this case, God’s existence is a separate question from the source of religious beliefs. We need to sort out the biology of belief from the rationality of belief.

            There’s more to say here. We could turn the argument on its head: if God exists and has designed us to connect with him, then we’re actually functioning properly when we’re directed toward belief in God. We can agree that natural/physical processes partly contribute to commitment to God. In that case, the basic argument of Dawkins and Dennett could actually support the idea that religious believers are functioning decently and in order.

            On top of this, we’re left wondering why people would think up gods and spirits in the first place. Why would humans voluntarily sacrifice their lives for some intangible realm? Maybe it’s because the physical domain doesn’t contain the source of coherence, order, morality, meaning, and guidance for life. Humans, though embodied, are moral, spiritual beings; they’re able to rise above the physical and biological to reflect on it and their condition. This can result in the search for a world-transcending God.

            Attempts by these New Atheists to explain away theology as a useful fiction or, worse, a harmful delusion fall short of telling us why the religious impulse is so deeply embedded. If God exists, however, we have an excellent reason as to why religious fervor should exist.

            (Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?, pp. 29-30 (Baker Books, 2011) (emphases in original).)

            Copan is exactly right: If God exists then we would predict that humans should have this innate tendency toward religiosity. Critics of religion will forever chase inadequate explanations for these religious tendencies. Science 2.0 gives a good example of this fruitless thinking:
            If a tendency to believe in the reality of an intangible network is so deeply wired into humanity, the implication is that it must have an evolutionary purpose. Social scientists have long believed that the emotional depth and complexity of the human mind means that mindful, self-aware people necessarily suffer from deep existential dread. Spiritual beliefs evolved over thousands of years as nature’s way to help us balance this out and go on functioning.
            So religion evolved to help us cope with the reality that we really live in a meaningless universe? How convenient that is for those who believe we live in a meaningless universe! But why should anyone feel “existential dread” in the first place, if not for the fact that we long for something greater and beyond our mortal lives? Why is that longing for greater purpose there in the first place? This argument reduces to “religion evolved to meet a need” without, however, bothering to explain where the need itself came from.
            Well, where does it come from? Perhaps the answer was given by a different Pascal — not Pascal Boyer but Blaise Pascal. Centuries ago, he argued that if we find a “God-shaped vacuum” (a popular but apt paraphrase of his view) in the human heart, that is simply because God put it there.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where was that written and published?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Read the article. The information source is Nature as explained in the article

          • Guest

            You should read the information. It is in “Nature” a magazine of science which is stated right at the beginning of the article.

          • Paul Hiett

            How is it even remotely possible for anyone to claim that we’re not born atheists? A child knows nothing about the supernatural, at all. To claim such is pure ignorance.

            Also, why is this article so clearly slanted towards Christianity.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Paul, you keep hammering on people with no logic to back it up so again I must confront you. You told me that proof that there is no God comes from this statement “We know there was no flood or no Exodus” I assume your watching too many movies lately. The fact is that statement is a lie, “we” do not know that to be true or evident. Tell those things to a Jew, and example might be Netanathu the Prime Minister of Israel who in his speech mentioned Moses and the Exodus. By the same logic you have presented this statement, it is not possible for you to understand God, you are arguing in vain. Again I will make the statement that, this is not about God to you. This is about your being in a minority group pouting because your scared of the alternative, that there really is a God. Your efforts are to try to remove God, but good luck with that. It’s not going to happen. Give up on your pride bud, and search out what is right for you, but stop doing harm by attacking people personally. If you want evidence of God find it. Look at what science is saying, even what Atheist’s are saying about finding God. It’s never too late.

          • Paul Hiett

            Free grammar lesson #2…stop capitalizing “atheist”. If you want to come across as intelligent, one of the first steps is to write properly.

            Now, as to your claim, I hate to tell you this, but the proof that the entire world was never flooded is easy to see. I know you have the ability to Google, and feel free to refute my claims with some non-religious website links, but the geographical data proves, without a doubt, that the world has never been flooded. Not once.

            Regarding Exodus…again, science proves it never happened. Egypt never had Jewish slaves. By all means, if you can find such proof, the world would be ever in your debt.

            Atheists are saying nothing about finding “god”, by the way. Not sure where you got that from.

          • Logic&Emotion

            You’ve already stated the Grammer thing, I’ve already responded that it is just a label. Onward, Atheist need to find God lets put it that way. Regarding Exodus, that is hilarious. I’m going to play this game with you about evidences. You are first talking about the flood and the Exodus. The flood comes next. Again I state to you, tell that to any Jew that the Exodus did not exist. It’s a fact that any Jew will plainly tell you about their history in words that will make it clear they know their history better than you do. You have misinterpreted what I said about the Atheist. I said, the issue isn’t about finding God (hence the need to ask for proof consistently), New Atheism is about a minority group trying to take God out of public settings, plain and simple. Now on to something I truely enjoy especially with person’s such as you who stick to the script. Lets play the game of proving mathematics wrong about God shall we. This came to me through a scientist who posted this in response to an Atheist comment about 2 weeks ago that I was allowed to copy for reference, who works at Oxford College as a professor and is a believer.

            The universe is coherent and functions consistently. Every known process in the universe is mathematical. Chaos Theory has shown that even chaos is bound within deterministic limits. Thus, the universe is one vast consistent mathematical system. As Gödel’s incompleteness theorems prove, no mathematical system is self-consistent. All require one or more exogenous axioms to provide consistency. Therefore, there must exist a Numerator outside the universe to provide sufficient reason for its mathematical consistency. Such a Numerator we call God.
            It is consistent. Since we can apply reasoning to the aspect of numbers of people who believe in the Bible, and Christ it certainly is a strong possibility, of course I believe it is a fact. No other Numerator has claimed fine tuning, or being the ultimate creator of all things. Lets just say it’s the most logical answer.
            First, as it has been stated, it is impossible to prove that there is no God — a universal negative. But, curiously, there are only two possibilities: Either, There is a God (Theism); or, There is no God (Atheism). Intriguingly, these two possibilities are necessary contraries—If either is false, the other must be true. [Read that last
            sentence again]. Fascinatingly, the proposition “There is no God” is a universal negative and cannot be proven… So by deductive reasoning, we can conclude that there is indeed a God… Now, on to the 7 Proofs:
            1. Proof from First Mover (Cause of all motion and change)
            2. Proof from First Efficient Cause (Cause of all Effects;
            The Cosmological Argument)
            3. Proof from Final Cause (Cause of Purpose or Design; The
            Teleological Argument)
            4. Proof from Necessary Being (Source of all Contingent Being)
            5. Proof from Degrees of Perfection (Perfect Exemplar)
            (The 5 Proofs above are known as The 5 Ways of Thomas
            Aquinas).
            6. The Proof from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (The

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry, it’s just hard to get around someone who refuses to use proper grammar, and can’t even spell correctly. How one writes is usually a good indication of their intelligence level.

            Yes, a Jew will claim Exodus is real, just as a Christian will claim the resurrection is real. Hardly makes it so. The issue with Exodus is the fact that Egypt never had Jewish slaves. If Jewish slaves didn’t exist in Egypt, how was Exodus possible? Can you provide that explanation?

          • Logic&Emotion

            LOL, personal attacks mean nothing. I’m not in the mood to spell check everything on a comment section, but if your having a problem reading it, that is your problem. As for Exodus, Israelites were the beginning’s of the Jewish moniker. There is so much Archeology during that time period even an on-going search for the “Ark of the Covenant” because of the historical information and different locations, kings, through a complete list of movements and transactions to possess it. That will be the ultimate proof, and the evidence of its existence is overwhelming. The Exodus would have to be true just based on recent finds in the locations tied to the Exodus. Egypt has been shown time and time again to have had Pharoahs, and sons that became Pharoahs outside the Bible’s information. This is too easy to explain.

          • Paul Hiett

            Where is the proof, outside of the Bible, to support the story of Exodus?

            Why did Egypt never have Jewish slaves?

          • Logic&Emotion

            took me less than a minute to acquire this information. It’s pertinent to the discussion and more will follow.: s there any physical evidence for the Exodus described in the Bible? If you were
            to read the popular press, you would come to the conclusion that not only was
            there no evidence, but the evidence actually contradicted known archaeology. One
            such article recently appeared in Time Magazine. The usual complaints surround
            the lack of archaeological evidence of the Hebrews’ wanderings through the
            desert. However, nomadic people seldom, if ever, leave any evidence of their
            presence. The Bible tells us that throughout the Exodus, the people never
            planted crops, built cities or did anything that would be expected to be found
            in thousands of square miles of desert. The Bible says that even their clothing
            did not wear out. The chances of finding any physical evidence of the Exodus
            itself seems extremely unlikely. However, the events surrounding the Exodus
            (both before and after) are testable and datable.

            Unfortunately,
            extremely strong evidence for the validity of the Exodus has been published only
            in the scientific journals and never made it to the popular press. These studies
            examined one of the Egyptian
            plagues (before the Exodus) and demise of Jericho (after the Exodus). Drs. Hendrik J. Bruins and Johannes van der
            Plicht reported in the prestigious British journal, Nature,1
            that the destruction of Jericho was dated to 1580 (” 13 years) B.C. (using 14C
            dating). This date is significant, since several archeologists have insisted
            that Jericho was destroyed by the Egyptians between 1550 and 1300 B.C. The
            recent study discredits the Egyptian theory, since the date is much too old.
            What is even more
            interesting is that scientists, using 14C
            dating and tree rings, have found evidence of a volcanic eruption from the
            Aegean island of Thera, which has been dated to 1628 B.C.2
            This would place the eruption at 45 years prior to the destruction of Jericho,
            at a time which coincidentally corresponds to the time of the plagues the Lord
            unleashed upon Egypt.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I just want to congratulate you on your strength. I believe it must have taken a lot of soul searching to find God. I have seen this “transformation” from other Atheist’s who concluded the same thing as yourself, and I’m amazed and I’m greatful to you for your wisdom, strength, and knowledge. I agree with what your saying, it isn’t religion, its the true and living God that makes the difference. Thank you for the response, you have given me courage and hope.

          • JCIL

            You are welcome. I don’t take the credit, though. God drew me. He has blessed me with unshakable faith through revealing Himself to me as being real. I’ve witnessed so many miracles, it’s actually hard to believe.

            He has been my steady rock through countless storms…and is always there when I need Him (I dislike it when He is quiet, tough, and tell Him so).

            A recent miracle involves a family member who was diagnosed with a terminal illness. We prayed for him and was miraculously healed. We asked the doctor how often they see this disease turn around, and she said never. She said it was a true miracle.

            And that’s one of a long list.

            God is real and wants a relationship with us. We are so undeserving, which demonstrates His mercy and goodness.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…a family member is diagnosed with a terminal illness. With no medical treatment, you prayed and he was cured?

            You’re really going to claim that?

          • JCIL

            Yes. There were no medical options. That’s what terminal means.

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you have proof? Have the diagnosis and the resulting test results after the “cure”?

          • Logic&Emotion

            LOL, proof again. Did you even look at Youtube with the criteria of Near Death Experiences, especially the ones that Atheist’s claim to have had. Which by the way changed them forever. Look at the proof of God from the perspective of experiences, and you will find that your arguments are really immaterial. They suit you well, but your likely a young man with a great deal of life ahead, (my hope for you). There will come a time for you to face morality, trust me on that one. You will see in the blink of an eye so to speak a complete perception change from your current Parradym (tunnel vision in other words).

          • Paul Hiett

            Ever wonder why, in this day and age where every communications device has a phone/video, no video exists of any miracles, only claims like JCIL’s that can never be proven? Also, it’s always a terminal disease that gets cured…never a limb regrown or eye replaced.

            Ever wonder why that is?

          • Logic&Emotion

            What do you consider to be a miracle. Miracle’s happen every day. Our bodies are not designed to regrow limbs, and the complexity of the eye directly feeding the brain with information is a big discussion currently in Intelligent Design. You certainly are a missionary from Richard Dawkins aren’t you. Did you know that in over some 1500 years of human recordings, human beings haven’t seen one, not one evolutionary process that has changed the human body in any way. Even the slightest changes through the evolutionary process would have recorded something, anything, that would show evidence that we will ever change biologically. No wonder you never see a limb regrown (by the way some people that have lost fingers have regrown a finger hmm, look that up) or a natural eye replaced. I consider a miracle to be the God-given talent of the human concious. The you behind the brain. It’s a miracle to understand that every living being on earth has an individual footprint such as the eyeball, the finger print, when we are designed in a very similar manner. Now THAT is a miracle considering the number of people in the world.

          • JCIL

            Diagnosis, yes. The person is living, yes.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I believe you in the most sincere way. The reason I do is because only 2 weeks ago, I went into the Hospital for a serious illness that almost took my life, related to diabetes. In the process I now live with a Kidney injury, liver damage, and no functioning pancreas. I went to a hospital here that is based on Christianity. I was extremely sick close to death, and the people, doctors, nurses, the whole environment showing Christ was amazing. I have been to other hospitals not associated to Christianity, and there was no comparison. These people made you feel loved immediately and although very sick, they were consumate professionals with true, real feelings of compassion. You just don’t see that kind of thing in today’s world. I’m very glad to hear that your family member has recovered. Obviously Paul has not had to look at his mortality in the face yet. Once he does I’m positive the landscape will change, it just happens too often when death becomes real. I appreciate your comments

          • Logic&Emotion

            That is absolute, and the truth. Be wise, and live long and prosper (smile)

      • thoughtsfromflorida

        It won’t be a legal issue.

  • Ray Watson

    NO PEOPLE WITH IDENTICAL PLUMBING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO “MARRY” ANOTHER PERSON WITH THE SAME PLUMBING !

    • JCIL

      Even nature knows it’s unnatural. So does Darwin’s version of evolution. Yet, gays think it is natural.

      • Paul Hiett

        Well, other than those 1500+ species of animals that also practice homosexuality. But we’ll ignore those groups since they prove you wrong.

        • JCIL

          Oh please, there aren’t 1500+ animals. True homosexuality is rare in the animal kingdom. It’s rare because homosexual animals would die off after the first generation. That should be a tip for gays.

          Besides, animals also eat their young, eat their feces, and kill their mates. Should humans do that too because some animals with lower intellect do?

          • Paul Hiett

            Google is your friend, JCIL. Do a little research before posting. I hate debating something against someone ignorant on the subject.

            Yes, there are over 1500 species of animals, in which homosexuality is observed and practiced. Many engage in coitus for pleasure with the same gender. Many take on same-gender mates for life.

            Your problem with this is that because animals don’t have the ability to read or understand homosexuality, what they’re doing is only based on natural behavior. According to you, God made the animals, and in doing so, proves that homosexuality is not a deviant behavior.

            Unless, of course, you want to make the claim that your God made a mistake?

          • JCIL

            “Yes, there are over 1500 species of animals, in which homosexuality is observed and practiced.”

            If you actually studied the subject, you would find many exhibit homosexual behaviors, but aren’t actually homosexual. This is like saying a dog humping your leg has a thing for humans.

            Nature speaks for itself. Any species that engages in exclusively homosexual behavior dies off after the first generation. God doesn’t make mistakes. But humans do, such as with your comment.

          • Paul Hiett

            Does homosexuality occur outside of humans or not? Do some species of animals engage in same gender coitus or not? Do some species take on a same gender mate for life?

            Yes or no?

          • JCIL

            Some do. But they are in the very small minority and they also aren’t exclusive homosexual else the species would end.

            Humans are far and above mere animals. As I said, should humans start eating their young and their feces because some animals do? Should we start killing our mates because some animals do?

          • Paul Hiett

            Thank you for admitting that your God tolerates homosexuality in nature. Of course not all members of those species are “gay”…the percentage is actually quite small, but significant enough to prove that it’s perfectly natural.

            Now why do you think he allows it in animals, but not humans?

          • Gary

            People are not animals. Why do you want to act like an animal?

          • Paul Hiett

            People aren’t animals.

            Wow.

            Do you ever think before you post?

          • Gary

            I always think before I post. Now, why do you want to behave like an animal?

          • Badkey

            Have you ever taken a biology class?

            Humans ARE animals.

          • JCIL

            That is correct. Humans are animals. Paul is wrong again…an ongoing pattern.

          • Paul Hiett

            Clearly I am not. I have proven that many species of animals engage in homosexuality. Therefore, I have also proven it’s completely natural.

          • Badkey

            They know… they just don’t like it.

          • JCIL

            Homosexuality is a perversion of human nature. You saying its okay doesn’t make it okay.

          • Badkey

            Told ya!

          • JCIL

            No, not natural for humans.

          • Paul Hiett

            You even admit that humans are animals. God made animals, according to you. The behavior is observed in many species of animals, humans included. Therefore, it’s a fact that homosexuality is clearly a normal behavior that God has created.

            By all means, I’d love to hear you claim that God made a mistake.

          • JCIL

            Humans are only called animals based on a human definition (because they had nothing else to call humans that they could relate to or understand).

            The term ‘animals’ is a human construct.

            God create humans differently from other animals. He didn’t create humans for homosexuality.

            God doesn’t make mistakes. Humans do, as you are doing again.

          • Gary

            Speak for yourself.

          • JCIL

            Gary, it’s true. Humans are considered animals. But there is a hierarchy, with humans being at the top.

          • Gary

            I don’t consider people to be animals. We are made in the image of God. There is a vast difference between us and the other creatures.

          • JCIL

            According to biology, humans are classified as an animal. So technically, Badkey is correct.

            God did create us, and we are made in His image. God also gave us dominion over all creatures. Sad that some people want to go backwards and join creatures.

          • JCIL

            God also tolerates animals killing other animals. Humans killing other humans, and all kinds of sin. Don’t mistake tolerance for acceptance. Jewish history will provide an education on that.

            “Now why do you think he allows it in animals, but not humans?”

            God made man above humans with intelligence. Why do you want to rescind that and return to a base animal?

            You still haven’t answered my other question about should humans adopt other animal behavior? This is the obfuscation and misdirection I was taking about.

          • Badkey

            “Should” they?

            Who determines what anyone “should” do?

          • JCIL

            That is the ultimate question, isn’t it? Without one moral compass, anything goes. That is called moral relativism. Have you ever taken moral relativism out to its logical conclusion?

          • Badkey

            It doesn’t take angry sky daddies to treat others well.

          • JCIL

            Have you ever taken moral relativism out to its logical conclusion?

            I’ll give you a couple of hints: Hitler, ISIS

          • Badkey

            ROFLOL!

            Man… you’re amazing. You’re the reason your kind are shrinking in numbers and churches sit empty.

            I love you.

          • JCIL

            Think about it, Badkey. What happens when people make up their own morals?

          • Badkey

            We do just fine. I know I have.

          • JCIL

            That’s because you live in a Christian influenced democracy right now. Without one, it becomes he with the most power wins. Think I’m wrong, check history. You can start with Rome, Babylon, Persia, Egypt and move forward to ISIS and China.

            You really should think about this more carefully. Choices always bring consequences.

          • Badkey

            Darlin, we’re not a democracy.

          • JCIL

            Then, what do you think USA is?

          • Paul Hiett

            It’s called a “republic”.

          • Badkey

            Constitutional Republic.

            The supreme law of the land is not the vote of the people, but the constitution.

            Failed civics 101, huh?

          • JCIL

            What system of government drives the republic?

          • Badkey

            Sweet how you drop “constitutional” from “republic” there.

            Can you tell me what the supreme law of the land i?

          • JCIL

            You didn’t answer my question.

            The USA uses a democratic system of government. A democracy! As I stated.

          • Gary

            How you know that is true? Isn’t that just your opinion?

          • Badkey

            No, millions of folks who don’t grovel before your sky daddy do just fine.

          • JCIL

            It’s sad that you don’t even realize you are captive by satan. His mission is to take as many people away from God as possible. You are his captive. He’s just giving you the illusion of being free.

            Do you know where all the harm on earth is coming from? Satan. That’s you destiny. I hope you like it.

          • Badkey

            Oh, how cute!

            You’re channeling your inner Church Lady!

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Qfbrc1jdo

          • Paul Hiett

            Actually, if you had read the Bible, which I don’t think you have based on may things you’ve said, Satan never did anything wrong in the Bible.

          • JCIL

            I know the Bible quite well. Satan is doing the very thing you are doing…wanting to be god yourself. You see, the apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree. You are captive and you don’t even know it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Point to me in the Bible where Satan has done anything “evil”.

            Should be easy.

          • JCIL

            That is easy. Read the first commandment.

            How does it feel to be captive and not know it. That’s why you aren’t free to think on your own. And you didn’t even realize it.

          • Paul Hiett

            So you can’t point to anything Satan did?

          • Badkey
          • JCIL

            Don’t bother posting like-minded, uniformed videos. I don’t waste my time with that. I grew with that nonsense as an atheist. It’s a complete waste of time.

          • Badkey

            That’s nice!

            So cute!!!

          • JCIL

            Is that your reasoned argument? You haven’t provided anything yet. Do you actually have one?

          • Badkey

            I don’t need one until you put forward verifiable fact.

            So far, it’s nothing but your opinion of “prophecy” and “supernatural” nonsense.

          • JCIL

            Yes, you do need one. But you don’t have one. Sad that your entire faith is built on nothing but wishful thinking and is indefensible. That is the lot of an atheist. Atheists have great faith.

          • Badkey

            No… as long as you can’t prove anything… as long as your kind continue to shrink… churches continue to close… there’s nothing I need to do.

            You do it for me.

          • JCIL

            ” as long as you can’t prove anything”

            I’ve given you lots of evidences already. None of which you refuted. All you’ve done is dismissed them without consideration.

            As the saying goes, you can lead a person to information, but you can’t make him think.

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      Why?

      • JCIL

        Because it is unnatural and a sin.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          So do you believe that the rights of citizens should be determined based upon what Christianity views as a sin?

          • Gary

            Yes.

          • Badkey

            Not gonna happen, Gary.

            We’re not a theocracy.

          • Gary

            All in good time.

          • Badkey

            For 2,000 years we’ve heard that.

            Why should anyone listen to you now?

          • Paul Hiett

            Because the signs clearly point to the end times now!

          • Badkey

            Yup, just like they have for over 2,000 years.

          • JCIL

            That’s correct. God is not slow, but measured in His timing. He has been 100 percent accurate in His predictions (over 2000) thus far. It’s safe to conclude the rest will follow suit as well.

          • JCIL

            God is patient. God said He was sending a saviour hundreds of years before Christ arrived. God was also silent for 400 years before Christ arrived. How many Jews must have said the same thing, “where is you God?”

            Then, He arrived. God is never late. He just doesn’t go by our expectations.

          • Badkey

            Uh-huh…

            And the Yeti shovels my driveway. My neighbors have seen him.

          • JCIL

            Some of the atheists I’ve met are that gullible. Looks like you are too. So much for ‘free thinkers’ and ‘intellects.’

          • Gary

            I don’t expect you to believe the Bible.

          • JCIL

            They will when they are confronted with Jesus. While I’d like to be a fly on the wall in that encounter, I really feel sad for them. As Jesus said, ‘Forgive the Father for they don’t know what they are doing.”

          • Gary

            It will be too late then.

          • Badkey

            DOOM, DOOM, DOOM!!!

          • JCIL

            Facts are facts. Unless you can disprove them. Can you?

            You had nothing all day yesterday. Do you have something today?

          • Badkey

            Facts are facts when you have proven them.

            SO much fun!!!

          • JCIL

            They are, especially when we have them and atheists don’t.

            God said Jesus would come, and He did. Jesus said He would be killed and rise again, and He did. Jesus said Jerusalem would be destroyed within His generation, and it was…and over 2500 other prophecies.

            Jesus said every knee will bow before Him, and they will. Unless you can prove Jesus isn’t God, that none of His predictions were true. Can you?

            You still haven’t provided anything other than obfuscation and misdirection…the only things atheists can defend their faith with.

          • Badkey

            Until you’ve proven any of that, it’s just mythology.

            Doom filled, spooky, mythology.

          • JCIL

            It’s already a matter of the historical record. If you don’t believe it, it is up to you to prove false…which you haven’t done. Can you?

          • Badkey

            That is an untruth.

            None of it is proven in the historical record any more than Bangor, ME exists and was mentioned in a Stephen King book.

            Until you have physical, tangible proof… there’s nothing I need to do.

            It fits the definition of mythology perfectly.

          • JCIL

            It is a matter of recorded history. If you disagree with you, you will need to prove the historical record wrong. Can you?

            “Until you have physical, tangible proof… there’s nothing I need to do.”

            We already have the physical and recorded proof. Yes, you will need to disprove it if you think it is incorrect.

            “It fits the definition of mythology perfectly.”

            More atheist nonsense in place of a real argument.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Historical record”

            I don’t think you really know what that means.

          • JCIL

            Of course. Apparently you don’t. You may want to check that for yourself so you will know next time.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Do you know what it means? Follow up with an explanation

          • Logic&Emotion

            I once again must come to you as well. I’m going to ask you a question. Mythology. Explain that term. Your looking for proof but your not looking. So lets start here:
            The universe is coherent and functions consistently. Every known process in the universe is mathematical. Chaos Theory has shown that even chaos is bound within deterministic limits. Thus, the universe is one vast consistent mathematical system. As Gödel’s incompleteness theorems prove, no mathematical system is self-consistent. All require one or more exogenous axioms to provide consistency. Therefore, there must exist a Numerator outside the universe to provide sufficient reason for its mathematical consistency. Such a Numerator we call God.
            It is consistent. Since we can apply reasoning to the aspect of numbers of people who believe in the Bible, and Christ it certainly is a strong possibility, of course I believe it is a fact. No other Numerator has claimed fine tuning, or being the ultimate creator of all things. Lets just say it’s the most logical answer.
            First, as it has been stated, it is impossible to prove that there is no God — a universal negative. But, curiously, there are only two possibilities: Either, There is a God (Theism); or, There is no God (Atheism). Intriguingly, these two possibilities are necessary contraries—If either is false, the other must be true. [Read that last
            sentence again]. Fascinatingly, the proposition “There is no God” is a universal negative and cannot be proven… So by deductive reasoning, we can conclude that there is indeed a God… Now, on to the 7 Proofs:
            1. Proof from First Mover (Cause of all motion and change)
            2. Proof from First Efficient Cause (Cause of all Effects;
            The Cosmological Argument)
            3. Proof from Final Cause (Cause of Purpose or Design; The
            Teleological Argument)
            4. Proof from Necessary Being (Source of all Contingent Being)
            5. Proof from Degrees of Perfection (Perfect Exemplar)
            (The 5 Proofs above are known as The 5 Ways of Thomas
            Aquinas).
            6. The Proof from Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems (The
            Now, here’s my favorite proof of all:
            7. The Proof from Prophecy — The Foreteller
            The A.V. 1611 King James Bible has 1,817 prophecies contained within. So far, 1,530 prophecies have been fulfilled. That is a lot of prophesies! Some are very simple one-item prophecies, and some are very complex multi-item prophecies. These prophesies are 100% fulfilled and 100% accurate! For a very well researched book on Biblical fulfilled prophesies, please check out “Encyclopedia of Bible Prophesy” by J. Barton Payne. It’s a nice several-hundred page book documenting all the fulfilled prophesies in great detail…
            Now, you do realize that secular Anthropologists and Archaeologists use the
            Bible to search for ancient civilizations, etc. don’t you? They sure
            do… scientists use the Bible for their own work! Go figure…
            In conclusion, I have provided 7 Proofs for the existence of God.

          • Badkey

            None of that supports an angry sky monster.

          • Logic&Emotion

            LOL, by the way, you didn’t answer my question.

          • Paul Hiett

            Popularity of an idea or belief is never, and has never, been proof of it’s authenticity. Prior to the Roman emperor declaring Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire in 313, the majority of the people believed in a polytheistic religion.

            They were the majority. By your own claim that legitimizes their religion, does it not?

            There is also no way to prove the existence of any deity, although you seem incapable of understanding this. Your claim of there being only two possibilities is by far one of the more ignorant statements you can make.

            There are actually multiple possibilities…thousands, if you will. There could be many gods, no gods, only a couple of gods, a handful of gods, or any number of different ideas. Nothing in your post “proves” the existence of any deity, much less the deity your parents chose for you.

          • Logic&Emotion

            I don’t see the point of the argument. You have not only seen a numerical equation that is valid, (look up the complete equation) then you claim there are actually multiple possibilities. You have contradicted yourself. If you believe that there is no God, how is it that you then say there are multiple possibilities. That again confirms my point that there is at least one possibility that God is God, and laughably you bring up my parents not having any logical knowledge of how I was raised. So I’ll ask you a question. Who raised you to be an Atheist? Your arguing a circular argument once again. You admit the possibility then your own label states there is no possibility of God. Make up your mind. Is there or is there not?

          • Logic&Emotion

            You’ve already made this statement.

          • Gary

            Have that carved on your tombstone.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            So you are anti-American and don’t support our constitution. Have you considered relocating to a different country that is run more to your liking. Perhaps Uganda.

          • Gary

            What do you want to do that you are now prevented from doing?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You are not satisfied with the current state of things. You think that all of our laws should be based upon Christianity. That would mean that I would lose freedom of religion, speech, and association. I like having those those. I don’t want to be prevented from having those rights.

          • Gary

            I don’t care what your religion is, or what you say, or who you associate with. I am willing for you to have the same freedoms that I have. And, it is not me who wants to change the very old legal definition of marriage. Unless you want to “marry” someone of the same s-x, what do you want to do that you are now prevented from doing?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You said you wanted to base on laws on the Christian belief system. That does not allow for freedom of speech, association, or religion. Now you say you are OK with those things.

            So which is it Gary? Do you want our laws to be based on the Christian belief system or not?

          • Gary

            I believe that no one has the right to sin. Under current US law, many immoral things are legal. I do not believe the founders intended that to be, and eventually, it won’t be. Until then, you can legally do a lot of immoral things.

          • Badkey

            You don’t get to decide that, Gary.

            Sorry. It’s not about your mythology.

            As for the founders, they built a nation that allowed slavery! That’s “moral”?!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “I believe that no one has the right to sin.”

            So then you DON’T want people to have freedom of religion, or speech or association. Instead, you want to throw out our constitution – the one the founders wrote – and replace it with a governing document based upon the Christian faith. You obviously don’t like our basis of government and have no respect for what our founders wrote in the constitution. You are anti-American and not a patriot.

            “and eventually, it won’t be.”

            Sounds like a domestic terrorist threat to me.

          • Badkey

            Gary IS a domestic terrorist!

          • Badkey

            Yes.

            That’s it!

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Uganda Gary…..it’s got a ring to it.

        • Badkey

          Neither of those has any bearing on US law.

          Basically all you’ve said is “ICKY!!!”.

          You’ll have to do better than that sweetie.

    • Badkey

      WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING!? HOW ARE YOU HARMED? HOW ARE YOU AFFECTED?

      WHY SO MUCH HOSTILITY?

  • Badkey

    And still…

    “GAWD!!!”

    “ICKY!!!”

    “BABIES!!!”

    Do you people really thing those dead arguments are going to stop gay marriage in America?

  • Badkey

    Tuesday, April 28, 2015

    SCOTUS hears arguments in the gay marriage cases!

    Woo hoo!!! By June, there will be much bigot wailing and gnashing of teeth as gay marriage bans fall in all states!!!

  • JCIL

    “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” – 1 Jude 7

    • thoughtsfromflorida

      You do realize, of course, that sexual immorality was not added to the story of S&G until about 200 years after the story first appeared, right? That originally the story only dealt with hostility to strangers, right? That it wasn’t until Jewish elders traveled to Rome and witnessed what was going on there that they added sexual references to the story, right?

      • JCIL

        “You do realize, of course, that sexual immorality was not added to the story of S&G until about 200 years after the story first appeared,”

        Hogwash. S&G is in the first book of the Bible, and passed down through the generations. It is a matter of Jewish history.

        • Badkey

          Prove it.

          Show us the actual original text, not a modern translation.

          • JCIL

            “Show us the actual original text, not a modern translation”

            This comment demonstrates your ignorance in historical matters. Don’t you atheists do any study? Is it all just uninformed opinion?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh, silly, don’t you know that there is no original complete text? It was mostly verbal passed from one person to the next. No chance of anything in that changing, huh?

          • JCIL

            Again you demonstrate you ignorance on this subject. It’s this ignorance that trips you up.

            The OT was meticulously copied throughout the generations in the most exacting manner. No other ancient text can boast this level of scrutiny. The Bible is also the most copied book on earth.

            Yes, there are some issues, but not many (less than 1/4 of one percent) and not unlike any other ancient text during that time.

            To expect otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the study of history.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s unfortunate you have such a incomplete understanding of the history of the book you have decided to put such faith in.

        • thoughtsfromflorida

          And goodness knows that there have never been any revisions to the bible.

          • JCIL

            The OT is well establishes as intact and complete. No one has revised it. You should study that which you criticize. It would prevent your ignorance on the subject from showing.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “No one has revised it.”

            LOL. You don’t actually believe that no revisions were ever made to the OT do you?

          • JCIL

            That’s correct. There are no revisions to the original text.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You don’t know your history very well.

    • Badkey

      Oooooo… spooky mythology is SPOOKY!!!

      • JCIL

        You haven’t proven it wrong yet. Until you do, it is true. Unless you can prove the historical record incorrect. Can you?

        • Badkey

          It’s not in the historical record.

          • JCIL

            Yes, it is. Read Jewish and Christian history. You can also read non biblical history. You’ll find mentions of Christ there, too.

            Unless you can prove all of these accounts incorrect. Can you?

          • Badkey

            That’s mythology, not history.

          • JCIL

            Denial doesn’t negate the facts.

            If you believe it is mythology, you will need to prove the historical record incorrect. Can you?

          • Badkey

            You have no facts for me to refute.

          • JCIL

            More obfuscation and avoidance. You have no answers. No evidence. No rational grounds for your beliefs. Just denial. And atheists call themselves intellectual and ‘free thinkers.’

            Duped by satan. Oblivious to truth.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Oh, silly, don’t you know that until something is proven not true, it is true? You know….like how it was true that the world was flat until it was proven that it was round?

          • JCIL

            You again have it backwards. You have to prove what is true untrue. Can you?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            You haven’t proven that what you claim is true. You have simply stated that you believe it is.

          • JCIL

            History has already proven it true. Also verified by archeology.

            Good luck trying to disprove it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Archeology actually proves the Bible to be false, especially in regards to Exodus. In fact, archeologists would LOVE to prove the Bible true…they look for evidence to support those stories all the time. Unfortunately, the archeological evidence we do find points the other direction.

          • JCIL

            “Archeology actually proves the Bible to be false, especially in regards to Exodus”

            Once again you are incorrect. There is not only proof of the Israelites being in Egypt, there is also proof for the plagues.

            As I said, you really should study that which you desire to criticize, else you look foolish.

          • Paul Hiett

            By all means, link to me this proof of Egypt having Jewish slaves.

          • JCIL

            In 1446 BC (at the time of the Exodus), pyramids were made out of mud and straw.

            Sir Flinders Petrie, a British archaeologist and Egyptologist, discovered the earliest known Egyptian reference to Israel on the stela of Merneptah, king of ancient Egypt from 1213 to 1204 BCE.

            He also discovered a semitic slave town at the base of Senrusret II’s pyramid, which is made of mud and brick, that has evidence of semitic slaves making these mud and straw bricks. The other interesting thing is that he also discovered everyday semitic materials but nothing valuable, but not much of significance, as it looked like the Israelites took everything with them, and in a hurry.

            He also found evidence of a mass grave with skeletons of babies which might also corroborate the infanticide at that time.

            Inscriptions that Petrie found on the Sinai Peninsula represented an intermediate stage (not later than 1500 BCE) of written communication between Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Semitic alphabet.

          • Paul Hiett

            Incorrect. There is nothing that Petrie found that proves Jewish slaves existed in Egypt, and in fact he called them Asiatics.

            Nice try.

          • JCIL

            Are you calling him a liar? Are you saying that he and all of the references to him are wrong, including the Encyclopedia Britanicca?

            You have a hard time with the truth. As I’ve said to you many times before, denying the facts don’t negate them.

            You appear to be hard of learning…a common characteristic among atheists.

          • Paul Hiett

            Either he’s lying, or merely mistaken. Clearly he’s incorrect, regardless of intent. That’s a simple fact.

          • JCIL

            You are going to discount his findings, which are published and remain unchallenged, based on you opinion?

            Wow, you are more closed-minded than I thought. You are hard of learning.

          • JCIL

            You can also search: Impuwer Papyrus for a non Biblical reference.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            How did history and archaeology prove that S&G first, existed, and second, were destroyed, and third, destroyed due to sexual immorality?

          • JCIL

            We have the history of the Jews. If you don’t believe it, you will need to disprove it. Can you?

            “and third, destroyed due to sexual immorality?”

            Why else do you think God destroyed it? Read the story in Genesis and you’ll get your answer.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “We have the history of the Jews.”

            So your contention is that if something is written, it becomes true. Interesting.

            I’ll ask again: What archeological evidence is there that S&G existed, that it was destroyed by God, and done so because of sexual immorality?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            The burden of proof lays with the person making that claim that something is true.

  • JCIL

    “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” – 2 Cor 4:4

    • Badkey

      Good thing that has nothing to do with the secular civil contract of marriage, ain’t it?

      • JCIL

        Jesus responded to a similar situation when He said, “You fool. This very night your soul will be required of you.”

        Meaning, rejoice now for soon you will bow before Jesus.

        • Badkey

          Jesus has nothing to do with the secular civil contract of marriage either.

          Atheists wed all the time without his help.

          • JCIL

            Jesus have everything to do with you and your eternal destination. And that you helpless to change.

          • Badkey

            Nah… that’s just what the stories say. Stories whose only goal is to scare people into submission and behaving a certain way.

            Kinda like Odin… or Vishnu… or FSM (have you seen any fire giants recently)?

          • JCIL

            More denial and personal opinion. How about some actual facts? Evidence?

            Didn’t you know giants exist? Although, I’m not surprised. You don’t seem to know much about what you criticize.

  • JCIL

    For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.’ “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

    “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” – 1 Cor 1:18-25

    • Paul Hiett

      Quoting the Bible in order to prove the Bible?

      You’ll have to do better than that.

      • JCIL

        The Biblical writers have been accurate so far…and even today, as I’ve demonstrated.

        You, however, have provided nothing. Zip! But uninformed opinion. You were wrong all day yesterday and continue to be today. Doesn’t that concern you?

        • Paul Hiett

          So despite geographical data proving that the world was never flooded as is claimed by the Bible, you’re still going to claim the Bible is accurate?

          • JCIL

            The Bible doesn’t claim the world was flooded (even though there is evidence of a massive flood).

            The flood the Bible talks about was regional. A literary device used to describe this flood is called hyperbole.

          • Paul Hiett

            The Bible makes no claim of a localized/regional flood. The Bible claims, in no uncertain terms, that the entire world was flooded. Any claim to the contrary is either a blatant lie or a severe inability to comprehend what you have read.

            There is, without question, no evidence to support a world wide flood. That myth has been debunked for many, many years. It is a fact, and inarguable, that the world was ever flooded.

          • JCIL

            “The Bible claims, in no uncertain terms, that the entire world was flooded. ”

            No, that is an outdated notion. Here again is where your understanding is at fault, not the Bible.

            When you read Jesus say He is the bread of life, do you take that to mean He is made of whole wheat?

            When you read it’s raining cats and dogs, do you think it means animals are falling from the sky?

          • Paul Hiett

            Where do you get the idea that Bible does not make the claim that the entire world was flooded? You have no authority what so ever to suggest this. The Bible states, clearly, that the entire world was flooded.

            Either this occurred, or it did not occur.

            Which is it?

          • JCIL

            “Where do you get the idea that Bible does not make the claim that the entire world was flooded?”

            References to the ‘whole world’ are about the seriousness of it, not the science of it.

            This is where study comes in. You need to learn how to read the Bible in the way it was intended to be understood.

          • Paul Hiett

            Show me where the Bible states that it was a regional flood.

          • JCIL

            Do you have any understanding of literature and literary devices?

          • Paul Hiett

            Where in the Bible does it say the flood was regional?

          • JCIL

            I’ll take that to mean you don’t.

            When you read the news and the article said that a winter storm pummelled the North West, were you expecting to see cities demolished, people lying in the streets dead? Would the news writer have to clarify to you that he used hyperbole?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            It’s always hilarious to see how JCIL attempts to worm his way around answering direct questions. He decides to interpret the bible when it suits his purposes, but then suggests it is literal and not subject to interpretation when it suits him. Sucn a hypocrite.

          • JCIL

            It’s hilarious for me to see you squirm out of the truth by another uninformed opinion. Your comment is like saying math is wrong because you don’t understand it.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            Where, specifically, have you seen me do that?

            “Your comment is like saying math is wrong because you don’t understand it.”

            How so?

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            “References to the ‘whole world’ are about the seriousness of it, not the science of it.”

            Where did you come up with that?

          • JCIL

            Look up hyperbole.

          • thoughtsfromflorida

            I’m familiar with the definition of hyperbole. Are you suggesting that the Bible contains hyperbole? Further, what would hyperbole have to do with your deciding that the Bible, in this case, refers to “the seriousness of it, not the science of it.”?

    • Badkey

      If you can’t stand the wintah you don’t deserve the summah hoppa fellers puckahbrush out in th’ willie-wacks Moosetown Powrtland Museum of Aht Laum Ipsum. Hahd tellin’ not knowin’ Allen’s Coffee Brandy The ‘Gash, bluebries geez bud Moody’s N’Hampshah wicked pissah, what a cahd Allen’s Coffee Brandy bean suppah slower than molasses going uphill in January gawmy, up t’ camp Chundah. Gohd dammah. cunnin’ huck suppah windah bendah puckahbrush, swampdonkey sumpin’ fierce what a cahd got in a gaum Have a good one. hawsun around yow uns, wicked pissah potatoes out in th’ willie-wacks lobstahrin’ no-see-um geez bud idear lobstah paut, dooryahd jeezly Laum Ipsum out in th’ willie-wacks rhubaahb ankle biteah up t’ camp Mahdin’s. Muckle riyht on’ta her Moosetown ankle biteah Loyston-Ahban sumpin’ fierce naw junkah, suppah down east chimbly.

      MainerIpsum 2:34:8

      • JCIL

        You have no idea the hole you are digging. But I’m confident God will remind you when you meet Him.

        Until you can definitively prove He doesn’t exist, the possibility remains. No matter how much you try and deny that fact.

        • Paul Hiett

          And until you definitely prove he does exist, the possibility remains that he doesn’t, no matter how much you try and deny that fact.

          • JCIL

            “The possibility remains that he doesn’t”

            The possibility remains that He does.

            God has given us ample evidence to discover Him. He also shows up when you welcome Him into your life. You have to face that fact right up until the time you meet Him face to face. There’s no escaping that reality. That fact!

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, I concede that until proof exists that there are no deities, then all deities are possible

            Do you concede the truth that there may be no deities at all?

          • JCIL

            “Yes, I concede that until proof exists that there are no deities, then all deities are possible”

            That is correct. With some diligence, you can rule out all other deities. It’s not hard to do.

            “Do you concede the truth that there may be no deities at all?”

            No. God is real. 100 percent truth. No equivocation. I interact with Him daily. He interacts back, including audibly, if He chooses.

            Although I haven’t seen this myself, He also appears visually to some people, too.

            There is no question God is real. He demonstrated it throughout the OT. Jesus demonstrated it. And Christians afterward have experienced it. Those are the facts.

          • Paul Hiett

            LOL…too funny.

          • JCIL

            You appear to have a hard time with truth. Some people are that way.

            One thing about truth. It doesn’t ever go away and always has consequences.

          • Paul Hiett

            You keep quoting the Bible as proof of the Bible. I don’t know why you think this qualifies as “proof”, but it doesn’t.

            It’s the same as saying the Koran is true because the Koran says it’s true.

            Do you not understand this simple fallacy?

          • JCIL

            “It’s the same as saying the Koran is true because the Koran says it’s true”

            Not at all. There are many ways to verify truth. The Koran quickly falls apart not only within itself, but from outside evidence.

            There is a way to know the truth. You just have to follow the evidence.

          • SashaC

            God literally speaks to you?

            *Backs away slowly*

          • Logic&Emotion

            Paul, I do appreciate this comment. At least now you can go and discover on your own if God exists to you or not. I encourage that, and have nothing against you personally.

  • Logic&Emotion

    I state this in a very sincere manner. This is for the New Atheist culture. I have spoken to 103 different Atheist’s and have gotten so many different perspectives, some of them quite cruel, that its important for me to know why. If the New Atheist lives by the definition ‘there is no such being as God’ why do you people consistently argue in the negative about God. God to you doesn’t exist. Many have said there is no agenda. Most often however the Atheist reveals in discussion the agenda. They claim oppression, a Minority group who’s intent is to remove God from the public domain as it “offends” the Atheist. It seems the Atheist believes that they can accomplish the same things as the LG movement to accept Atheism as freedom from oppression. It’s important to realize this is not a minority issue, because no rights have been taken from you. You can believe as you like, you can avoid places that symbolize religious beliefs. You can even speak out against God in the United States and make any claim you desire. However, you are not an oppressed minority group, not even close. If you look at the past about the history of Atheism you will undoubtedly have to come to the conclusion that it does not work for societies, Russia is a prime example of Atheism that failed. Now look at Russia, primarily Christian. China, a communist nation, with no real belief system of Deity, is now moving toward spirituality and Deism. Actually it is amazing to see the number of countries that have moved toward Christianity. France and the UK, are where the biggest Atheist groups seem to be, and yet France being the biggest at about 22% of the population very rarely argues against believers in God, while the “New Atheist” in the U.S. continually argues about God (in the negative). There is no advances in society because of that world view, and most U.S. citizens in a report suggest that its more difficult to trust an Atheist and would not want their children to be around Atheism. Why is that. Why is it that people don’t trust a person that has the label of Atheism on their lapel. I suggest looking at the comments. Look at the attitudes. Look at the anger spilling over. The fear (an article recently published explains this fear I’m speaking about). Finally, if your worldview does not incorporate God, what is the purpose of attacks on those who believe in God. Anger? Fear?
    All of the data I present can be fine tuned I’m sure but the issues are well established. You as an Atheist would not have the freedom’s of expression you now have in the middle east. They would shut you down immediately and I’m sure that many know this. We in the U.S. that are believers do not take issue with you being an Atheist. We take issue with an expressed ideology that continues to fail over and over again. Personally, these issues divide us as a nation. However it doesn’t have to divide us as human beings with different world-views. Only until both sides can understand the reasoning behind another person’s world-view will there be any acceptance of each other. And that truely should be the most logical way to approach things.

    • Paul Hiett

      The issue is because of people like JCIL and Gary. We don’t want, nor will we tolerate, a theocracy. Furthermore, the intolerance by Christians to everyone else is mind boggling, while they continue to claim their own persecution.

      The practices by Muslims in this country are constantly under fire from Christians. They work to prevent mosques from being built, from women being allowed to wear Burkhas, etc. Christians don’t want to see any religion but their own in this country, and that’s where we, atheists, draw the line.

      This country allows you to worship any religion you want, and to practice your religion as you see fit, as long as it does not harm another human being, or remove the rights of another human being. Anything that negatively affects another person based on your religious beliefs cannot be tolerated in a free country.

      If you want to see how well a theocracy works, look to Iran, or Afghanistan, or a multitude of nations who have embraced such rule. Atheists and gays are actually killed in those countries. Do you think we’re so stupid as to allow you to do that here? Of course not. You wouldn’t tolerate Sharia law here, so why should we tolerate Christian rule?

      And again I point out to you that popularity of a belief is not proof of that belief. You could have 10 billion people all believing in your God, and that would still provide no more proof of his existence than today.

      • JCIL

        “And again I point out to you that popularity of a belief is not proof of that belief. ”

        Evidence separates fact from fiction. Christianity is grounded in solid evidence. All the rest, and especially atheism, aren’t. It’s not hard to tell which is real and which is man-made.

        Atheism is the highest from of man-made. It’s built on the foundation of pride and selfishness… clearly displayed by its members.

        • Paul Hiett

          Christianity has no more evidence than any other religion out there. That’s just blanket ignorance on your part.

          You think your belief in a religion gives you authority over others. Not in this country, as evidenced by the laws we keep seeing passed, and the ones being tossed.

          You’re on the losing end of this argument, as you have been from the start. Religion will never be allowed to rule in this country.

      • Gary

        We are not going to tolerate atheists and queers changing the laws.

      • Logic&Emotion

        It really doesn’t matter. You don’t believe in God. However you have a point. Like and free nation, majority is influence. It doesn’t prove anything it is just powerful. Atheism is a fight against religion or cultural standing. To me that is just wrong. I have no desire to harm anyone, especially human beings that choose to live as they wish. I like others just will not allow Atheism to take away those freedoms of religion both in private or public. They have no bearing on you whatsoever. Your completely welcome to ignore any or all, or not. Again your issue isn’t about God (although you argue as if it is) it is your fear that somehow your beliefs will be stopped by a Christian or a Jew or any religion different than your own worldview. I’m sorry that you feel offended by that, but you live in a society that has been founded on judeo-christian values. Why do you think Presidents, representatives in government often say “God bless the United States of America” or, that a Jewish Prime Minister would say the exact same thing. It’s because of our history, our culture, our success at integrating a multitude of belief systems in the United States. Just because you ask for proof doesn’t require a believer to show you proof. I must point out to you, that no rights of yours are taken from you because I believe in God, absolutely none, however if you were to remove in public or private Icon’s of our beliefs, you would infringe on my rights as a Christian. Do you see the difference. Stop crying over spilled milk. When an Atheist can be trusted with reasoning without anger and personal attack, you may gain more respect. But currently every Atheist I have spoken with will not hesitate to personal attacks, even hate speech. I’ve been threatened to be killed by your fellow brethren because I believe in Christ. I have never threatened anyone because of their Atheistic worldview. There is a big difference between being an Atheist and being a follower of Christ. One is trying to save people, the other is trying to disrupt people. Keep that in mind whenever you attack someone personally.

  • Gary

    ssm has been illegal on this continent since the continent was created. The men who founded the USA all believed that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. ssm would have been an idea they would have rejected instantly. Even as recently as 20 years ago, almost everyone would have never considered ssm to be anything but an absurdity. Now, we are told that ssm is a “right”. We are told that to deny ssm is to deny the freedom this country was founded to achieve. Of course that is BS. If you could ask any of the Presidents of the US who are now dead, they would tell you the idea that marriage could be anything other than the union of a man and a woman is absurd, and some of them were very wicked men.

    What we are seeing now in this country is proof that many, if not most Americans, have lost their minds. They have become insane. Their sin has rotted their brains. And that is why they take ssm as an idea worth implementing. Such a society cannot last because the insane are incapable of sustaining a society. They will continue to make mistakes until the society is damaged beyond repair.

    • Paul Hiett

      So…the continent was created in 1776?

      • Gary

        No. The continent was here long before he country. But even before the country, there was no legal ssm here.

        • Paul Hiett

          “Two spirit”

          I’ll leave you to research the rest of your incorrect statement.

    • Badkey

      The men who founded the USA believed owning slaves was OK.

      The men who founded the USA believed women should not be able to vote.

      They were men, imperfect men, and we’ve been fixing their mistakes for over 200 years.

      SSM is no different.

      The insane ones are those who rely on angry sky monsters to get through their days.

      • JCIL

        “The insane ones are those who rely on angry sky monsters to get through their days.”

        You keep making this unfounded assertion. Unless you can prove God isn’t real, you are completely wrong.

        • Badkey

          Until you prove that god is real, there’s nothing I need to do.

          • Gary

            Your sin has rotted your brain. You will self-destruct, and are a danger to those around you.

          • Badkey

            Awww, I love you too, Gary!

            June, my sweet little friend!

          • JCIL

            Already proven, as I’ve said many times before.

            But, you will get the definitive evidence you are looking for when God calls your number. As it stands right now, you are without excuse.

          • Badkey

            No, you’ve used your buybull… that’s not going to work. It’s just a book of fiction written by men.

            That’s not proof.

          • JCIL

            “You haven’t proven it true. There is no need.”

            That’s an unproven assertion on your part. Many scholars have verified the Bible to be true..and throughout history.

            The Bible has been the most criticized book on earth, yet remains firmly intact.

            “That’s not proof.”

            Your unfounded assertions aren’t proof, that’s for sure.

  • Badkey

    JCIL and Gary,

    I want to personally thank each of you. Thanks to those like you among the christian communities in America, we’re seeing atheism and agnosticism grow faster than at any other point in history. We’re seeing the number of christians shrink at the same rate. Churches sit empty all around the nation (one near me is a gay outreach center, which always cracks me up).

    This is happening because of you and your attitude… you and your pathetically negative outlook on all things in life.

    Thanks guys. You’re powerful allies and helping make America better in all that you do.

    • JCIL

      Wrong again, Badkey. You continually line up on the side of untruth.

    • JCIL

      Why is it you come to Christian discussions? Especially so empty handed? You are a great example of not knowing what you are talking about. You even do atheists a great disservice.

      • Badkey

        To watch you lose.

        To watch you wail and gnash teeth about things that have no direct affect on you.

        To know my enemy.

        Not necessarily in that order.

        • JCIL

          “To watch you lose.”

          As I said, you are so in denial you think you are winning. Christ already one the battle. The only thing left decided is who joins Him in heaven.

          You are oblivious to your enemy. You don’t even know you’ve already been captured and fighting for the wrong team. Denial will do that.

          • Badkey

            38 states… you lost.

            In June you lose the rest.

            Your christ no more won a battle than his cousin Mo.

            My enemy is fundamentalist fundies of all religions.

          • JCIL

            Your real enemy is the one you are following. You just don’t know it yet.

          • Badkey

            So says the pessimistic and negative mythology known as christianity.

          • JCIL

            “So says the pessimistic and negative mythology known as christianity.”

            You still haven’t proven it untrue. Can you? Do you have anything other than your uninformed opinion? Anything?

          • Badkey

            You haven’t proven it true. There is no need.

          • JCIL

            “You haven’t proven it true. There is no need.”

            Many times already, which you haven’t refuted. You are a broken record because all you have left is denial. No evidence. No rationality. No logic. Just opinion and a hatred of God.

          • Gary

            Isn’t it obvious by now that you cannot convince people who don’t want to be convinced? The only thing you can do with them is keep them from harming you and those you care about.

          • JCIL

            That is so true, which is why I spend time in these types of discussions. For too long Christians have turned the other cheek. It hasn’t worked. It’s time to challenge evil when and wherever it presents itself.

  • JCIL

    In all of the conversations Badke, Paul Hiett and I have had, they have been proven wrong. Are you two sure you want to stake your eternity on your flawed logic and misassumptions? No evidence? Uninformed opinions?

    If you are that wrong on only these many issues, how can you understand the things of God?

    Atheism is completely illogical, as their comments have attested.

    • Paul Hiett

      The next conversation we have in which you prove me wrong will be your first.

      • JCIL

        You’ve already demonstrated, many times, your critical thinking skills require work. I trust that will continue.

  • JCIL

    Atheists come to Christian discussions to poison believers. It’s remarkable to me that they would spent so much time on something they don’t believe in, especially when they have no evidence to support their disbelief. They are greatly confused, conflicted, and irrational.

    I wonder if they spend this much time trying to disprove the tooth fairy, or their famed invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster?

    • Badkey

      No, sweetie… I come here to revel in your angst and watch you lose.

      You do enough to poison yourselves… you don’t need my help.

      FYI, the FSM is just as “proven” as your sky monster. Have you seen any fire giants recently?

      • JCIL

        “I come here to revel in your angst and watch you lose.”

        Lose? You are the one without truth, reason, or evidence. You are so much in denial, you think you are wining.

        Christ already one the battle. The only thing left decided is who joins Him in heaven.

        “You do enough to poison yourselves… you don’t need my help.”

        Not at all.

        “he FSM is just as “proven” as your sky monster. Have you seen any fire giants recently?”

        And that’s the extent of your logic. A nonsensical answer.

        • Badkey

          Your christ is a meaningless myth… much the same as his cousin Mo.

          Not at all? Yeah… that’s why fundy number are shrinking so quickly.

          Have you seen any fire giants recently?

          • JCIL

            “Your christ is a meaningless myth”

            Saying that over and over again won’t make it true. Truth can be found through the evidence, which atheists don’t have any. None! Zip! Zilch!

          • Paul Hiett

            Neither do theists.

          • JCIL

            That’s correct. Atheists have no evidence, as has been demonstrated over the last two days. Sad, really!

          • Paul Hiett

            There is no evidence, for or against, the existence of any deity.

            Are you capable of understanding this simple fact?

          • JCIL

            “There is no evidence, for or against, the existence of any deity.”

            I’ve already posted many. You have not refuted any of them. Denial doesn’t negate evidence.

            And you’ve not provided one piece of evidence to support your faith? None! Zip! Zilch! Nada!

          • Paul Hiett

            What are you blathering about? You haven’t posted a single shred of evidence.

            All you do is quote the Bible and claim “HAH! See!” as if you think the Bible is true because it says it is. So does the Koran. So does any religious text.

          • JCIL

            Still no evidence to support your belief and faith. You have great faith.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nor have you provided a single shred of evidence to prove your choice of deities is real. Any claim to the contrary is just a lie and nothing more.

          • JCIL

            I already have many times. You can read older comments for those.

            I won’t ask you for your evidence, since you already admitted you have none…which is what I said I discovered too as an atheist. It was frustrating for me to see the Christians have all of the evidence and atheists had nothing.

          • Badkey

            You’ve posted mythology from a book written by men.

            Nothing more.

          • JCIL

            “You’ve posted mythology from a book written by men.”

            Can you prove your assertion? Can you disprove the historical record?

          • Paul Hiett

            Funny how no “historical record” shares your assessment.

          • JCIL

            Have you read Cornelius Tacitus? Josephus? And many others?

            How about Egyptian history? Babylonian history?

            Your opinion is wrong once again. You see, it doesn’t take that long for you to keep digging holes.

          • Badkey

            Saying it is true over and over won’t make it so.

            Seen any fire giants recently?

          • JCIL

            Fire giants? I’m curious what you mean.

          • Badkey

            Have you seen any?

          • JCIL

            What fire giants?

          • Badkey

            As it is written, His Noodliness banished all fire giants from our realm. Thus is proven the power and majesty that is His Noodliness.

          • JCIL

            More nonsense. You atheist brothers and sisters would be proud.

          • Paul Hiett

            He’s not wrong. If you can’t prove it didn’t happen, you must accept it did.

    • Paul Hiett

      Your kind used to burn us at the stake. Remarkable that you would view someone with a different opinion about something as so dangerous, especially when you have nothing to support your belief.

      • JCIL

        “especially when you have nothing to support your belief.”

        You and your friend keep saying that, but have not provided one piece of evidence to refute the many I’ve already posted. You both must be reading from the same empty atheist playbook. Been there and done that. It’s still empty.

        • Badkey

          You’ve provided farts in a jar as evidence of holy sky monsters.

          Nothing more.

          • JCIL

            Your comprehension skills require work, or your reading skills. You missed everything I’ve posted. Denial works well for the atheist faith. You have great faith.

  • Rob Brown

    Luther Strange. Best…name…..ever.

  • JCIL

    Atheists are a confused bunch.

    They claim God doesn’t exist.

    Their evidence for this claim: None! Zip! Zilch!

    They demand solid proof for God.

    When you give them some, they disregard it out of hand.

    When you give them a list of resources that has this proof, they dismiss them because they are Christian writers (what were they expecting, Atheist writers?).

    It’s not that there isn’t enough evidence that points to God, but that they don’t want it.

    For atheists, it’s not a matter of evidence, but of the will.

    As one scholar said, “No amount of evidence will convince someone who doesn’t want to be convinced.”

    Atheists don’t want to be convinced because they prefer to be their own god. This is the same affliction satan suffers with. This is why Jesus said, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

    But sticking their heads in the sand doesn’t negate God or remove the consequences of their choice. In the end, God is sovereign and His will will be done.

    When I said this to one atheist commenter, he said I was threatening him. But if he really didn’t believe in God, why would he receive those comments as a threat?

    Atheists are a confused lot. It’s their inability to think clearly that leaves them with the impression they are wise.

    • Paul Hiett

      The next piece of evidence you provide for the existence of any deity will be your first piece of such evidence.

      At least atheists are honest enough to admit that there’s no evidence either way.

      • JCIL

        “At least atheists are honest enough to admit that there’s no evidence either way.”

        That didn’t take long. You are wrong once again about one thing.
        You got the part about no evidence to disprove God correct, but you are wrong about no evidence that points to God’s existence. I’ve already given you plenty, which you ignore.

        You appear to be hard of learning…a common characteristic among atheists.

      • Logic&Emotion

        Jcil is right, you will argue against any evidence even if it stares you in the face. The reason you can say at least Atheists are honest admitting there is no evidence either way, makes absolutely no sense and the reason is that you have tried to present evidence that God does not exist using Exodus and the Flood as examples. Everything your saying is a contradiction in terms. Clearly not logical, and has lost all credibility. My suggestion is you stop embarrassing yourself. I recognize what you want, but it isn’t going to happen. Accept that, and believe what you believe. No harm done.

        • Paul Hiett

          JCIL hasn’t provided any actual evidence though. I haven’t proven that your god doesn’t exist anymore than JCIL can prove Odin doesn’t exist.

          All I merely did was show facts that prove that 2 stories in the Bible didn’t happen. You can infer from there what you want.

          There is no proof for God. None. What you posted earlier could be applied to ANY deity, but you’re not honest enough to admit that. Additionally, what you posted also does not cover all possibilities.

          I understand you want your version of your choice of religions to be real, but without any substantial proof, that’ll never happen.

          Accept that and believe whatever you want to believe.

          • JCIL

            “All I merely did was show facts that prove that 2 stories in the Bible didn’t happen. ”

            No you didn’t . You just showed you don’t know what you are talking about.

            “There is no proof for God. None.”

            Wrong once again. I’ve lost count already.

          • Paul Hiett

            You can choose to ignore facts all you want. It doesn’t change anything.

          • JCIL

            “You can choose to ignore facts all you want. It doesn’t change anything.”

            Your uninformed opinion isn’t fact. That’s like saying 2 +2 = 5, and then claiming everyone is wrong except you. It’s no wonder you don’t believe in anything other than your opinion. You believe your opinions are true in spite of how they conflict with actual truth.

  • JCIL

    Finally, Paul Hiett admitted atheists don’t have any evidence to suggest God isn’t real. None! That wasn’t so hard, was it?

    Now, you have to deal with that fact, in light of the abundance of evidence that points to the existence of God, including the personal testimonies of billions of people.

    Atheism is bankrupt, built on pride and selfishness. No evidence or fact. Not even logic.

    I don’t say this out of personal pride, but recognizing I too am a sinner in need of a Savoir. But those are the facts.

    Jesus is real. He is still on the throne.

    • Paul Hiett

      Provide evidence that Odin is not real.

      • JCIL

        “Provide evidence that Odin is not real.”

        Do you know how silly this is? I used that line years ago. It didn’t work then because it is silly and illogical.

        But that does demonstrate how weak atheism is…to have to resort to nonsense in order to defend it.

        • Paul Hiett

          Prove Odin does not exist. Provide one single piece of evidence that proves Odin is not real.

          You can’t do it, can you?

          • JCIL

            What evidence do you have that Odin exists?

          • Paul Hiett

            Doesn’t work that way. We’re using your method of “proof”.

            Your method requires evidence to show that something does not exist. Now, using your method, kindly prove Odin does not exist.

          • JCIL

            No, it does work that way. You need to make a reasonable case for the existence of Odin. Once you’ve done that, I’ll evaluate it and provide an answer. Can you make a reasonable case for Odin?

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, we’re using your method of proof. Kindly prove that Odin does not exist, and then I’ll admit that your God is the one true god.

          • JCIL

            And this is why the ‘Odin,’ FSM, and “invisible TeaPot’ reasoning is illogical and silly. You are making something up that doesn’t exist, assuming that God is made up. Your rationale is completely wrong.

            While it may seem like a logical argument against God, it’s actually no argument at all. Only the person positing this argument is fooled.

          • Paul Hiett

            Odin is most certainly a very real deity. It is every bit as real as yours. This was a very real god that people absolutely worshiped.

            So, again, prove that Odin is not real.

          • JCIL

            “Odin is most certainly a very real deity.”
            Then you should have no problem providing evidence to back up your claim. Can you?

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…if I can’t prove God isn’t real, that’s proof of God. But if I can’t prove Odin IS real, that’s proof he isn’t?

            Do you actually think before you post?

          • JCIL

            This is why your ‘Odin’ argument is silly. It’s not reasonable, logical, or practical. It’s a nonstarter. You can’t even figure out why you are confused.

          • Paul Hiett

            Just…wow. Odin was just as real to those who worshiped him as “God” is to you. Why you think everyone else is stupid but you is beyond me.

            Using your own criteria, you have failed to prove that Odin does not exist. Therefore, again using YOUR criteria, you must accept that Odin is real.

            OR, you admit you can’t prove God is real.

          • JCIL

            “Odin was just as real to those who worshiped him as “God” is to you.”

            Then you shouldn’t have any problem providing evidence for your assertion. Please do and we can proceed. Otherwise, it’s just your made up opinion. No one can prove imaginary fabrications, not even you.

            Evidence first, then we can proceed.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re amazing. You demand evidence of the negative to claim your god is real, then you demand evidence of the positive to prove another deity to not be real.

            You’re as hypocritical as it gets. You really have no idea how to debate anything. You can’t negate your own argument when it is applied to another deity just because you don’t like it.

          • JCIL

            “You’re amazing. You demand evidence of the negative to claim your god is real, then you demand evidence of the positive to prove another deity to not be real.”

            Does that mean you don’t have any evidence to support your assertion? Yes or no?

          • Paul Hiett

            I have just as much evidence to prove that Odin exists as you have that proves God exists.

            You still haven’t prove it untrue. Can you? Do you have anything other than your uninformed opinion? Anything?

          • JCIL

            Can you answer yes or no? Do you have any evidence to support your Odin assertion? It’s not that hard. Pick one of two answers.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one that set the criteria, which is that if no evidence exists to prove the negative, then the positive must be true.

            Do you admit you have no evidence to disprove Odin?

          • JCIL

            Yes or no?

          • Badkey

            Provide evidence that Odin is not real.

            Come on sweetcheeks.

          • Paul Hiett

            He fell right into the trap and still doesn’t realize it.

          • JCIL

            You are so confused you think you laid a trap for me, but you are the one caught in it. This is how satan has ensnared you, and you don’t even know it.

            Can you answer the question. Do you have evidence to support a belief in Odin. Yes or no?

          • SashaC

            Wow. Just…wow. I have to thank you. This is one of the most entertaining exchanges I have ever seen here. I still can’t figure out if JCIL really doesn’t get it, or just isn’t smart enough to walk away after realizing he made a fool of himself. Pathetic, either way.

          • JCIL

            Do you believe Odin is real?

          • Paul Hiett

            You said, and I quote…”You keep making this unfounded assertion. Unless you can prove God isn’t real, you are completely wrong.”

            Now I can claim the same for Odin. You can’t argue it, as doing so would negate your claim regarding God.

          • JCIL

            We aren’t talking about God now, we are talking about your assertion. Can you provide any evidence to support a belief in Odin? Yes or no?

          • Paul Hiett

            Are you now saying that the burden of proof changes from deity to deity? So if we’re discussing God, the burden of proof is on the person who claims he doesn’t exist, but if we’re talking about Odin the burden of proof is on the person who claims he does exist?

            Really?

          • JCIL

            Is that a yes or no? You must be getting tired of dancing around my simple question.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…you’re hilarious. Just keep moving those goalposts!

          • JCIL

            I didn’t move anything. The problem is you don’t get it. That’s why you think the goal posts moved. Do you have an answer yet? Yes, or no.

          • Paul Hiett

            You don’t get to change the rules. Either your criteria is valid for the proof of a deity, or it’s not. This is your choice of criteria.

            If you require proof that God does not exist, then you cannot call for proof that Odin does.

            You’re the one that put your foot in this mess. Either prove Odin does not exist, or accept that he does.

          • JCIL

            I never changed anything. I just asked for the evidence to support your belief in Odin. That was my first question. Can you answer it? Do you have any evidence to support your belief in Odin? Yes, or no?
            Pick one of two answers. It’s not difficult.

          • Paul Hiett

            So are you now changing what the criteria is to prove a deity?

            Are you now saying that those who claim the existence of a deity must provide proof of that deities existence?

          • JCIL

            I’ve taken the conversation to the top so that I can follow it more easily.

          • Badkey

            He has as much as you do.

          • JCIL

            Can you answer the question? Do you have evidence to support a belief in Odin? Yes, or no?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Prove here that you exist Paul. Prove it. Evidence that you exist doesn’t mean your typing. I don’t know who you are, so I have no concept of your existence. Do you understand yet.

          • Paul Hiett

            Doesn’t work that way. JCIL claims that if we can’t prove something doesn’t exist, then it must exist.

            Using his methodology, I’ve simply asked him to prove that Odin does not exist.

            Why do you think he can’t?

          • JCIL

            Yes, it does. Your logical is failing you.

          • Logic&Emotion

            The question is similar to the question, what came first the chicken or the egg. Either answer could or could not be the correct answer, or incorrect answer. Using that criteria to prove that Odin does not exist will undoubtedly be opinion in nature. It seriously is an invalid question is my point.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then the question is equally invalid for ALL deities, is it not?

            Simple logic.

          • Logic&Emotion

            Only if your a non believer, which you are, so why ask the questions of proof?

          • Paul Hiett

            JCIL has been demanding that we, the atheists, provide proof that God does not exist.

            I then counter asking him to provide evidence that proves Odin does not exist. JCIL doesn’t have the education to know that Odin is not a Marvel Comics character, unfortunately.

            Regardless, I’m simply using his own methodology to prove a deity exists, and he can’t do it. His own method completely failed, but because the two of you refuse to use even the most basic of logic, you can’t see it.

          • JCIL

            No, your entire logic is flawed. You have the problem, not the question. Do you have any evidence to show Odin is real? Yes, or no?

          • Paul Hiett

            According to you, I don’t need any evidence to prove Odin is real. The burden is on you to disprove.

          • JCIL

            Don’t you feel silly dancing around the obvious? I empathize with you. I did when a Christian trapped me in my faulty atheist thinking.

            Can you answer the question or not?

          • Logic&Emotion

            Your certainly entertaining. I like you Paul. But when you talk about logic understand logic. This is the rub. A Christian doesn’t need proof, or to prove God’s existence in a peer reviewed Empirical Data sort of way because we know through experience certain evidences in our lives that provide the information of believing in something not seen but felt.. The opposite of that is often a play by an Atheist who asks for proof without wanting it. That is what is illogical about this whole discussion. As an Atheist it would make little logical sense to pursue a quest for certain knowledge without wanting it or needing it other than to try to discredit the information. That really becomes irrelevant. I have spoken to you about what the Atheist “agenda” currently seems to be and understand it. However I’ve also spoken about freedoms we have in the U.S. We have actually had a very long conversation. It’s important for you to realize only one real thing. You cannot remove God no matter how hard you try. It is a futile battle for the Atheist. One of the biggest examples I could use is Richard Dawkins, a once good scientist in the field of Biology. Now he is a second rate Philosopher in which the Atheist community is turning their backs on him. The community of Oxford is turning their backs on him because of his recent statements about pedophilia, rape, “defective children” as he calls it and a whole list of things that you can google right now. As one stated “It’s a shame that Richard has blemished his work as a scientist as a poor representation of Philosophy.” I cannot tell you Paul how often you will see Atheism does not work. It never will because cultures don’t require it. Science is not owned by Atheism, that is simply a statement by Atheist to assume some superiority contest. Science is relevant only in terms of benefit to a society, no more no less. In summation, don’t be led by false prophets of today. Do your own homework. I’ve presented a few concepts that you should research, not for me, but for yourself. Make your own determination. If you choose to continue this type of contest, don’t attack the person, make relevant arguments about an idea, concept or ideals. Prove to yourself your a man of good will, and not a man of zealous ignorance. I’m not your enemy.

          • Paul Hiett

            Out of curiosity…ideologies aside…based on JCIL’s statements, is his claim that proof of Odin is required a contradictory statement to his claim that no proof of God is required?

          • JCIL

            Do you have an answer for me or not?

          • Logic&Emotion

            In that context I would say yes your right. Although I support some of his statements, I think he may be a little zealous about his conversion to a Christian (and I do believe him on that). But no proof is necessary of Odin, just as I state, the believer needs no proof of God because we know he exists. I would not agree with him on that statement, if that is helpful to you.

          • JCIL

            Logic, I encourage you to dig a little deeper in apologetics. Chris