Missouri City Votes to Repeal ‘Bathroom Bill’ as Megachurch Pastor Speaks Out

LindellSPRINGFIELD, Mo. — Residents in Springfield, Missouri have voted to repeal a law that provided special protections to those who identify as homosexuals and transgenders as local pastors have spoken out on their concerns about the issue.

The Springfield City Council had added the protections to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance last fall, which allow for men who identify as women—and vice versa—to be allowed to use the restroom and locker room of their choice. It also prohibited landlords from turning away homosexuals who want to live together and banned business owners from refusing a homosexual or transgender for employment based on their lifestyle.

But those who opposed the move petitioned the council to either repeal the measure or put it up for a vote. As the council chose the latter, the addition went up for a vote on Tuesday.

51.4 percent of voters, or 15,347 residents, voted to have the language appealed, while 48.6 percent of voters, or 14,493 residents, voted to keep the addition in place.

One of the most vocal opponents of the bill was John Lindell, pastor of the 9,000-member James River Church. He delivered a message last month urging his congregation to vote to repeal the law.

“We all have desires that are warped as a result of our fallen nature: pride, selfishness, greed, anger, bitterness, unforgiveness, lust, envy, covetousness, chemical addiction,” Lindell said. “Our desire for things God has forbidden is a reflection of how sin has distorted us, rather than a reflection of how Christ has made us.”

He encouraged congregants that change is possible—for any stronghold—as the reason for Christ’s death was to set mankind free from the power of sin.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It is possible for someone who has practiced a life of adultery to stop,” Lindell declared. “It is possible for someone who has been a life-long alcoholic to stop. It is possible for somebody who has a cutting tongue and a big mouth to stop. It is possible for someone who is engaged in homosexual behavior to stop.”

According to the Springfield News Leader, Lindell explained that the ordinance is wrongful as not only is the Bible clear that homosexuality is against God’s creation order, but the amended language tramples the rights of Christians who believe God’s word. He suggested that it forced Christians into the closet while homosexuals come out of it.

“This ordinance reduces freedom of religion to freedom of worship,” Lindell said. “In other words, you can believe what you want within the confines of the four walls of the church as long as you don’t live it outside of the church.”

He continued to urge his congregation to think biblically as they go to vote, reminding them that although critics say that he should not speak on such issues in church, it is his duty as a pastor.

“Martin Luther, the great reformer, said this: ‘If you preach the gospel in all aspects—with the exception of the issues which deal specifically with your time—you are not preaching the gospel at all,'” Lindell declared.

Assemblies of God Superintendent George Wood had also penned a letter to 35 Springfield churches, encouraging them to urge their congregations to vote for the repeal.


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
  • Richard

    GREAT JOB! Everyone should be commended. It’s time for Christians to fight for God’s word. No longer should we be bullied by those who choose immorality. I hope this goes viral and all Christians get on board with fighting for truth over deception.

    • Skeptic NY

      All this is is religious inspired hypocrisy, bigotry, intolerance and hate. Irony is you are your own worst enemy. Christianity is dying – this is just one more nail in it’s coffin. I’m kind of glad the vote went the way that it did. Just shines the light on you religious bigots for all the country to see. You’re on the wrong side of history, morality, decency, and equal-rights.

      • Richard

        Your are entitled to you opinion. I’m sure God will take that up with when you meet him for yourself.

    • Skeptic NY

      There are over 3,000 different claimed gods Richard. Shall we have 3,000 different sets of laws to accommodate each one? Only fair right? And out of the 40,000 different sects of Christianity which one should our laws be based upon?

      • Richard

        There is only one God. After that, people will be people. If you want to know the real God, study His word…the book HE left behind so that people would know the only real and living God.

        • SpeakTruth

          That is your belief. Other people disagree.

        • LightningJoe

          What mystifies ME, is why Gawd took SO many pains to ensure that no one would be able to trace the words in the Good Book back to, um, Gawd.

          Is that why he always “spoke” through the mouths of Monks, several centuries after the “events” they were “reporting” on?

          “Reporting” … Hmm… Compare those monks with recent “reporting” excesses, and…

  • Paul Hiett

    Ah yes, the old, “we’re in the majority so we’re going to use that to force our particular brand of religion on everyone else.”

    Such love and compassion for others in the Bible belt, eh?

    • Richard

      We love all people…just not the sin.

      • Paul Hiett

        Oh yes, the “get out of jail free” card you love playing. “We love the sinner but hate the sin!”

        That is such a crock. If that was true, you and your cronies wouldn’t go around calling them perverts and deviants and pedophiles and other derogatory names. You’re intolerant and doing nothing more than hiding behind the numbers of your belief system, and nothing more.

        • Richard

          > That is such a crock

          It may seem that way to you. But that’s your issue not mine.

          Give it a rest with your hate speech of intolerance. If anything, your comments display intolerance of the majority.

          Gays are no longer going to get away with bullying Christians. You may as well get used to it.

          • Paul Hiett

            ROFL…look at what those good “Christians” are trying to take away from gay people. Oh yes, wanting a place to live is surely “bullying” that poor Christian landlord.

            I’m sure wanting a job is bullying all of those good Christian managers out there, right?

            Yeah, you don’t have a clue what real “bullying” is.

          • Richard

            Give it a rest, Paul. No amount of tantrums will justify sinful behavior.

            A better approach would be to give your life over to Christ. Only then will you find the strength and help to overcome your sinful issues.

            Gays have clearly demonstrated their hatred for anyone who disagrees with the sinful gay lifestyle. They are some of the most vilest bullies I’ve come across in years. They are that way because of their deep seated issues that only help will resolve…which is why gays have a high incidence of violence in their relationships. They are violent not because of detractors, but because of their deep seated issues.

            As I said, getting help for those issues is the only way they can be resolved. You won’t find peace in your life until you do that and repent of your sin.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh yes, I’m sure they’re just so hateful towards people who actively work against allowing them to live their lives in peace, something we take for granted every day.

            Yep, those horrible gay people and their unending “hatred” towards those who profess so much love and compassion towards them on a daily basis.

            I wonder how you’d feel if you experienced such “love” and “compassion” in your life.

          • Richard

            > I’m sure they’re just so hateful towards people who actively work against allowing them to live their lives in peace, something we take for granted every day.

            Don’t murderers just want to live a life of peace? Ped o files? Abusers? Should we condone that behavior too? How about adulterers? I’m sure they’d like to live that lifestyle without reprisal?

            Gays are hateful. That’s why you spend so much time on these discussions…to bully people to condone the sinful gay lifestyle.

            Do you know what? It’s backfiring. It’s pushback time. As I said, you better get used to it. Truth always wins over evil. Sometimes it just takes a little more time.

          • Paul Hiett

            “Oh look mommy, that man is kissing that man, that must mean he’s going to rape me and then kill me!!!”

            Do you even know what kind of hateful lies spill from your mouth anymore?

          • Richard

            How hateful, intolerant, and bigoted of you to judge me! Your hate drips off of your comments.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one that is making the claim.

          • Richard

            Your comments are illogical.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re the one equating gay people to murders and rapists, not me.

          • Richard

            Do you know why your comments are illogical?

          • Paul Hiett

            They’re not. You just don’t like hearing the truth.

          • Richard

            Haha. You’re funny Paul.

            What moral code do you subscribe to? In other words, where do you get your notions of right and wrong?

          • Paul Hiett

            Same place we all do, Richard, from the society in which we live.

          • Richard

            Then you should be okay with the repealing of the bill. Great!

          • Paul Hiett

            Why would I be ok with repealing the bill? The majority don’t get to decide for everyone. Nice try.

          • Richard

            Sure you did. You’ve said that many times. Interesting how that changes when it goes against you. Hmmmm.

            By the way, who in society gets to set the moral code?

          • Paul Hiett

            No one person, Richard. It comes about through our experiences in life, and what we ultimately decide is good and bad. Do you think the end of slavery came about because of the Bible? Dream on. Do you think it moral to burn someone to death because they don’t believe what you do? It was, at one time, and people considered it moral and good.

            We had public executions in this country. Is that moral? We don’t think so now. The Bible had nothing to do with that.

            You can think your Bible is the source of morality, but it isn’t. Sure, it could be used that way, in a theocracy, because everyone raised in that theocracy would be indoctrinated to believe it.

            You really fail badly at the social sciences at play here, and not understanding the world around you. That’s a result of your inability to break free from the indoctrination of your parents.

          • Richard

            Denying the reality of why things changed doesn’t mean your denial is true.

            Gay supporters are great at dogmatic assertions. But very light on facts.

            That said, you’ll be good when gay marriage is repealed, right?

          • Richard Johnson

            Look up the phrase, “community standards”. That’s what sets our moral codes.

          • MisterPine

            You continue to compare homosexuals who are involved in consensual matters to murderers, pedophiles, “abusers” and other people who inflict pain on people in acts of abuse which are NOT consensual, I’m just so completely amazed that you don’t see the difference.

          • Paul Hiett

            That’s how they show love for the sinner, but not the sin.

          • Richard

            Adulterers are consensual. Should we condone that too?

            What about humans with pets. Most pets are consensual. Should we condone that too?

            How about multiple partner marriages with three or more? Should we allow that too?

            How about parent and child marriages. Should we allow that too if the child is of age and is willing?

            What you can’t see is that sin is unquenchable and without bounds. If people desire to sin, they will change whatever moral code they think they need to to engage in it.

            Depravity blinds. You are blind.

          • MisterPine

            Adultery is not consensual to the person being cheated on. Didn’t think that through, did you?

            Pets cannot consent because they cannot speak.

            How many multiple partner marriages with three or more can you mention? Going to play the slippery slope card and say that’s what’s coming down the pipe if we allow gay people to get married? Guess what? I live in Canada, and no one’s lining up to marry their Rottweiler or mother or goldfish or table lamp yet.

            Only in the mind of a Christian supremacist would a consensual and loving relationship be called sin.

          • Richard

            > Adultery is not consensual to the person being cheated on. Didn’t think that through, did you?

            You were talking about consenting adults. This is one example. If you want to talk about affected others:

            Homosexuality is not consensual to the children who are left behind. Didn’t think that through, did you?

            Gay relationships rob adopted children of a mother and father upbringing. Didn’t think that through, did you?

            Gay relationships have a high incidence of disease, suicide, and mental health problems. What about all of their friends and families that will suffer, too, as a result? Didn’t think that through did you?

            > Going to play the slippery slope card

            Just as the gay community ‘came out’ when opinions were being manipulated to change, so will the rest. Sin is addictive and pervasive. To not see the slippery slope is naive. To deliberately not acknowledge it is misleading, deceptive.

          • MisterPine

            You are stupid:
            “Homosexuality is not consensual to the children who are left behind. Didn’t think that through, did you?”
            No one is left behind. Homosexuals are allowed to be parents.

            “Gay relationships rob adopted children of a mother and father upbringing. Didn’t think that through, did you?”
            So do car accidents, cancer, and single-parent families, but in all cases the children grow up just fine.

            “Gay relationships have a high incidence of disease, suicide, and mental
            health problems. What about all of their friends and families that will
            suffer, too, as a result? Didn’t think that through did you?”
            They wouldn’t have a high rate of suicide if bigots like you weren’t constantly telling them they are going to burn in hell and robbing them of the rights you happily grant to everyone else. As for disease, that’s just stupid. No gay monogamous couple is going to be at higher risk for disease any more than any other monogamous couple. And Christian bigots suffer daily from mental health problems, they don’t have them taken care of in medical facilities though, they just post them on forums like this one.

            “To not see the slippery slope is naive”
            Everyone sees it, just as they see every other paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theory out there. And we acknowledge it in exactly the same way, by disregarding it as completely ridiculous.

          • Richard

            > No one is left behind. Homosexuals are allowed to be parents.

            When a husband leaves his family to engage in the gay lifestyle, the children are separated from the stability of a man/woman relationship. They are left behind and suffer for the rest of their lives because of it.

            > So do car accidents, cancer, and single-parent families, but in all cases the children grow up just fine.

            No they don’t. I do find it interesting that you equated homosexuality with car accidents and cancer. I think it applies nicely.

            > They wouldn’t have a high rate of suicide if bigots like you

            I already said that’s not the case. Deflecting and shirking responsibility is a common gay characteristic.

            > slippery slope.

            I’ve noticed that gays will say and do anything to promote their sinful lifestyle. You again demonstrate that clearly.

            Denial, suppression, and bullying are common gay attributes.

          • MisterPine

            When a husband leaves his family, it’s no different than a divorce situation (which you seem to take no issue with). They arrange visitation. No one’s abandoned – and if they were, I think the government would frown on it.

            I didn’t equate homosexuality with car accidents and cancer, I equated several situations in which a child would be without two parent figures present.

            Are you going to tell me with a straight face that homosexual teens never commit suicide because of societal pressures, including those placed on them by churches? What planet have you been living on?

            “Denial, suppression, and bullying are common gay attributes.”

            No, but we sure see them in Christian bigots.

          • Richard

            > it’s no different than a divorce

            Because one evil is accepted, we should accept another. Where does that end?

            > I didn’t equate homosexuality with car accidents and cancer

            Yes, you did. I think it’s appropriate.

            Gay teens have the highest incidence of suicide. Here again is where you think because one thing is bad, we should condone others. And you don’t believe in the slippery slope?!

            Did you know that it’s illogical to condemn others if you are a moral relativist? You see, you can’t have it both ways. Either you adhere to a higher moral authority, or you aren’t in a position to judge others.

            So by calling me a bigot, you’ve not only labeled yourself as one, but also an illogical bigot.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not tolerating hate isn’t exactly what being a bigot is about. But hey, if thinking you can change the meaning of the word means you sleep better at night, go right ahead.

            BTW, have you ever thought about WHY gay teens have an abnormally higher suicide rate?

          • Richard

            Paul, as a moral relativist, there is no such thing as hate, right, or wrong. It’s all subjective. For you to say my comments are hateful is illogical based on your beliefs.

            Gay teens have a high suicide rate because of their unhealthy psychological and emotional states…which is why they choose gay partners. That problem won’t ever go away because the conflict is internal.

          • Paul Hiett

            I am going by our accepted definition of hate. If you want to change the definition of what it is you are feeling, by all means, petition Merriam-Webster.

            No Richard, gay teens have a higher suicide rate because of people like you. People that condemn them, tell them they’re vile, despicable…that they’re perverts and deviants and that they’re going to hell. They suffer because parents disown them and kick them out of their house. They suffer because that’s what hate does to others.

            Man, your ignorance is amazing, and downright sad, to be honest.

          • Richard

            Hate is a value judgement. If you believe in moral relativism, values are subjective. That means each to his own, which means yours don’t apply to me, which also means you don’t have the right to impose yours on me either nor should you express yours to others. That’s why moral relativism doesn’t work…because it is a self-refuting concept.

            > gay teens have a higher suicide rate because of people like you.

            Nope. It’s the internal conflict…which is why they are cruel to each other.

            Trying to blame that unhealthy behavior on someone else is typical of the gay mindset. It’s called ‘victim mentality’ which is rampant among gays. Do you know where that mindset comes from?

          • Paul Hiett

            Sorry Richard, but you’re wrong.

            http://www.queerty.com/family-adopts-15-year-old-gay-teen-who-was-disowned-by-his-family-20140327

            This is why you’re wrong. You have no more argument on this subject.

          • Richard

            Give it a rest, Paul. Of course an unhealthy child will say that. What would you expect from a gay website…an objective opinion?

            In the same way, should we condone ped of files because many were abused as children?

            But it does make my point about why gays often choose gay partners and have a victim mentality – they often come from difficult backgrounds.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yep, as predicted, you have no valid argument.

          • Richard

            What’s predictable is your ability to deny the truth. You’re really good at that…and God will allow that…for a time.

          • MisterPine

            “Because one evil is accepted, we should accept another. Where does that end?”

            I am not calling homosexuality OR divorce evil, you are. My point was a child is divided between people living in different areas.

            No, I most certainly did not equate homosexuality with car accidents or cancer and it’s very dishonest of you to say so.

            Gay teens have the highest incidence of suicide, and I notice you’re not owning any responsibility for that on behalf of your fellow Christians who judge and condemn and generally make life difficult for homosexual teens. There is no slippery slope logic involved in this scenario, I don’t believe you know what a slippery slope is.

            You are saying that without God I cannot be a moral person and that is just silly. A good percentage of the world is atheist, do you see rampant torturing and murdering going on in our streets being done by atheists?

          • Richard

            > on behalf of your fellow Christians who judge and condemn and generally make life difficult for homosexual teens.

            Why aren’t other sinners committing suicide at the same rate?

            > You are saying that without God I cannot be a moral person and that is just silly.

            I wasn’t saying that at all. I was saying when morals are relative, no one has the right to judge another…as you are doing. Subjective morals are self-refuting. Most moral relativists don’t realize this.

            > A good percentage of the world is atheist, do you see rampant torturing and murdering going on in our streets being done by atheists?

            There has been more murders done by atheist regimes in the last 100 years than all of the so-called religious wars in history. that should tell you something.

            You are free to express yourself in the USA because of Christian values. Do you honestly think an atheist country would allow religion? Freedom of expression? Nope!

          • Paul Hiett

            No Richard, again, you’re wrong…no surprise there…we’re free to express ourselves in spite of Christian doctrine. We don’t have to hide anymore…neither do gay people. We’re not going to live under a Christian thumb anymore, and you’re seeing the backlash of your intolerance coming to light.

            You can only push people so far before they’ve had enough of it. I guess the racial war in this country last century taught you nothing.

          • MisterPine

            “Why aren’t other sinners committing suicide at the same rate?”

            Because homosexuality comes with its own brand of shame, guilt, alienation and pain that makes gay teens, especially those growing up in religious households, feel that life is worthless.

            “I was saying when morals are relative, no one has the right to judge another”

            They aren’t as relative as you think. It’s pretty straightforward that you don’t murder people, you don’t torture then, you don’t hurt them, you don’t exploit them, you treat people as you’d want to be treated. That morality comes from simply growing up and is taught by parents and guardians. Those morals are pretty universal and don’t require any God.

            “There has been more murders done by atheist regimes in the last 100
            years than all of the so-called religious wars in history. that should
            tell you something.”

            Citation please.

          • Janeben

            You call Richard “stupid” yet you continue to argue with him. Do you not see the irony of your behavior? Maybe he’s not so “stupid” after all and has actually struck a nerve in you. Why would you be on a site where you so vehemently disagree with the Christian viewpoint expressed? That’s like a Jewish person going to an ISIS site and mixing it up with them in the comments section. What do you seriously think that you are going to accomplish? Or are you simply letting off steam? Whatever it is, understand this. No amount of legal changes and lobbying by the LGBT crowd and their friends will ever sway a true Christian. You may succeed in silencing them to a great degree and in getting the law on your side. You may forge a general public face of “tolerance” but you and your ilk will never, ever truly be accepted. True Christian florists and bakeries will be “too full” and/or “too busy” to accommodate your gay “marriages” and God knows what other social events the LGBT crowd may invent in time. You may mistake all of the legal and superficial social changes for “progress” but all you’ve really gained is a hollow victory. You’ve won the battle, but never the war. True tolerance is a two-way street and cannot be forced or legislated. If your ilk truly desires respect and acceptance, then they must first be prepared to give it. Mocking someone’s God and religious beliefs and calling them names on comment threads is definitely not the way to go.

          • MisterPine

            “Why would you be on a site where you so vehemently disagree with the Christian viewpoint expressed?”

            Because I don’t disagree with Christian viewpoints, I disagree with UNBELIEVABLY ANGRY AND HATEFUL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN viewpoints.

            You think these are “normal” Christians on this place? Let me tell you, I’m surrounded by Christians in my life and they are nothing like the foaming-at-the-mouth homophobes and bigots I encounter here. Where I live, Christians are tolerant of homosexuals, and they aren’t being denied service in shops and they are even welcome in churches. THOSE are Christians to me, not the pack of Jack Chick groupies I see here.

          • The Last Trump

            “Denial, suppression, and bullying are common gay attributes.”
            Boy, you sure get that a lot, huh?
            Weird…

          • MisterPine

            What gay people are trying to stop Christians from getting married? Take all the time you like in answering, Rumpster.

          • April J

            So if a gay couple doesn’t have kids and lives a healthy lifestyle…that’s cool with you?

          • Paul Hiett

            But, according to Richard, that’s not a healthy lifestyle.

          • April J

            Adulterers consent, but those they are hurting by cheating didn’t consent. The person thats hurt is the victim. Pets and children often don’t have a choice to consent or not. They are helpless victims that are preyed upon by sick people. There are no helpless victims in the case of a loving, consensual, homosexual relationship.

          • Richard

            > There are no helpless victims in the case of a loving, consensual, homosexual relationship.

            You can’t be serious. Homosexuality has the highest incidence of domestic violence. Most of those injured consider themselves victims.

          • April J

            I said a loving, consensual homosexual relationship for a reason. Domestic violence is never okay no matter what the sexual orientation and that is an entirely separate issue.

          • The Last Trump

            Don’t forget senders of death threats, bodily harm and bombings.
            Just ask the owners of that pizzeria.
            Such a loving, tolerant group. “Your” people.

          • MisterPine

            But of course your refusal to treat them like human beings in the first place, your judging, condemning, murdering and torturing and denying of basic human rights has nothing to do with it. Such a loving, tolerant, CHRISTIAN group, YOUR people.

          • The Last Trump

            Easy with all of the wild and slanderous accusations there, bud.
            Judging, condemning, murdering and torturing? We’re not liberals.
            Get help.

          • MisterPine

            Get help, says the evolution and science denier.

            You judge homosexuals.
            You condemn homosexuals.
            You murder and torture homosexuals.

            I don’t.

            You lose.

          • Parque_Hundido

            If it weren’t for us, you wouldn’t have any freedoms.

            You’re welcome.

          • Richard Johnson

            Paul should get used to it. The Gaystapo has gone way too far and the silent majority is fed up. If they want a chance at keeping what they’ve already conned for themselves, they had better shut up now.

          • Richard

            I agree. I believe they’ve woken a sleeping giant.

            It’s sad that it’s taken this long for Christians to stand up for truth.

            But God is powerful. Enough Christians are praying for change. When God acts, there isn’t anything they can do to stop His will.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are doing a nice job of sharing the Gospel, Richard. Keep up the great work! Some a-theists who visit this site actually are searchers.

          • vdomkr

            You will never be able to convince those who suffer from Cognitive Dissonance, so don’t bother. They are lost souls. Let them believe what they want. They wallow in their ignorance much like a pig wallows in it’s own filth. It is comforting and warm for them and they are mentally and emotionally incapable of accepting anything outside of their own mystical, magical world.

          • SpeakTruth

            Gays bullying Christians? Lol!

          • Richard

            Yes, they are. Their agenda is to suppress all opposition…which is why you are here too. Your comments just demonstrated that.

          • SpeakTruth

            They are fighting for the rights that you have, sir. You want to take away their rights. See the difference? Were black people trying to suppress those that wanted to deny their rights? No! Were women trying to suppress those that were trying to deny them rights? No! Fighting for equality isn’t suppressing others’ rights. Fighting to deny equality is. Your rights will be the same as everyone else’s.

          • Paul Hiett

            Their “agenda” is to enjoy the same rights and protections everyone has…the ones you take for granted on a daily basis.

        • Robert Reeves

          You sound full of hate. Full of bitter hate. You must be a misserable wreck.

          • Paul Hiett

            You know nothing about me. I was merely pointing out that claiming you love the sinner is a bit hypocritical considering all of the insults you folks love to throw out regarding gay people.

          • Robert Reeves

            “You folks”?

        • Mary Clark

          Loving the person while hating the sin? Do you love your child even when they lie to you? Of course, it’s possible. Parents do it all the time. 🙂

      • SFBruce

        Only those without sin are entitled to a job and a place to live?

        • Richard

          All people are sinful. The difference is that Christians know its sin, and don’t try to condone it by ‘normalizing’ it.

          Would you hire a known murderer who thinks murder is normal? An admitted ped o phile who thinks it’s normal? How about a child abuser who thinks child abuse is normal?

          People need to be discerning and discriminating of behavior. Otherwise all hell would break loose.

          • MisterPine

            And you feel it is your place to define what sin is for the rest of us?

          • Richard

            No. God has already defined it. And you know, it doesn’t matter if you define it differently because God’s rules win. Always will even if you don’t believe in God. Your rules really don’t count in the big scheme of things.

          • MisterPine

            God defined nothing. Men who wrote the Bible and tried to say it was God talking “defined” it according to their own moral code. You aren’t God and you can never speak for God, certainly not with the Bible.

          • Richard

            King David summed up your comments nicely, over 2000 years ago when he said, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.”

            Not much has changed since then.

          • Paul Hiett

            Which god?

          • Anonymous

            Aren’t all gods the same?

            What Abrahamic religions have done is to condense them all into one, which is easier because you have to worship only one deity.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh really? So the god that sent Jesus is the same god that sent Mohammed which is the same god that didn’t send Jesus?

          • Richard

            All I see is people who know very little about what they criticize demonstrating how little they know.

          • Anonymous

            Mohammed acknowledged Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Adam. Thus he refers to the same God of Christians (although many Christians don’t think so). But that’s how it goes.

            By the way, Mohammed received revelations by God given by angel Gabriel. Jesus is claimed to have come from God itself (the God of Jews).

            That’s how Judaism, Christians, and Muslims come together.

          • Richard

            Not even close. But you can keep trying. Study would help.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh really? So the Jewish god is the same as the Christian god?

            Do tell!

          • Anonymous

            Well, yes.

          • Richard

            Actually, no. Jesus is God. Jews don’t believe that. Neither do Muslims. Can you see the difference?

            As I said, study would help.

          • Anonymous

            So then I think it’s time to remove the Old Testament (Hebrew bible) from the Bible.

          • Richard

            You are mistaken again.

          • Anonymous

            Another thing, why do the majority of Christians follow and usually use the Old Testament (Hebrew bible) against gays when that’s clearly Jewish law?

          • Richard

            The moral laws are still in effect.

            As I said, study would clear this all up for you.

          • Anonymous

            So then why aren’t we stoning sinners to death?

          • Richard

            That’s called a civil law. That, and the ceremonial laws, were fulfilled in Christ.

          • Paul Hiett

            And this, everyone, is what is called “Cherry Picking”.

          • Richard

            No, everyone. Paul’s comment shows he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about. Most Sunday school children know this information. Just because he doesn’t, doesn’t mean it’s not common Christian knowledge.

          • mattie_b

            No, it is called you not reading nor understanding the Law nor the Torah nor the prophets (which Jesus fulfilled all btw).

            It is the same if you got a speeding ticket and went to divorce court. That would be weird. Our laws, and there are thousands, deal with traffic, family, money, businesses, neighbors, murder – ect.

            In the Torah, God set law to define how man interacted with man, with God, with family, with businesses – even with the land and farming!

            The law also covered ceremonial law given to the priests of the tribe of Levi. Levitical law is ALL done away with since Jesus is now our High Priest – as expressed in Hebrews 4:14.

            But “Do not murder” suddenly did not go away, as don’t steal as did “do not commit sexual immorality – which includes homosexuality but is not limited just to that.

          • Paul Hiett

            It was until Jesus came along, and separated them. The Jewish version did not send Jesus, ergo, it can’t be the same deity anymore as the Christian version.

          • Anonymous

            Actually Jesus didn’t separate them. It was Peter and Paul, if I’m not mistaken.

          • Paul Hiett

            Jesus was the catalyst though.

          • Anonymous

            Now that I think about, yes. He came to “fulfill” the law but he defied it many times. After he was gone Peter and Paul couldn’t decide what to do with gentiles, which separated them even more.

          • Richard

            You really should study some. Your ignorance on the subject is showing.

          • Anonymous

            The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

            But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

            Didn’t he defy the law in that instance? The Law of Moses that he had come to fulfill? That stated in Deuteronomy?

          • Richard

            The moral laws are subject to God’s punishment, not man’s. All of the rules that enforce moral laws are civil laws, which Jesus fulfilled. Since Jesus is God, he had the only right to forgive the woman. It wasn’t up to the Pharisees…which was the point Jesus was making…and that HE was God.

          • Anonymous

            So let me think this through. I’m not pretending to be smarter than you but it looks like I might need some more study on the Bible and Jesus. Hear what I have to say, how I interpret the events:

            The Torah, which contains Deuteronomy, was given to Moses by God himself. The Pharisees wanted to fulfill the law as established by Moses and given by God. Then Jesus (God himself) came and said that he’d fulfill the law (“Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.” GNT version).

            But then Jesus (God himself) defy the law the He himself gave to Moses in Mount Sinai. Is that right?

          • Paul Hiett

            I have to admit, it is kinda funny…

          • Anonymous

            I laughed too.

            Jesus (God himself) went against the law that he as God gave to Moses before. I just thought about it.

          • Richard

            It’s only funny because of your lack of understanding.

          • Anonymous

            Oh, yeah? Who gave the Torah to Moses?

          • Richard

            Which parts?

          • Anonymous

            Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.

          • Richard

            I know what books are in the Pentateuch. I was asking which parts in the books are you referring to?

          • Anonymous

            I’m not referring to passages in specific. I refer to the whole Pentateuch. Who gave it to Moses?

          • Richard

            You will need to be more specific. But generally, some was oral tradition handed down, some was personal experience, and some was from God himself.

          • Anonymous

            Okay. Which part allegedly is from God himself?

          • Richard

            There are many. Why don’t you just say what you are getting at?

          • Anonymous

            What do we do with parts of the Bible (specifically the OT) that state things like sinners must be stoned to death? Should those be taken literally? Metaphorically? If we pick either one of those, should we do the same with the rest of the Bible or just follow those we like?

          • Richard

            > What do we do with parts of the Bible (specifically the OT) that state things like sinners must be stoned to death?

            That is the civil law that was fulfilled in Christ.

            > If we pick either one of those, should we do the same with the rest of the Bible or just follow those we like?

            This is where study would help you. You are struggling because you don’t understand scripture, not because there is something wrong with it or God.

            I’ve noticed many non believers have the same problem…they don’t know what they are talking about, then go by their uninformed opinions. It’s no wonder they are confused.

            But like any subject, the more you understand, the better off you are.

          • Anonymous

            I’m not an atheist.

          • Richard

            I didn’t say atheist. I said non believer.

          • Anonymous

            So the parts in Deuteronomy that call for the death of many sinners can be disregarded since Jesus practically abolished them?

          • Richard

            Sin is between man and God. This is why you don’t see sin punished by north american societies.

            The only things punished by these societies are the laws that are broken.

            That’s because north american societies follow Christian values…or at least they did.

          • Anonymous

            So then there are parts of the Bible that, somehow, are irrelevant today because we wouldn’t put sinners to death. Or the one in Corinthians that says women shouldn’t speak in church.

          • Richard

            Once again, your lack of knowledge on the subject is what is tripping you up. If you want the truth, you should connect with a study group that can help you.

          • Anonymous

            So what do you think of 1 Corinthians 14:34?

          • Richard

            The civil and ceremonial laws were given to the Israelites as a way of maintaining a healthy society. The moral laws were given to demonstrate that all were sinful, that they needed God, and his forgiveness.

            The civil and ceremonial laws were enforced by the people. The moral laws were enforced by God.

            The Pharisees wanted to take God’s place as enforcing the moral laws, which Jesus knew.

            Nothing changed when Jesus arrived on earth. But the Pharisees were challenged because of their attempt to usurp God’s role.

            This was also one of their motivations that had Jesus killed…they still wanted to retain their superior role in the Jewish society…which Jesus was clearly disproving.

          • Anonymous

            I don’t think the Pharisees wanted to take God’s place since all they cared for was to do exactly what’s stated in Deuteronomy. Jesus (God himself) defied that same law, which was given by Him.

          • Richard

            Like I’ve said, you should study some. Your comments show you don’t know what you are talking about. Just because you’ve formed an opinion based on your lack of understanding, doesn’t mean your opinion is true.

          • John_33

            No, Jesus fulfilled the Law when he forgave her. You may argue that Jesus needed to stone her since that’s what the Law prescribes, but you need to dig a little deeper to get the answer. First, how can Jesus forgive anyone if the Law condemns a man? Does He just forgive? No, absolutely not. God said to Moses in the Law that He will forgive iniquity, transgression, and sin, and at the same time will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:6-7). How can that be? Aren’t the two contradictory? How can God forgive if He won’t clear the guilty? The answer is that sin must be punished; otherwise, God would be clearing the guilty and would be tolerating sin – something that He will never ever do.

            The answer is so simple. When Jesus died on the cross, He bore all the sins of the world ever committed including that woman’s adultery. He didn’t die yet at that very moment when He forgave her, but His death still applied since it covered all sins in the past and future. When He forgave her, He was able to do so because the Law was satisfied – the penalty for adultery was death, and it was paid – He paid for it when He died. That’s why He has the sole prerogative to forgive. He didn’t defy the Law, He fulfilled it, and nobody can wag their tongue against God for what He did. Praise God that He forgives and saves, and He still does.

          • Richard

            You are mistaken.

          • mattie_b

            Yes. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” in John 10:30. Ask yourself why the Jews hated Him enough to crucify Him. Jesus called Himself God and God’s Son!

          • mattie_b

            Islam does not worship Jehovah God nor is Jesus seen as His son for Salvation nor is Isaac seen as the promised child (hence why they want to destroy Israel so bad). Islam and Christianity are not the same nor worship the same God!

          • MisterPine

            Hm, cute. Except that I never said there was no God. I have no idea if there’s a God. But if there is he/it would have nothing to do with the crazed bearded megalomaniac from your storybook.

          • Richard

            > But if there is he/it would have nothing to do with the crazed bearded megalomaniac from your storybook.

            Can you prove your assertion?

          • MisterPine

            The burden of proof would be on you to prove your storybook God.

          • Paul Hiett

            Here’s how Richard operates…

            You need to prove god doesn’t exist. You can’t can you?

            You need to prove another deity exists. You can’t can you?

          • Richard

            Atheists need to prove their dogmatic assertions. But as you know Paul, you can’t. Surprising, though, that you still make them.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so atheists need to prove their position, but Christians don’t?

            ROFL…

          • Richard

            Christianity has already proven itself. You can find information almost everywhere about the reality of God…including the government.

            Atheism, however, has none. As you’ve demonstrated countless times already…which is why you are forced to use silly illogical games.

          • Frank Cartwright

            god=reality? really? whose,what god? Zeus,Apollo,Venus? you can also find false information and scandalous lies everywhere,what is your point?

          • Richard

            Do you mean you can’t tell the difference between folklore and actual history?

          • Frank Cartwright

            the real question is,can you?

          • Richard

            I can, easy. You apparently can’t.

          • Paul Hiett

            I’m not the one that creates different criteria for proof when faced with the same questions you ask others.

          • Richard

            I’ve not created anything different. It just appears that way to you because you don’t have any good answers…which is why you rarely provide any. That in itself should tell you something.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh really?

            Let’s see…

            You claim God is real. I challenge your assertion. You then ask me to prove he isn’t.

            I claim Odin is real. You challenge my assertion by then asking me to prove that Odin is real.

            Do you really not see the hypocrisy? I know, it’s a rhetorical question.

          • MisterPine

            He and Nick are two peas in a pod.

            Speaking of which, Nick continues to crow about how he’s driven you off. I told him just two minutes ago that you probably got tired of beating your head against a wall.

          • Paul Hiett

            Nick believes that the date of Creation…yes the actual date that God made the world…is March 25th.

            I’m not too worried about him making any valid points.

          • Richard

            > The burden of proof would be on you to prove your storybook God.

            You made the claim that if there is he/it would have nothing to do with the crazed bearded megalomaniac from your storybook.

            Can you prove that assertion? I’ll wait.

          • MisterPine

            It’s an easy claim to make because there is no proof of the God of your book.

          • Richard

            That’s not evidence. That’s just a flat denial. Do you have any evidence?

          • Paul Hiett

            Do you have any evidence to prove your deity exists?

          • Richard

            Yes, tons. Atheists none. That’s why no atheist can produce any. Atheism is a blind faith based on personal preference…but no evidence.

            That’s also why you don’t answer the question (although you did during another conversation – you said you didn’t have any evidence to support your atheist faith).

          • Paul Hiett

            Ok then, what evidence supports the existence of your deity? And mind you, this has to be evidence that can only point to your deity and no other.

            So, let’s have it…

          • mattie_b

            One word: Israel.

          • MisterPine

            Prove your God first. That’s how it works. It’s on you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, here we go again, yes, gay people are just as bad as murderers, rapists, and child abusers.

            I see that degree in psychiatry is really paying off for you now!

          • Richard

            Paul addressed this over 2000 years ago when he said:

            “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

            “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” – 2 Timothy 3:1-7

            Gay vileness isn’t new.

          • Frank Cartwright

            tell that the numerous gay clergy especially in the vatican with it’s gay clubs frequented by priests.

          • Richard

            Isn’t it hypocritical of you to condemn gay priests yet support gay relationships?

          • SpeakTruth

            If you don’t know the difference between murderers and members of the LGBT community, sir, you need to take a civics class. Murder and pedophilia inflict pain and harm on other people and are thus against the law. Being gay or transgendered does not cause pain and harm to other people. The fact that you do not like or agree with how the LGBT community lives their lives should be irrelevant. Who cares if you disagree with certain bedroom activities between consenting adults? Would you turn away a male/female couple from your bakery if you knew they engaged in sodomy? How do you determine what is “normal” before you think they don’t deserve the same privileges, rights, and freedoms as everyone else?
            What “hell” would break loose? Have we now become a nation that can limit rights and freedoms of people we disagree with even though they are law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? Because I gotta tell ya, sir, that is when all “hell” will break loose. I can’t stand the way religious fundamentalists live their lives. I don’t like how they raise their children. So, I don’t want them working with me, serving my food, teaching my children, living in my apt building, etc. I think they do more harm to this world and to individual freedoms than any other group of people. But, I love this country and believe it is your right to believe what you like. I would fight for your equality and fair treatment if it was in jeopardy. It is absolutely ridiculous that some people seek to punish others and limit their individual freedoms because they do not have the same beliefs as themselves.

          • Paul Hiett

            Posting logic? To Richard?

            That’s so cute…

          • Richard

            Put downs…the indication of desperation.

          • Richard

            I thought you were all about adhering to the majority? If so, what’s your beef with the repealing of the bill?

          • SpeakTruth

            It isn’t about the majority. Yes, cultural changes occur. The society’s opinion of what is and isn’t acceptable changes over time. Today, it is growing more and more acceptable for the LGBT community to live openly. It is growing more acceptable for couples to live together without being married. It growing more acceptable for couples to wait to have children until their careers are established, etc. However, no one votes on those things. However, many christians have decided that it doesn’t matter if LGBT’s are US citizens, or that they are contributing members of our society, or that they pay taxes, or that they are law-abiding, it only matters that you don’t think they behave in a “godly” way and thus should be denied rights. Why not fight for the ability to deny atheists’ rights? Or unmarried cohabitating straight couples? Or people that get drunk sometimes? Or single mothers? Or fat people? Or other christians that believe differently than yourself?

          • SFBruce

            I agree that discernment, or the ability to make good judgments, is something to which we should all aspire, but when you compare loving relations between adults to the most vile activities which humans are capable of, I have to question yours.

          • Richard

            > loving relations between adults

            Should we condone multiple marriage partners of three or more?

            How about parents marrying their of age children?

            If love is the only qualifier, how about consenting pets and humans?

          • SFBruce

            If you want to marry your several people, or your mother, or your dog, file a lawsuit. We’ll see how it goes.

          • Richard

            That was the way it was for homosexuality not that many years ago. You’ll be good if gay marriage is repealed? You’ll be supportive?

      • Frank Cartwright

        but aren’t all that do not believe in jesus condemned regardless if there moral and good?

        • Richard

          All humans are sinful…except Christ. All who reject Christ commit the most egregious of sins. The on going rejection of Christ is the one that is unforgivable.

      • Bolvon72

        Love the sinner, but hate the sin. Bite me. You have yet to realize how convoluted that statement is.

    • Richard Johnson

      Ah yes, the new, “we’re in the minority so we should be able to use that to force our particular brand of lifestyle on everyone else.”

      I guess you don’t like it when it’s your ox getting gored for a change.

      • Paul Hiett

        So you’re ok with the majority deciding that living by the Bible is what is best for everyone else.

        Tell me, which denomination of Christianity should we all follow? Which rules from the Bible are in play and which are not? Many of you here disagree even on that aspect.

        So again, Richard “Jim Crow” Johnson, tell me all about this “the majority should rule” motto of yours?

        • Richard

          As a moral relativist, why should it matter to you? You should be good with whatever anyone thinks?

          Do you still think moral relativism is good? Realistic?

          • Paul Hiett

            I don’t need your Bible to tell me that slavery is wrong…actually referencing the Bible is a bad example since the Bible condones slavery.

            I don’t need your Bible to tell me that stoning someone for adultery is wrong…actually
            referencing the Bible is a bad example since the Bible condones it.

            I don’t need your Bible to tell me that killing someone for working on Sunday is wrong…actually
            referencing the Bible is a bad example since the Bible condones it.

            See a recurring trend regarding morality?

          • Richard Johnson

            Yeah, you don’t need to Bible to tell you homosexuality is wrong…actually referencing the Bible is a good example since the Bible doesn’t condone it.

            You walked right into that one.

          • Paul Hiett

            Wow did you screw that up.

            Here’s how it would look if you had actually thought about it.

            I don’t need your Bible to tell me that stoning someone for being gay is wrong…actually
            referencing the Bible is a bad example since the Bible condones it.

          • Richard Johnson

            Poor comprehension skills too. It’s written the way I intended it to be written. I can’t help you’re not being able to understand it.

          • Paul Hiett

            Doesn’t the Bible command that you kill homosexuals?

          • Richard

            That’s the civil law aspect I spoke of earlier. You really should spend some time studying that which you criticize. You sound uneducated otherwise.

          • Paul Hiett

            Bwahaahahahahaha…ok. Then homosexuality is ok!!!!

          • Richard

            That is the moral law I was referring to. That you’ll have to deal with God on.

            If you noticed, no one is punishing homosexuality. As I said, that is God’s domain, not ours. But that doesn’t mean we need to condone sin. Sin still carries a heavy price.

          • Paul Hiett

            Not here in the US, they’re not, because we have laws preventing “gay bashing”. Sadly, we don’t have enough laws, yet, to protect them from the non-violent bashing that goes on every day…like refusing to allow them a roof over their heads.

          • Richard

            > to protect them from the non-violent bashing that goes on every day

            If you haven’t noticed, it seems everyone is getting bashed these days. Including Christians. Seems to be a sign of the times.

          • Paul Hiett

            No one is bashing Christians, Richard…you mistake fighting for equality as “bashing”. You should learn the difference, as it’s fairly acute.

          • Richard

            No one is bashing gays, Paul. You mistake fighting for our rights as ‘bashing.’ You should learn the difference, as it’s fairly acute.

          • Paul Hiett

            You call them perverts, deviants, pedophiles, rapists, child abusers, and murders.

            What then, in your mind, constitutes “bashing”????

          • Richard

            Sin is sin, no matter the variety. It is what it is. Just because you don’t like it, that doesn’t make it bashing.

          • Paul Hiett

            Calling a group of people you don’t like perverts, deviants, pedophiles, rapists, child abusers, and murders IS bashing. I’m not surprised you don’t understand this simple concept. You argue from a point of self-granted moral superiority, without ever realizing that you’re no better than anyone else on this earth.

          • Richard

            I don’t have anything personal against gays at all. All of us are sinners.

            I take issue with condoning sin, then having those beliefs trump my rights.

            If you’ve noticed, I’ve not once said I was better. My issue is with the behavior, not the person.

          • Paul Hiett

            Then let them live their lives free of your judgement!!!!!

          • Richard

            It’s not my judgement you have to worry about.

          • Frank Cartwright

            read you bible especially the old testament or read of the horrible history of the church! IT IS THE LAST PLACE TO FIND OR PREACH MORALITY!

          • Richard

            Frank, did you know that atheist regimes have caused more deaths in the last 100 years than all of so-called religious wars throughout history?

            Atheists are the last ones to preach morals.

          • Paul Hiett

            Sad you don’t know your history. Pol pot, Mao, Stalin…what they did they did for political power reasons.

            You act like atheism is a religion or that is has some kind of uniform doctrine people follow. Your ignorance is amazing in many regards.

          • Richard

            They were all atheists. The Russian regime wanted to rid their society of religion. Denying it doesn’t disprove this fact.

            50,000,000 million Christians wiped out just by Russia alone.

          • Frank Cartwright

            i am not an atheist.athesit do not “preach” anything,they leave that scam for the religious! one more time, athest do not claim to know or represent the maker of the universe, which then enables them to claim possession of the moral high ground.all of it is hypocritical ,fairy tales and great storytelling,but nor real of from a supreme being.weak minded,lost people need it as a crutch,not all people are so weak or helpless.

          • Richard

            Can you prove any of your nonsense?

            Without God, everything is relative. As I pointed out, then, it’s self refuting.

            Even for you to post your comments contradicts moral relativism.

            Your beliefs are contradictions and you don’t even know it.

          • Frank Cartwright

            you,my robotic,totally brainwashed,incapable of independent thoughts,are not worth trying to reason with,god can have you.

          • Richard

            Ah…put downs…the sign of someone desperate with no reasonable argument.

          • Frank Cartwright

            well ,when logic, common sense,honest historic accounts fail and truth fail,what the heck!

          • Richard

            While it may seem that I’m being unreasonable, the real problem you are having is that you find yourself trapped in your own faulty thinking and illogic…which is common among non believers.

          • Frank Cartwright

            and your falling in the same trap as all believers.you think you are all always correct and everyone else is,arrogant,ignorant, immoral,wrong,damned,angry,misled,in the dark and robotic.how about some originality for a change? ya know a real independent,out of the box, view or response,can you still do that?

          • Richard

            I respond fine. It appears you just don’t like my responses. That’s not my issue.

          • Frank Cartwright

            i can say the converse.

          • Magister_militum_praesentalis

            Speaking of name-calling and casting aspersions, is poor Richard giving you more of what you want over here?

          • Frank Cartwright

            i did not know you had brothers?

        • Richard Johnson

          Butthurt much, Paul?

          • Paul Hiett

            Not at all. You’re on the losing side of this civil rights issue. You always have been and you always will be. Here, in the US, same-sex marriage will soon be legal across the nation. Nothing you can do to stop it.

            Sexual orientation will also be a protected status, so people like you won’t be able to have any affect on their lives anymore.

            Feel free to cry in the corner, but life goes on.

          • Richard Johnson

            Uh, as much as you cry for it to be, it’s not a civil rights issue. The vote referenced in the article bears that out.

            As for crying in the corner, you’re doing enough crying for all of us.

            A piece of advice, when you can’t see over the top of the hole, stop digging. That goes for your entire movement.

          • Paul Hiett

            Yes, and good Christians didn’t think the Jim Crow laws were a civil rights issue either. How’d that work out for them then?

            Christians didn’t think a ban on interracial marriage was a civil rights issue either…that one went poorly too.

            Yes, RJ, this is definitely a civil rights issue. However, has history has shown, those on the wrong side of this issue never believe it’s a civil rights issue.

          • Richard Johnson

            Stop trying to use race issues to back up your argument. They are not the same. Apple and bowling balls.

          • Paul Hiett

            Again, you’re on the wrong side of this, so you won’t recognize the issue.

            Sorry RJ, but giving one group of people the ability to decide where another group of people can live IS a civil rights issue.

            How sad you can’t see that.

    • Bolvon72

      Not for long though, 51%… in Missouri. The future doesn’t look good for the bible thumpers. Just a few more old school, backwardsass, hillbillies to die off and they become the minority.

    • mattie_b

      Stop blaming Christians for all of your woe. Marriage has been defined between one man and one woman for over 5,000 years – long before America, long before liberals, long before the Democratic party.

      What is a tragedy is taking away the sanctity of marriage and forcing EVERYONE to conform to a new definition. There is not hate in saying, “I don’t agree with forcing everyone to adopt a new definition of marriage.”

      Jesus defined marriage between one man and one woman in Matthew 19 – and that is good enough for me!

  • Peter Leh

    “It is possible for someone who is engaged in homosexual behavior to stop”

    is it possible for those engaging in heterosexual behavior to stop? If so, how?

    • Richard

      Everyone can make behavioral change. There is nothing to change with heterosexual behavior. That is normal behavior.

      The same can’t be said for homosexual behavior, which can be changed if a person wants to.

      • Peter Leh

        yes…. but how do i stop being a heterosexual?

      • Paul Hiett

        You haven’t the first clue what it’s like to be a homosexual, but you’ll judge them all the same won’t you.

        How nice, isn’t it, that you have a book that tells you that homosexuality is wrong, but you haven’t the first clue what it’s like from the other side. Nice to judge without having to really understand the issue at hand, isn’t it?

        • Kara Connor

          That’s the attraction of religion. Special rights, and no need to think.

          • Richard

            We think just fine. Asserting otherwise doesn’t make your assertion true.

          • Kara Connor

            Says the man who believes in mud man, rib woman,talking snakes, creationism, and that a man for whom there is not a single contemporaneous record is the son of god and also god.

          • Paul Hiett

            And the holy ghost…whatever that is.

          • Richard

            Can you prove all of that didn’t happen? Or is yours just a dogmatic assertion?

          • Kara Connor

            The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claims for the existence of such beings. That would be you.

          • Paul Hiett

            Welcome to Richard, Kara…

          • Kara Connor

            It isn’t hard to see what kind of irrational person gives their money to these “megachurch” pastors. People like Richard, who don’t understand basic logic and are incapable of thought without consulting their particular book of myths. That is why his ilk is losing, and will continue to do so. Their desperation is predicated on their panic as they become increasing irrelevant.

          • Richard

            We think just fine. Where is your evidence Kara? You profess to be intellectually superior? Surely you should have some evidence to support your assertions. Don’t you?

          • Kara Connor

            You’ve now shown, on the other thread, no less than three times, that you don’t understand what burden of proof means. You have just proved that your thinking and logic is deeply flawed. Look up Russell’s Teapot .

          • Richard

            I understand it fine. You asserted a number of things. The burden of proof falls to you to prove. Can you?

          • Richard

            Yes, welcome to rational, as opposed to irrational, thinking.

          • Paul Hiett

            Prove Odin doesn’t exist then. You have never yet been able to disprove Him.

          • Richard

            There’s the indication of the irrational thinking I was talking about. That didn’t take long.

          • Paul Hiett

            Why can’t you prove Odin doesn’t exist?

          • Richard

            Do you believe Odin is real?

          • Paul Hiett

            Irrelevant to the conversation, but I do accept the possibility. Now, prove Odin doesn’t exist. You can’t, can you?

          • Richard

            Of course it’s relevant. You asked the question. In order for me to answer, I need to know what your perspective is so I can prove an answer…although we’ve been around this block before. And I’ve answered before. But whatever.

          • Deina

            What need do you have of his beliefs before you can answer the question?

            Is your answer variable? If he answers one way you’ll say that Odin exists, but if he answers differently you’ll say he doesn’t?

            Highly irrational, illogical and totally void of fact, just like most of your comments!

          • Richard

            Do you believe Odin is real?

          • Deina

            Irrelevant to your answering Paul’s question.

          • Richard

            Sure it is. Do you believe Odin is real?

          • Deina

            Since you agree it’s irrelevant, why do you keep asking?

            Of course, we already know the answer to that — it’s nothing more than your standard escape & evasion tactics.

            How pathetic, you can’t even answer a simple question!

          • Richard

            Don’t you find it embarrassing to have to resort to illogical nonsense to defend your faith?

            Don’t you realize the ‘Odin’ argument is a strawman?

            To have to resort to that is telling in itself. Then add the fact that none of you could find your way out of that dilemma speaks volumes.

            Such is the reality of a non believer.

          • Deina

            Given your proven lack of knowledge RE rational thought & logic, then to be called “illogical” by you is high praise, indeed!

          • Richard

            Put downs…the sign of desperation in place of a reasoned argument.

            Silly illogical nonsense and put downs. That is the foundation of a non believer. Shouldn’t that be telling you something?

          • Deina

            Why do you keep calling yourself a “non believer”?

            I have no time to waste on your silly “I’m right because I say I am!” BS.

            Should you ever decide to debate like a grown up, let me know.

          • Paul Hiett

            Now you’re understanding how he thinks…or doesn’t, depending on your point of view.

          • Richard

            Sure, Deina. Another non believer tactic when they find themselves trapped in their own foolishness. Claim to be intellectually superior and bolt for the door. That should also be telling you something.

          • Richard

            That’s correct. You made the assertion that “mud man, rib woman,talking snakes, creationism, and that a man for whom there is not a single contemporaneous record is the son of god and also god” is false. It’s yours to back that up with evidence. Can you?

          • Kara Connor

            As I say, you don’t understand the basics of logic, and clearly can’t support a word of your bible.

          • Richard

            I understand it fine. You made the assertion. You need to back it up. Can you?

          • Kara Connor

            Tell us how, according to your bible, Adam and Eve came to be.

          • Richard

            Are you going to answer my question? Can you back up your assertion with some evidence?

            Or was it just an opinion?

          • Kara Connor

            I merely state what your bible says. Your god is claimed to have made man from dirt, Genesis 2:7, then Eve from Adam’s rib, Genesis 2:22. Talking snake, Gensis 3:1. Need I go on, or are you now disavowing the claims made in your bible and renouncing your god?

          • Richard

            Well, can you disprove that?

            God also claims to have created the universe from nothing. We have a universe from nothing. Unless you can prove God didn’t do that. Can you?

            You see, dogmatic assertions don’t equate to evidence. All they are is opinions, but not facts. Do you have some facts to back up anything you’ve claimed so far?

            You claim to be intellectually superior. Surely you should be able to back your you assertions. Can you?

          • Kara Connor

            Yet again you utterly fail to understand what burden of proof means. Can you prove Zeus didn’t do it?

          • Richard

            Just more skirting the issue, Kara. How about some evidence to back up the assertions you started the conversation with? Do you have any?

          • Kara Connor

            *points at you and laughs*
            Thanks for proving your total deficiency in logical thought. Readers are now free to form their own opinion on the value of any of your other posts.
            Perhaps a magical, invisible unicorn created everything? I mean, I can’t disprove that either. You’re an unintentional hoot, Richard.

          • Richard

            Still no answer. Does that mean you can’t support your assertions with evidence? Does that mean you made everything up?

          • Deina

            I’m not as concerned about how they came to be as I am about who did their children marry?

            Which is all the more disconcerting when you think that the same problem happened all over again after Noah & the flood!

          • Kara Connor

            Yes, that’s definitely a question not often addressed, isn’t it? No doubt there will be some “explanation” as to why that was OK back then.

          • Richard

            It was a matter of survival, and the blood lines were pure back then. Not so today.

          • Paul Hiett

            Prove that the big bang didn’t happen…or, is yours just a dogmatic assertion?

          • Richard

            Based on the evidence, I believe it did. Once again your presumption is wrong.

          • Gehennah

            You generally can’t prove a negative.

            The extraordinary claim here is your god performing magic, yet you have no good evidence to back it up. Therefore that claim can be dismissed.

          • Richard

            >You generally can’t prove a negative.

            Oh my. Didn’t you know that that is a self-refuting statement…meaning it’s an illogical claim? It negates itself?

            > The extraordinary claim here is your god performing magic, yet you have no good evidence to back it up. Therefore that claim can be dismissed.

            Jesus completely negates your argument.

          • Paul Hiett

            Gehennah, you will soon find that when Richard here can’t logically refute a point, he uses his stand by argument…

            “Cuz Jesus…”

          • Richard

            Unless you can prove Jesus isn’t God or didn’t exist, yours is just another dogmatic assertion.

            Can you prove Jesus isn’t God?

          • Paul Hiett

            Unless you can prove Odin isn’t the real God, or didn’t exist, your assertions are just opinions.

            Can you prove Odin isn’t God?

          • Richard

            Do you believe in Odin, God, or both? You’re starting to sound like a loon?

          • Paul Hiett

            It doesn’t matter what I do or do not believe. That part seems to escape you for some reason.

            Can you, yes or no, prove that Odin does not exist? Why are you evading this simple question? Are you scared of what the truth means?

          • Richard

            Sure it does. Answer the question?

        • Richard

          I understand well. But that doesn’t mean it’s not a sin. It also doesn’t mean a person was born that way.

          If you wanted to make a change, you could with the right help. Lots of people have to make behavioral change to overcome sinful behaviors. Gays aren’t alone in this.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Richard, you don’t understand. You don’t have the first clue what you’re talking about. All you do is recite the Bible as your moral authority to judge others, and condemn them.

            Further, until you actually get to experience life as a homosexual, or see what your gay child has to endure from people like you, you will NEVER understand.

            Put down that hateful book of yours and go out into the real world.

          • Richard

            >No, Richard, you don’t understand.

            Did you know it’s unhealthy to tell someone else how they think? Feel? Healthy adults let others speak for themselves. You may want to keep that in mind.

            I understand well. Most likely better than you do.

            That’s why I know there is help for you. Everyone is faced with challenges. Gays aren’t any exception. Problems require facing and addressing. Otherwise it’s unrealistic to expect a different outcome.

            As I said, it’s illogical for someone who subscribes to subjective morals to criticize someone else. You may want to fix that.

          • Paul Hiett

            Let me get this straight…you first criticize me for telling me how you think, then condemn gay people by telling them how they think? Do you know there’s this word out there called “hypocrite”?

            And no Richard, you will never know what’s like on the other side.

          • Richard

            >you first criticize me for telling me how you think,

            I pointed it out.

            > then condemn gay people by telling them how they think?

            Pointing out the problems isn’t condemning. Have you ever been to a therapist? An auto mechanic? A business analyst?

            Hypocrite applies to someone who believes in moral relativism then judges someone.

            But that is the reality of the conflicted and confused.

            Again, don’t tell me what I know and don’t know. You have no idea.

          • Paul Hiett

            You’re not gay, Richard. That ends your ability to comment on what gay people are like, what they think, and whether or not they were “born gay”.

          • Richard

            > That ends your ability to comment on what gay people are like, what they think, and whether or not they were “born gay”.

            I’m not an alcoholic either, yet I understand alcoholism. I don’t have anger issues, yet I understand them.

            I’m not a ped o file, yet I understand why they behave the way they do.

            I’m not gay, but I understand why they behave the way they do.

            Just because you are gay, doesn’t mean you have exclusive knowledge. If fact, because you are still gay, that means you really don’t understand why you behave that way. Whereas, I do.

          • Paul Hiett

            No, Richard, no!!!!! You don’t have any ability to comment on gay people AT ALL. You don’t know what they think, how they think, why they are attracted to the same gender…not a clue at all.

            This is the problem with bigots like you. You use your Bible as a means to judge others, and actually have the audacity to think it gives you that right.

            Unless you’re gay, you won’t ever understand. Are you now going to claim you know what it’s like to be black in Ferguson? There is no way you will EVER know what a gay person thinks, or why they are attracted to the same gender. Any other claim by you is nothing but a base lie, which , according to your Bible is a sin.

            Are you going to keep sinning?

          • Richard

            Your moral relativism self-refutes all of your comments. In this regard, they are meaningless to me.

          • Paul Hiett

            Of course, because you have no desire to stop judging others based on zero life experiences of your own.

          • Richard

            There you go assuming you know my background.

            After talking with you for awhile, you make the mistake of assuming too much. I hope you don’t do that in your personal relationships. Assuming for the other person is a relationship killer.

      • Bolvon72

        Ok, that’s such BS, but to play along, lets say you’re right. Why would they need to. What business is it of yours?

        • Richard

          It’s not BS. People make behavioral change all the time…hence therapists. Teachers. Sports trainers. And so on.

          It becomes my business when gay rights trump my religious rights.

          • Paul Hiett

            So instead, he prefers that his religious rights trump gay rights, rather than allowing gays to live in peace and enjoy the same rights he takes for granted on a daily basis.

          • Richard

            Should we let murderers live in peace? Ped o files? Adulterers?

          • Paul Hiett

            Once again, calling gays people “murderers” and “pedophiles”. Tell us all about how you aren’t bashing gays again…

          • Richard

            Paul, you appear to have a comprehension problem. I didn’t call gays murderers. I merely listed sinful behaviors.

            If you don’t like the truth, why do you keep coming back to a forum where truth is discussed? I don’t spend any time on gay forums. Isn’t your behavior illogical?

          • MisterPine

            He’s dropped the pretende, I think. They can pretend they “love the sinner” all they like, after a while, as with Nick, the floodgates open and every derogatory name in the book comes blasting out – Nick loves his “homo-fascists”, and Richard with his “ped a files”.

          • Richard

            God used those descriptions of sin punishable by eternal death since the beginning of time. They haven’t changed. You just don’t like how they apply to your current behavior.

          • MisterPine

            Really? So God didn’t just speak bigotry, he spoke it in English? I’m guessing with a Texan drawl as well?

          • Richard

            As a moral relativist, it’s illogical to judge the morals and intentions of another. You are contradicted in your thinking.

          • MisterPine

            No, because your extreme religion’s ability to make you say crazy things and believe crazy things gives me a perfect excuse to say anything I like about it. I don’t believe in your God, and I don’t believe ANY God would be as hung up on hatred and punishment as you say. It’s absurd in the extreme.

          • MisterPine

            I choose not to believe such a patent absurdity.

          • MisterPine

            You are a sinner, and they let YOU live in peace. They aren’t trying to stop YOU from marrying the people you love. Can’t extend the same courtesy?

          • Richard

            The difference is I repent of my sins, you want to condone them.

            The fact is, sin is between man and God. Those who ask for forgiveness in Christ receive it if it is asked for sincerely. Without Christ there is no forgiveness. The penalty for sin without Christ is eternal death (separation from God for eternity).

            You can disagree with that. Deny it. Ignore it. And even claim there isn’t any God. But that in no way removes the sentence. It will come due on judgement day. And there’s nothing you can do about it to prevent that appointment.

            Jesus’ first trip to earth was to save. The next visit is to judge.

          • MisterPine

            And when he gets here, I’m hoping his first move is to chastise all the self-righteous and judgmental fundamentalist Christians who are doing the opposite of what Jesus said to do.

            What I’m condoning isn’t sin, it’s love. You refuse to see it in those terms and that’s why you won’t budge from your position of judgment. Two people fall in love and you act like they’ve done the worst thing imaginable. They’ve fallen in love. That’s all. It’s love. It’s not sin.

          • MisterPine

            What “behaviour” are you talking about? THEY ARE IN LOVE.

          • Richard

            What about someone who loves to kill? Steal? Abuse children? What about parents who love their children, should they be allowed to make love? How about people who really love their pets?

            Just because they are in love should we condone the behaviours?

          • MisterPine

            All right, now you’re just being completely absurd, taking the word “love” and using every definition for it except the one I’m talking about which is close romantic love.

            There is NO DIFFERENCE – and this has been proven by clinical psychologists – between the close romantic love felt between a married couple and a monogamous gay couple. None.

  • Nick_from_Detroit

    Praise the Lord! Thank God for these good people of Springfield, Missouri, who voted to repeal this fascistic law. This needs to happen in cities and towns across the country.

    UPDATE: Barronelle Stutzman, the Christian florist who has been mercilessly attacked and sued by homo-fascists has received OVER $155,000, so far!!!!
    Thanks, homo-fascists!

    Here is Mrs. Stutzman’s GoFundMe page:
    http://www.gofundme.com/mz6zm4

    Perhaps, all of you haters out there could listen to the gay community, who are ashamed of all of you. People like Courtney Hoffman & Buz Smith, who both donated to the Indiana pizza shop owners GoFundMe page. And, who both denounced all of the hateful attacks on those poor people.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/gay-woman-apologizes-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-sends-donation/

    You haters could only raise 650 bucks! Losers!

    • Paul Hiett

      Says the guy who believes that the earth was created on March 25th.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        That’s not even a straw man, it’s just a flat out lie, Mr. Hiett. I NEVER claimed any such thing. Is this what you’ve been reduced to? Making things up?
        Also, why are you against the “gay community,” who are ashamed of all of you anti-Christian bigots who have attacked the O’Connors, Mrs. Stutzman, and many other Christian business owners?

        • Richard

          Paul puts great faith in his made up stories.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It’s all he has, I’m afraid, Richard. The FantasyLand of his imagination.

        • Richard

          He also told some others earlier that you believe the earth was created on March 25th. Did you not say that? I’d like to hear your side of this.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            No, Richard, I didn’t. I was thoroughly refuting Mr. Hiett’s false assertion that Christmas was of pagan origin.
            In the course of our exchange, he cited a modern Christian source who erroneously concluded that the first Christmas wasn’t observed on December 25th, by the Church, until A.D. 336., based on a list of bishops from 354.
            I countered with the words of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, who, in A.D.204, flat-out said that Christmas (i.e., the birth of Christ in Bethlehem) was on Dec. 25th. Thus, proving that Dec. 25th was being observed by Christians well before 336. These early Christians, it is theorized, either based the 12/25 date on there belief that Christ died on the same day He was concieved, i.e., March 25th; or, that Christ was conceived on the same day as God created Adam (again, 3/25), and 9 months from March 25th is Dec. 25th.

          • Richard

            Thanks for the clarification. He has proven to deliberately mislead.

            It’s sad that he has to stoop so low to try and support his beliefs.

          • MisterPine

            Given how often you and Nick are both caught in flat-out lies, do you think it’s wise to point fingers at other people? Just curious.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Name one lie, Mr. Pin. Just one.
            p.s. I’m still waiting for Mr. Hiett to come to your rescue.

          • MisterPine

            How about the one you are caught in right now, Nick from Detroit? The world was not created on March 25. And I believe you’ve heard from Paul by now. If not you will soon see.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            See my reply, above, Mr. Pine.
            I never claimed that it was. Epic fail. Again.

          • MisterPine

            You are out to lunch, Nick from Detroit. You lied, and were caught lying regarding your statement about Hippolytus. When Paul called you on it, you turned your lie into an embarrassing tap dance.

          • Richard

            You are the one who should be embarrassed for continuing to bail yourself out of your lie. Lying twice doesn’t make either true.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What is this alleged lie, Mr. Pine? Quote me, please? What statement about Saint Hippolytus’? I’ve explained fully how Mr. Hiett was wrong and is now lying about it. It’s very easy for you leftwingers to engage in calumnies and libel, isn’t it, Mr. Pine? What you call a “tap dance” I call providing the facts.

          • MisterPine

            What I saw going through that exchange was Paul giving you facts and data direct from CHRISTIAN websites, not secular ones, and you telling him he was still wrong that that it was his opinion. I saw you insist that Hippolytus was correct, and when Paul pointed out to you that Hippolytus believed that the earth was created on March 25th (which he DOES believe), you suddenly didn’t believe it anymore. Paul asked you this question and you evaded it, so I will ask you: Are you lying, or were you ignorant about what you were saying about Hippolytus?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            What you saw was a fantasy, because you’re delusional, Mr. Pine.

            I saw you insist that Hippolytus was correct….
            Where? Just provide the quote, okay? Just one quote where I vouched for the accuracy of Saint Hippolytus’ method of determining Christmas?

            [Y]ou suddenly didn’t believe it anymore.
            I never claimed that I believed it in the first place, Mr. Pine. Lie #2.

            Are you lying, or were you ignorant about what you were saying about Hippolytus?

            I’m not lying and I wasn’t ignorant. You, Mr. Pine, are the one who’s ignorant of why I cited Saint Hippolytus’ letter. When you figure it out, let me know, okay?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            p.s. Here’s the original exchange, between myself & Mr. Hiett, so you can avail yourself with the facts, Mr. Pine. Instead of the calumnies you’re spreading.
            http://christiannews.net/2015/03/25/arkansas-senate-considering-proposal-to-place-ten-commandments-monument-on-capitol-grounds/

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            p.p.s It’s kind of hard to follow. Just check out my responses to Deina, I give the exact order of how our debate started.

          • Richard

            Nick clearly explained his position and nowhere did he infer the world was created on March 25. You have lied, and so did Paul.

            The fact that you have to lie to try and defend your position demonstrates the precarious situation you find yourselves in. How do you think that’s going to work out with the One who knows all things, including the motivation of your heart?

          • MisterPine

            You are out to lunch, Richard. Nick lied, and was caught lying regarding his statement about Hippolytus. When Paul called him on it, he turned his lie into an embarrassing tap dance, as you are attempting to do now.

          • Richard

            No, I’ve not had lunch yet.

            The conversation is clear. You lied. So did Paul. No amount of tap dancing is going to correct that.

            Lying further about it looks even worse.

          • MisterPine

            You know Richard, it’s really not difficult to Google Hippolytus. And it’s really not difficult to go back and find Nick from Detroit’s words. I wonder if being confronted with evidence has any effect on you at all, or if you’ll still tell your opponent he’s lying after he’s exposed you?

          • Richard

            It doesn’t take very long to recognize who the liars are. You and Paul are masters of deception. You’ve even deceived yourselves into believing you are right.

            You can change that with Christ’s help. His truth can set you free from your bondage.

          • MisterPine

            You have lied nonstop. Practically every word out of your mouth is a lie, and you use Jesus to justify it. As the old saying goes, lying for Jesus is still lying.

          • Deina

            “I countered with the words of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, who, in A.D.204, flat-out said that Christmas (i.e., the birth of Christ in Bethlehem) was on Dec. 25th. Thus, proving that Dec. 25th was being observed by Christians well before 336.”

            Please note that Paul said that Christmas was first celebrated in 336 CE, not that some few didn’t claim it to be the date of Jesus birth.

            While St. Hippolytus claimed that Christ was born “42nd of Augustus (25 Dec) 2 BCE, there is no record of a “Christ Mass”, or other celebration of Jesus birth until 336 CE. Given St. Hippolytus record of accuracy [he also wrote that Christ died in the 15th year of Tiberius (29 CE). Jesus was actually crucified in the 19th year of Tiberius (33 CE)], there was no scientific method to calculating it, but, as Paul said before, he chose it as 9 months after the “birth of the world” on 25 March. Hippolytus was also the first to set a specific date for the second Advent through calculation – 500 CE — which was 260 year after his time. As far as I know, he was incorrect on that calculation as well.

            As far as equating Hippolytus statement that Christ was born 25 December with the first Christmas celebration — that is equivalent to saying that since Columbus landed in Hispaniola in 1492, then the first Columbus Day had to have been in 1493. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Apples & oranges, and all that.

            Of course, given that the Panama Canal wasn’t dug for another 400 years, it would have been far more notable if the despicable old smeghead had missed North & South America completely!

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Sheesh! What, did Paul go to some atheist site, like that hack, Dawkins, to get reinforcements?
            Umm, no, you are mistaken, Deina. Mr. Hiett claims that Christmas originated from paganism. His exact quote, after I’d admitted that I had mixed-up Saturnalia with Sol Invictus, was:
            You’re still wrong! Even Sol Invictus predates Christimas [sic]. You really need to vet your answers before you post them.

            First, no one knows the dates of when Jesus was born. The only reason Dec 25th was chosen was because many Christians were also already taking part in Sol Invictus ceremonies, not the mention many of the other pagan traditions/celebrations regarding the Solstice. In fact, this time period was chosen in order to help transition pagans to Christianity, to keep some of their traditions alive. (Emphasis in bold mine.)

            So…yeah.

            The rest of your comment is incoherent.
            Your quote should be “the 42nd year of Agustus […].” I never used the term “Christ Mass.” I use Christmas the way most people do, as in, Christ’s birthday on Dec. 25th. Scholars do not agree on the year Christ was Crucified (I favor A.D.30, myself), but, you are nitpicking between A.D.29 & 33, I’m afraid. How accurate Saint Hippolytus was, or was not, is not germane to the debate. The fact remains that he wrote, in A.D.204, that Christians were already claiming that Christ was born on Dec.25th.

            Finally, Columbus brought the Good News of Jesus Christ to the New World. Which, in turn, lead to the end of the savage Aztecs and Incas. Which was a good thing.

          • Deina

            The fact is that there is nothing in the Bible, or anywhere else, that gives Christ’s birth date, or even what time of year it was.

            According to Professor Andrew McGowan, Dean and President of the Berkeley Divinity School at Yale, “The biblical reference to shepherds tending their flocks at night when they hear the news of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:8) might suggest the spring lambing season; in the cold month of December, on the other hand, sheep might well have been corralled. Yet most scholars would urge caution about extracting such a precise but incidental detail from a narrative whose focus is theological rather than calendrical.”

            Prof. McGowan’s thesis ends with “In the end we are left with a question: How did December 25 become Christmas? We cannot be entirely sure. Elements of the festival that developed from the fourth century until modern times may well derive from pagan traditions. Yet the actual date might really derive more from Judaism—from Jesus’ death at Passover, and from the rabbinic notion that great things might be expected, again and again, at the same time of the year—than from paganism. Then again, in this notion of cycles and the return of God’s redemption, we may perhaps also be touching upon something that the pagan Romans who celebrated Sol Invictus, and many other peoples since, would have understood and claimed for their own, too.”

            Read his entire article at “How December 25 Became Christmas – Biblical Archaeology Society” http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

            I’m quite sure the natives of the “New World” were overjoyed to learn Jesus gospel of love & the joys of Heaven, considering that the Spaniards & their followers sent millions of them to that reward well before their time, through slavery, starvation, & murder. Conservative estimates based on Spanish records estimate the indigenous population of the island of Hispaniola alone plummeted from 500,000 to under 100,000 in less than 10 years after Columbus the Butcher landed. According to reports by De Las Casas & Columbus himself, sickness was not the largest factor.

          • Richard

            Are you suggesting you believe Jesus is real? Is God?

          • Deina

            Relevance?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            “The fact is that there is nothing in the Bible, or anywhere else, that gives Christ’s birth date, or even what time of year it was.”

            I never claimed that the Bible did, Deina.

            And, yes, I’m very familiar with Professor McGowan’s essay. You see, Mr. Hiett linked to it in our discussion, although he didn’t read the whole thing, to try to make his point.

            I don’t wish to rehash the whole thing here, but, Prof. McGowan admits the theory that Christmas came from the pagan celebration of Sol Invictus is troublesome:
            “Despite its popularity today, this theory [Your theory] of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. […]
            It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday.5 In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea.”

            This notion that Chrismas is based on paganism is old scholarship. Which, new scholarship has proven is wrong (e.g., Hippolytus’ letter). Did you read Prof. McGowan’s entire essay, as you implored me to do, Deina?

            While I certainly do NOT condone any killing of innocents by the Spanish, in fact, I condemn those acts, your figure of “millions” is not accurate. Millions of were certainly thankful for their Catholic Faith when Our Lady of Guadalupe stopped a civil war under de Guzman, that would have resulted in the deaths of millions. All thanks to that great man, Christopher Columbus.
            Or, would you like to defend the human sacrifices, brutality in war, and cannibalism practiced by the Aztecs and Incas?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            If you’d like to know how this all started, I’ll provide the link. It’s kind of hard to follow, because others joined in the discussion, but, here are the initial point/counterpoint comments:

            Mr. Hiett: Christmas and Easter? You think those are Christian holidays?
            Oh that’s funny…

            Me: Yes, Mr. Hiett, they are Christian holy-days.
            You’re aware that it’s only called “Easter” in English speaking countries, are you not? Those countries that speak Romance languages call it Pasqua, i.e., Pesach (Passover), or some variant of it.
            And, Christmas predates Saturnalia, too. Don’t believe everything you’re spoon-fed from your atheist sites. Try having an open mind, sometimes.

            [After many comments about Easter’s origin.]

            Mr. Hiett: Let me get this straight…you claim that Saturnalia, a Roman holiday dated back to at least 217 BC, predates Christmas, which is supposedly the celebration of the birth of Jesus?
            Did you really just say that?

            Me: Yes, my mistake, Mr. Hiett, if I’m reading your awkwardly worded reply correctly. I meant Sol Invictus was predated by Christmas. Saturnalia was never celebrated on December 25th. I get these two confused all the time! My fault, for not double checking. My apologies.
            My point still stands, though.

            Mr. Hiett: You’re still wrong! Even Sol Invictus predates Christimas. You really need to vet your answers before you post them.
            First, no one knows the dates of when Jesus was born. The only reason Dec 25th was chosen was because many Christians were also already taking part in Sol Invictus ceremonies, not the mention many of the other pagan traditions/celebrations regarding the Solstice.
            […]

            Here’s the link: http://christiannews.net/2015/03/25/arkansas-senate-considering-proposal-to-place-ten-commandments-monument-on-capitol-grounds/

            As you can plainly see, the debate was over which came first, Christmas, or Sol Invictus?

          • Deina

            “As you can plainly see, the debate was over which came first, Christmas, or Sol Invictus?”

            Even though Hippolytus, and a handful of others, decided that Jesus birth should have been on 25 December, there was no celebration or commemoration, as birthday parties & tributes were considered “pagan” & thus discouraged, if not outright forbidden, by the Church before the 4th century. The word “Christmas”, which is short for “Christ’s Mass”, or the celebration of Christ’s birth, didn’t appear in written records until 336 CE.

            Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun) in 274 CE.

            So yes, Sol Invictus did predate Christmas.

            I trust that puts this matter to bed.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Umm…nope. The matter is still wide awake.

            [T]here was no celebration or commemoration….
            So? My debate with Mr. Hiett wasn’t about the first celebration. Did you read both my comments, and the original article thread, Deina? Doesn’t look like it.

            The word “Christmas”, which is short for “Christ’s Mass”, or the celebration of Christ’s birth, didn’t appear in written records until 336 CE.
            Well, since “Christmas” is an English term, and the Romans of the late Second Century, A.D., spoke Latin, I wouldn’t expect to see it. Show me the written record that uses the word “Christmas,” please?

            Read this part s-l-o-w-l-y: The fixing of December 25th as the date of the Incarnation (i.e., the birth of Christ in Bethlehem) already existed in A.D.204, SEVENTY YEARS BEFORE Aurelian began Sol Invictus feasts. It was the pagan Roman emperor who tried to co-opt Christmas, not the other way around. Verstehen?

          • Deina

            No wonder we’re having problems! I didn’t realize that you were a non-English speaker. I must say, those translators are getting better, though!

            There was nothing for Aurelian to co-opt! Dec 25 was nothing but a date in a few scholars’ journals.

            It was not being celebrated, because most Christians didn’t even know about it!

            Professor McGowan states: “There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.”

            Please note that both Tertullian and Origen of Alexandria lived long after Hippolytus supposed “discovery”, yet they knew nothing of any official festivals commemorating the birth of Jesus.

            I’m going to type this very slowly, because it’s clear that you can’t comprehend basic principles very fast:

            Sol Invictus is the older festival.

            Thus endeth the lesson. You are now dismissed.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Oh, I’m sorry, I thought that I was dealing with an intellectually honest person. Not another disingenuous atheist who’s unable to understand a simple argument. Did Mr. Hiett call you in for reinforcement, Deina?

            Prof. McGowan was obviously unaware of Saint Hippolytus’ letter when he wrote that essay. (Just as McGowan erred by mentioning spring/winter “lambing season” theory, still popular at the time, which has been debunked, since the temp. in Judea, in late Dec., is usually in the low 50s at night.) Moving the goal post to “official festivals” is a logical fallacy. This wasn’t why I objected to Mr. Hiett’s bogus claim.

            If you are truly interested in the truth, and, not the propaganda spewed by the New Atheists, read this article that explains it all rather well:
            http://insidethevatican.com/news/lead-story/the-25th-of-december-pagan-feast-or-patristic-tradition

            Christmas clearly, for those who can process evidence, predates Sol Invictus.
            I should charge you atheists, for schooling you guys so much.
            You have now been schooled, Deina. Thanks for playing, though.

          • Deina

            Obviously you are more concerned with winning an argument over being right.

            OK, fine, you win.

            Happy now?

            Something that you failed to notice on your page that you referenced:

            “The choice of December 25th as the liturgical feast for Christ’s birth is far more likely to have been an independent, patristic tradition of early Christianity. The fact that it shares the same day as the birth of the sun god seems more based on the Roman calculation of the winter solstice. The pagans observed the birth of their deity when the “great light” was at its lowest point of the year, calculated as December 25.”

            Apparently not even your own biased sources think the Romans “co-opted” 25 Dec. How about that, sports fans?

            Another little item that you overlooked, and, quite frankly, the most important fact:

            “While the date of the Nativity remains a subject of debate, it is by no means essential to the mystery itself. The focal point is not so much when it occurred but that it occurred.”

            Enjoy your “victory.” Maybe you & Richard can share it.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I won the argument precisely because I’m right, Deina.
            And, I didn’t overlook the calculation of the Roman winter solstice. I already knew about it, beforehand. Trust me, I read that whole article, when I used it against Mr. Hiett, a couple of weeks ago.
            It bears repeating (since you can’t seem to remember what my original objection to Mr. Hiett was) that the solstice has nothing to do with why Christmas predates Sol Invictus.
            For the umpteenth time, Christians were claiming Dec. 25th as the birthday of Christ, in Bethlehem, by A.D. 204.
            Which, to all of us open-minded non-ideologues, comes before A.D. 274. And, A.D. 336. Capice?

          • Deina

            Anything you say.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
            – Isiah 5:20-21

            You could add to that, Deina, “Woe to those who call lies truth and truth lies.”

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Since, your knowledge of this period of history is severely lacking, Deina, like most atheists and anti-Christian bigots, I’ll provide you with the answers that you seek, okay?
            http://www.catholic.com/blog/jon-sorensen/why-december-25

            http://www.thesacredpage.com/2006/12/gospel-truth-about-christmas.html

        • Paul Hiett

          Yes you do claim this, or, are you now claiming that Hippolytus’s dating of Jesus’s birth is inaccurate? Which is it? Eitehr you support his claim, or you do not?

          You’re the one that brought him into the conversation, so don’t blame me for calling you out on it.

          OR, did you simply not read enough about him, made your assertion, and now want to backtrack because you realize how foolish the claim is?

          By all means, call me a liar…but you’re the one who opened the door.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            It took you this long to come up with this, Mr. Hiett? Funny, you never mentioned this asinine argument when we were debating it. Did one of your atheist buddies try to help you? Well, like you, they failed.

            Whether, or not, Saint Hippolytus was accurate is not germane to your bogus claim, i.e., that “The only reason Dec 25th was chosen was because many Christians were also already taking part in Sol Invictus ceremonies,” remember? I can’t believe you wanted to rip open this still festering wound, Mr. Hiett. You must be a glutton for punishment, huh?

            Since Hippolytus wrote, in A.D.204, that Christians believed that Christ was born on Dec. 25th in Bethlehem, your assertion that it was because of Sol Invictus is……wrong! Get it now?

            We weren’t debating about the year of Christ’s birth. Or, if Hippolytus’ reasoning (i.e., that it was Dec.25th because Christ was conceived on March 25th, the day of Adam’s creation) was accurate.
            You really thought this was a sound argument, didn’t you? Wow. Just wow.

          • Paul Hiett

            Oh, so now you don’t like dates? I see, how quaint. So you go off and find some obscure Roman who thinks Jesus was born on Dec 25th, but now you don’t like that he also believes March 25th is the day of creation.

            Are you now going to claim that Dec 25th is Jesus’s day of birth, but that it’s not because March 25th is not the day of creation? Are you going to cherry pick Hippolytus’ claim?

            Too funny.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You’re attempting the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts, Mr. Hiett. And, doing it very badly, I’m afraid.

            Our debate was about when Christians were observing the Christ’s birth (i.e., Christmas) on Dec. 25th (either before (my claim) or after (your claim) the Roman pagans were observing Sol Invictus on Dec. 25th); not if the dating of Dec. 25th was accurate, or not. And, it certainly wasn’t about March 25th being the first day of Creation.

            This rather sad attempt to change the subject cannot be genuine, can it? Are you really trying to obscure your embarrassment by deflecting like this, Mr. Hiett? Since you seem to have forgotten, here are your own words:

            You’re still wrong! Even Sol Invictus predates Christimas […]. You really need to vet your answers before you post them.

            First, no one knows the dates of when Jesus was born. The only reason Dec 25th was chosen was because many Christians were also already taking part in Sol Invictus ceremonies, not the mention many of the other pagan traditions/celebrations regarding the Solstice. In fact, this time period was chosen in order to help transition pagans to Christianity, to keep some of their traditions alive.

            The only dates that matter are A.D. 204 (when Saint Hippolytus wrote that Christmas was on Dec. 25th) and A.D. 274 (when the Roman emperor Aurelian first observed a feast to the birth of Sol Invictus on Dec.25th). Christians, in Rome (Hippolytus of Rome was not “some obscure Roman, why do you keep making this bogus assertion?), had established Dec. 25th as the day Christ was born in Bethlehem over SEVEN DECADES before the pagans.

            Why are you continuing your absurd, false contention to the contrary, Mr. Hiett?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            p.s. I should’ve included this in my earlier reply, but, anyway, here’s the original article, in which our debate appeared. Ya’ know, in case you wanted to refresh your memory?
            (Coincidentally, it was on March 25th! Ha-ha!)
            http://christiannews.net/2015/03/25/arkansas-senate-considering-proposal-to-place-ten-commandments-monument-on-capitol-grounds/

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Where’d you go, Mr. Hiett? Can figure out a new way to weasel your way out of this?

        • MisterPine

          Is this what you mean about how you humiliate Paul and drive him away, Nick from Detroit? When he catches you in a baldfaced lie?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I believe that I’m the one who caught Mr. Hiett in the lie, Mr. Pine. Can’t you read?

          • MisterPine

            Can YOU read, Nick from Detroit? “Are you now claiming that Hippolytus’s dating of Jesus’s birth is inaccurate?”

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Again, you fail, Mr. Pine. I never said his dating was accurate. Try to keep up, okay?

          • MisterPine

            Paul’s response to you is right there. Do you ignore it because he’s right and you are backtracking? I think admitting you lied would be the honourable thing to do.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            I just saw Mr. Hiett’s response, Mr. Pine. And, I’ve given my reply.
            Why should I admit that I lied? What is this lie?

          • MisterPine

            As Paul says, you must either admit that you lied about it or that you are ignorant of it. Your words betray you easily on a print forum such as this.

            Speaking of which, have a look at what your thoughts on the age of the world are generating. Your EXACT words, Nick from Detroit.

            http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=107724

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            The only ones showing their ignorance are you and Mr. Hiett.
            Where did you find that loser’s site, Mr. Pine? What a joke!
            Was it made with Windows ’95?
            Bwahahahahahaha!

          • MisterPine

            It’s been around for years, showcasing the unbelievable things said by fundamentalists, which I think you qualify as, Nick from Detroit. As the commenters noted, Catholics have no issue with the age of the earth as given by science. And yet you do. That puts you at odds with the pope.

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fundies_Say_the_Darndest_Things

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Well, you’re wrong again. I’m not at odds with Papa Francesco, or any other pope. The Church doesn’t demand that Her members believe in a billion-years-old universe.
            As for myself, I told you, I don’t argue about it anymore. Nobody knows for sure, so, I don’t care. If some concrete evidence ever appears, I’ll look at it. But, it doesn’t have anything to do with my salvation. Genesis is not a science book, ya’ know?

          • MisterPine

            I think I am starting to understand how your game playing works. Get proven wrong, complete with LINKS TO PROOF you are wrong, and then walk away and claim victory. You do it over and over, not just with me but with others. Evolution isn’t up for debate, Nick from Detroit. It’s fact, so why are you siding with the thickest of the fundamentalist Christians, practically the only remaining group who fight science on this issue?

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Evolution is up for debate in the Catholic Church, Mr. Pine. Because, we Catholics are open minded. And, since it’s just a theory, no Catholic is required to believe in it.
            Catholics are required to believe that God created out of nothingness, and, that our first parents, Adam & Eve, disobeyed God, which resulted in the Fall. This isn’t up for debate, for Catholics.
            This does not make us fundamentalists.

    • MisterPine

      “You haters could only raise 650 bucks! Losers!”

      Mock, mock, mock, judge, judge, judge, hate, hate, hate. A fine model of a Christian you are, Nick from Detroit.

      • Nick_from_Detroit

        And you, Mr. Pine, are a fine example of a close-minded, leftwing, anti-Christian bigot.

        • MisterPine

          No, Nick from Detroit, the bigotry and hate is all yours. You have been called on it time and again, indeed you seem to delight in mocking what you call “the homo-fascists.” That is as closed minded as it gets, as you folks on the ultra right know very well.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            Not according to Courtney Hoffman & Buz Smith. The “gay community” says that you, Paul, and the rest, are the bigots and haters. And, I agree with them.

          • MisterPine

            You are being dishonest yet again. Buz Smith and Courtney Hoffman contributed because they were appalled that those on their side would make death threats, so it was a way of apologizing. It does not mean they are in agreement with the pizzeria owners’ bigotry. The pizzeria owners were taking advantage of a law which temporarily (thankfully) allowed them to discriminate against homosexuals. I don’t believe your life is so sheltered that you didn’t follow the news stories about the outrage that was felt all over the country about what Indiana lawmakers were trying to get away with, and it wasn’t just gays and gay-friendly activists, oh no. It was EVERYONE. That law cost Indiana a lot of money and a lot of good will.

          • Nick_from_Detroit

            You must not have read my other reply on this subject, yet, Mr. Pine. Or, you’re ignoring it. So, here it is, again:
            She was speaking of people just like you. Intolerant, hate-filled anti-Christian bigots:
            “As a member of the gay community, I would like to apologize for the mean spirited attacks on you and your business. I know many gay individuals who fully support your right to stand up for your beliefs and run your business according to those beliefs. We are outraged at the level of hate and intolerance that has been directed at you and I sincerely hope that you are able to rebuild.”
            – Courtney Hoffman
            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/07/gay-woman-apologizes-to-christian-owned-indiana-pizzeria-sends-donation/

            Don’t you ever tire of being wrong, Mr. Pine? Or, being owned as badly as I’ve owned you over these past several days?

  • Richard

    The illogical nature of atheism: atheists come to a discussion forum like this to tell people who have already found God that He doesn’t exist. And they wonder why they are ridiculed.

    This is like going to a football game and telling football fans that have followed the game for many years that there is no such thing as the game of football.

  • Richard

    I’m also puzzled as to why homosexuals come to a Christian discussion forum and not expect to hear the word sin in reference to homosexual behavior.

    Isn’t this like going to a police officer’s ball and then offended when they see police officers there?

  • tabaqui

    Springfield is an ugly, hateful over-churched town that pretends to some kind of morality. But it has none, when the supposed ‘Jesus -like’ people who infest it turn on their fellow human being and then smugly pretends that their ‘beliefs’ trump other human’s rights. Guess what – they don’t. And this, too, shall be overturned and passed again and this disgraceful bullshite will pass.

  • Dewayne Pyatt

    I would like to ask the good people of Springfield Mo for their help. My Ex wife, Zenilde R Pyatt, has Taken my children Anitalee and Laura Pyatt to your city. She has cut off all communication by not letting me speak to them on the phone or email. Face book pages have been blocked. My family has also been cut off from knowing any thing about how my kids are. I would like for any one that knows Anitalee or Laura to please get a hold of me and let me know how my kids are doing. I have tried everything to stay in contact with them but their mother has done all she can to keep that from happening. Thank you Anitalee and Lauras Dad Dewayne Pyatt

  • Frank Cartwright