Chief Judge, Church Elder Who Voted to Strike Down Alabama’s Sodomy Law Joins Court in Sending Roy Moore to Trial

Moore Joiner-compressedMONTGOMERY, Ala. — The chief judge of the Alabama Court of the Judiciary (COJ) who also serves as an elder as his local church has joined in an order refusing to dismiss the ethics charges against Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, resulting in a trial.

Attorneys for Moore had sought to have his charges dismissed without the matter moving to trial, while the state Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) asked that he be immediately removed from the bench.

On Monday, Justice J. Michael Joiner, the chief judge of the COJ, joined his eight colleagues in denying both requests.

“All pending summary judgment motions in this matter are denied,” the order reads, setting a trial date of Sept. 28.

As previously reported, Joiner is an elder at The Church at Brookhills in Birmingham and serves as a Bible teacher.

“He is an active member of The Church at Brookhills where he teaches a Bible study class,” his bio reads. “He previously served as Deacon and Chairman of the Shelby Baptist Association Credentials Committee.”

In 2014, Joiner, who serves on the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals, likewise joined his colleagues in striking down a state law that criminalized those who engage in “deviate sexual intercourse with another person,” and “[c]onsent is no defense to a prosecution.”

  • Connect with Christian News

The case, Williams v. Alabama, centered on a Dallas County man who sodomized another man after forcing him to drop his pants, and was sentenced to 12 months behind bars for sexual misconduct under the law.

“The Supreme Court concluded that the statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that it ‘further[ed] legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,’” the justices wrote. “Because ‘[t]he only federal court whose decisions bind state courts is the United States Supreme Court’ Lawrence controls our decision.”

A call to The Church at Brookhills was not returned.

As previously reported, Chief Justice Moore was brought before the COJ after he was suspended from the bench in May due to complaints to the JIC from the homosexual advocacy groups Southern Poverty Law Center, People for the American Way, the Human Rights Campaign, and a drag queen who goes by the name Ambrosia Starling.

The situation began in 2013 when two lesbians in the state sued Gov. Robert Bentley, Attorney General Luther Strange and Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis—among others—in an attempt to overturn Alabama’s marriage amendment after one of the women was denied from adopting the other woman’s child.

In January 2015, U.S. District Judge Ginny Granade ruled in favor of the women, prompting Moore to send a memo to probate judges throughout the state, advising that they are not required to issue “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples as he believed that Grenade’s ruling only applied to the two women.

“[N]othing in the orders of Judge Grenade requires Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses that are illegal in Alabama,” he wrote. “Pursuant to … the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Alabama probate judges are not subject to those orders because the probate judges are not parties or associated with any party in those cases.”

“[T]he injunction and the stay or the lifting thereof can only apply to the sole defendant, the Alabama attorney general,” Moore said. “I urge you to uphold and support the Alabama Constitution and the Constitution of the United States to the best of your ability. So help you God.”

Moore also wrote a letter to Gov. Robert Bentley, urging him to “uphold and support the Alabama Constitution with respect to marriage, both for the welfare of this state and for our posterity.”

“Be advised that I will stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any unlawful opinions issued without constitutional authority,” he stated.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) then filed a judicial ethics complaint against Moore over his letter to Gov. Bentley, and the homosexual activist group Human Rights Campaign (HRC) submitted 28,000 petition signatures to the JIC calling for Moore’s removal.

As confusion ensued over Moore’s letter to probate judges, one judge, John Enslen of Elmore County, asked the full Alabama Supreme Court for further guidance. In March 2015, six of the nine judges of the Alabama Supreme Court released a historic order halting the issuance of same-sex “marriage” licenses in the state. Moore recused himself from the matter and was not included in the order.

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

In January, Moore sent another letter advising that the full court’s would remain in effect until it issued directives in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.

“Until further decision by the Alabama Supreme Court, the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court that Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act remain in full force and effect,” he wrote on Jan. 6.

He also noted that his order does not weigh in on how June’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling has impact on the Alabama Supreme Court’s directive, and said that it was not his place to make that determination.

“I am not at liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of Obergefell on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court. That issue remains before the entire court, which continues to deliberate on the matter,” Moore wrote.

In May, the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) announced that it had filed ethics charges against Moore, and suspended the chief justice while the matter was brought before the COJ.

It said that Moore was “bound by the United State Supreme Court’s interpretation and application” of the Constitution to same-sex “marriage,” but Moore notes that his letter had nothing to do with the Supreme Court order, and that the full court was to later issue directives about the matter after receiving legal briefing.

The JIC had asked the COJ to immediately remove Moore from the bench without a trial, while Moore’s attorneys with Liberty Counsel asked for the case to be dismissed without trial. The COJ refused both requests, ordering Moore to stand trial.

He will appear at the Alabama Supreme Court on Sept. 28.


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
  • 201821208 :)

    Some wanting Judge Roy Moore’s removal… Some men find it simply unimaginable that other men would act upon the basis of anything other than self-interest. They might acknowledge that a few young men, idealistic and naïve, would go off to some place like West Point and buy into that moral code which Douglas MacArthur so eloquently articulated in his Farewell Address to the U. S. Military Academy — “Duty, Honor, Country” — but certainly no grown man would. It is one of life’s great joys to enjoy the company and friendship of men who don’t become so jaded and sullied by living in this world. Chief Justice Moore is a man who has not become so jaded. One can only pity the man whose circle of friends and acquaintances only affirms the view of the cynic, the mocker, and the scoffer.

    • Myrtle Linder

      Most of Satan’s followers wanted Judge Roy Moore removes because he stood on the truth that they hated.

  • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

    Heather Clark said: “As previously reported, Joiner is an elder at The Church at Brookhills in Birmingham and serves as a Bible teacher.

    ‘He is an active member of The Church at Brookhills where he teaches a Bible study class,’ his bio reads. ‘He previously served as Deacon and Chairman of the Shelby Baptist Association Credentials Committee.’

    In 2014, Joiner, who serves on the Alabama Criminal Court of Appeals, likewise joined his colleagues in striking down a state law that criminalized those who engage in ‘deviate sexual intercourse with another person,’ and ‘[c]onsent is no defense to a prosecution.’ “

    Let me guess: Judge Joiner is another Christian hypocrite, like Tim Kaine, who believes that he can live a double-life, one life as a private, Christian individual and another life as someone who makes decisions like these.

    This situation make me wonder: How much of the U.S.’s current, horrible state is due to Christian hypocrites living out double-lives, like these people? I speculate that the answer might shock us.

    • james blue

      Judges have to rule by the law, not their faith.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

        @ james blue

        james blue said: “Judges have to rule by the law, not their faith.”

        I don’t see where the U.S. Constitution weighed in on the substance of the said state law in question. Therefore, under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the legality of the said law would have been left to the U.S. state of Alabama and Judge Joiner would not have necessarily had to strike it down. Hence, my point comes into play here, where the U.S. Constitution leaves room for it to come into play here.

        • james blue

          Laws found unconstitutional at national level are unconstitutional at state level.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ james blue

            james blue said: “Laws found unconstitutional at national level are unconstitutional at state level.”

            Begging the question. Non-answer. I said:

            EscapetheDarkness said: “I don’t see where the U.S. Constitution weighed in on the substance of the said state law in question.”

            My point here stands.

    • axelbeingcivil

      Every judge swears an oath of office as a part of becoming a justice in the United States. That oath requires them to “impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [them as judge] under the Constitution and laws of the United States”.

      If a judge cannot or will not perform those duties, they have to resign their post. Otherwise, they are violating a solemn vow.

      In other words, the only real option for a judge whose conscience feels violated is to recuse themselves; either by passing that particular duty to another judge, or by resigning their post. If they refuse to do their job, they’ve done the unChristian act of taking an oath before God under false pretenses (thou shalt not take thy Lord’s name in vain; thou shalt not bear false witness), or they’ve done what they believe violates another tenet of their faith.

      Moore did neither of these things.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

        @ axelbeingcivil

        axelbeingcivil said: “Moore did neither of these things.”

        Irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court overstepped its bounds by ruling on the issue of legalizing homosexual marriage for the entire nation and telling all of the U.S. states that they must allow it. This is because the U.S. Constitution does not grant the U.S. federal government the duty and the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage for all of the U.S. states.

        Therefore, if Judge Moore is resisting the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Oberfell vs. Hodges, then he is right in doing so, since it violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and, thus, it is unConstitutional.

        • Michael C

          …the U.S. Constitution does not grant the U.S. federal government the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage…

          If this statement were true (it’s not), then the Loving v. Virginia ruling would also be unconstitutional. Is this what you’re claiming?

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Michael C

            Michael C said: “If this statement were true (it’s not), then the Loving v. Virginia ruling would also be unconstitutional. Is this what you’re claiming?”

            I have no problem with this fact. I say let the issue which Loving v. Virginia (1967) addressed be addressed on the U.S. state level. Simple.

          • Michael C

            …if the U.S. Supreme Court can make the right decision, morally speaking, on this matter, then I see no reason why U.S. state courts cannot make the right decision…

            I’m struggling to understand your premise.

            Do you agree or disagree that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage violate the U.S. Constitution?

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Michael C

            Michael C said: “I’m struggling to understand your premise.

            Do you agree or disagree that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage violate the U.S. Constitution?”

            The U.S. Constitution says nothing about how to handle the matter of interracial marriage. Therefore, it leaves handling this issue to the U.S. states and lets them decide how they will handle this matter. So, technically, both such laws which prohibit interracial marriage and their counterparts which prevent discrimination against interracial couples who want to get married, on a U.S. state level, are equally Constitutional, as far as the U.S. Constitution itself is concerned.

            Having said that, the U.S. Constitution, as a legal document which was mean to protect our freedoms as U.S. citizens, was not meant to be the official moral code of the U.S.. So, be careful to avoid confusing legal issues and legal statements here with moral issues and moral statements here.

            Now, for the record here: Do I believe that the U.S. Supreme Court had no right to strike down U.S. state laws against interracial marriage?

            To this question, I answer, once again: Legally, yes. Morally, no. To be perfectly clear, the fact that I fault the U.S. Supreme Court for overreaching and violating the legal rights of the U.S. states in this situation does not mean that I personally support U.S. state laws against interracial marriage. And to assert otherwise is to confuse and conflate legal matters with matters of morality in the context of this issue.

            So, having answered this question of yours once again, I respectfully ask you to retire this tired talking point of yours. Both you and I know what you are trying to do with this line of questioning here. And I am tired of this transparent attempt to bait me.

          • Michael C

            …be careful to avoid confusing legal issues and legal statements here with moral issues and moral statements here.

            I was purely discussing the legal issue of the constitutionality of interracial marriage bans. If you thought I was bringing questions of morality into the conversation, you were reading something in my comment that was not actually there.

            I respectfully ask you to retire this tired talking point of yours. Both you and I know what you are trying to do with this line of questioning here.

            Given your opinion on the powers of the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the Constitution in Obergefell, my question about Loving was perfectly legitimate. I was curious as to whether or not your opinions were consistently applied. That’s what I was “trying to do with this line of questioning.”

            I would like to say, I am pretty surprised that you believe that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to invalidate interracial marriage bans violated the U.S. Constitution. That’s a very weird opinion.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Michael C

            Michael C said: “If you thought I was bringing questions of morality into the conversation, you were reading something in my comment that was not actually there. […] I was curious as to whether or not your opinions were consistently applied. That’s what I was ‘trying to do with this line of questioning.’

            Baloney. Given that I have made my line of though here very clear, here and in our past conversations on Charisma News, there is no reason for you to bring up the issue of Loving v. Virginia (1967) and ask me about my position on it, once again, except to, once again, probe my viewpoint and see if you can get me to say anything that you can spin as racist.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Michael C said: “That’s a very weird opinion.

            No. Not really. Not according to the logic which I base it this opinion on.

            But, perhaps this might be the case, if you evaluate my opinion according to how mainstream society might view it, socially.

          • Michael C

            I have made my line of though here very clear, here and in our past conversations on Charisma News

            I just checked my history and saw that we did, in fact, have this conversation earlier this year. Forgive me for not remembering you. I have encountered many, many people who use a similar argument to yours in opposition of Obergefell yet they nearly always hold a completely contradictory opinion on Loving.

            I call your opinion weird because almost nobody agrees with you.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ Michael C

            Michael C said: “I just checked my history and saw that we did, in fact, have this conversation earlier this year. Forgive me for not remembering you.”

            No worries. But, aside from our conversation here, we have had, at least, three conversations on this very point on Charisma News, from what I remember. However, two of them have been deleted and censored by a moderator of Charisma News, so I cannot provide a source for them. And you have just found the other one.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            Michael C said: “I call your opinion weird because almost nobody agrees with you.”

            And? The truthfulness of my claims is not proportional to how many people agree with my claims. To assert otherwise is to engage in an appeal to popularity logical fallacy.

          • Michael C

            weird: unusual or strange

        • axelbeingcivil

          Article 3, Sections 1 and 2, of the US Constitution state that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and that their judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising from under the Constitution. Article 14 of the Constitution states that no state may make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US Citizens, including equal protections of the law.

          The Supreme Court overstepped nothing. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean they acted out of bounds.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “Article 14 of the Constitution states that no state may make or enforce any law which abridges the privileges or immunities of US Citizens, including equal protections of the law.”

            Your tired, worn-out point here is highly illogical. On the level of the U.S. Constitution, you cannot invoke any Constitutional right to any equal protection of something, if the said thing which you are trying to protect is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the first place.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “Article 3, Sections 1 and 2, of the US Constitution state that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and that their judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising from under the Constitution.”

            [Emphasis mine.]

            No.

            First, Section One of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution is saying that the logical foundation of the power of the U.S. Judicial Branch is the U.S. Supreme Court, as opposed to the U.S. Congress or the U.S. President, as a basis for the separation of powers in the U.S. government. It is not saying that all judicial power in the U.S. is held by the U.S. Supreme Court alone, as if all of the lower courts in the U.S. have no real power, in and of themselves, at all.

            This means that if the lower courts in the U.S. must answer to a party or they must appeal to a greater power, then they must answer to the U.S. Supreme Court, not the U.S. Congress or the U.S. President.

            So, what is being said here is that the U.S. Judicial Branch’s power over all judicial cases comes from the U.S. Supreme Court and applies to all judicial cases in the U.S. That is it.

            Conversely, nowhere does Section One and Two of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution say that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all judicial matters. In fact, Section Two does name the types of judicial cases that the U.S. federal courts will hear, under the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to saying the U.S. federal courts can hear any and all judicial cases that they choose to hear, at will (ref. judiciallearningcenter {dot} org {forward slash} article-3-and-the-courts {forward slash}).

            Now, in particular, notice the phrase “under the Constitution” here. This brings us back to my original point here: The U.S. Constitution does not give the U.S. federal government the duty and the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage. Therefore, pursuant to the language of Section Two of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution, it makes no sense for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue rulings on this issue, if they are exercising their judicial power under the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. Constitution.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “The Supreme Court overstepped nothing. Just because you disagree with them doesn’t mean they acted out of bounds.”

            Back at you: The U.S. Supreme Court acted unConstitutionally in this matter. The fact that you agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oberfell vs. Hodges does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court had the authority to make such a decision and enforce it.

          • axelbeingcivil

            The US Constitution guarantees you equal protection of the laws, which the courts have long interpreted for about 125 years now as meaning that the government must treat all of its citizens equally before the law. Since, as your own source states, the Supreme Court is the final bastion for interpreting the law, I don’t think you have a defense there.

            Oberfell was a constitutional case; questioning whether state laws on marriage constituted a violation of the equal protections clause. The Supreme Court is guaranteed powers as an appellate court in all matters lower courts have ruled on pertinent to its magisterium.

            Whence cometh the unconstitutional aspect?

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “The US Constitution guarantees you equal protection of the laws, which the courts have long interpreted for about 125 years now as meaning that the government must treat all of its citizens equally before the law. Since, as your own source states, the Supreme Court is the final bastion for interpreting the law, I don’t think you have a defense there.

            Oberfell was a constitutional case; questioning whether state laws on marriage constituted a violation of the equal protections clause. The Supreme Court is guaranteed powers as an appellate court in all matters lower courts have ruled on pertinent to its magisterium.

            Whence cometh the unconstitutional aspect?”

            If you are going to sit here and repeat the same arguments, with the same assumptions and all, then I am going to repeatedly refer you to my previous replies to you here, which already respond to and address them, instead of retyping the same answers, over and over again.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Alright, let me break this down for you.

            1. You said:

            On the level of the U.S. Constitution, you cannot invoke any
            Constitutional right to any equal protection of something, if the said
            thing which you are trying to protect is not guaranteed by the U.S.
            Constitution in the first place.

            My answer to this is that the equal protection clause states that no state may deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. That is, it need not be a right guaranteed by the Constitution but can, indeed, be any law. All people must be treated equally by the governments of the United States, without exception. If a law treats people differently for arbitrary reasons, it is deemed unconstitutional.

            This has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court as the case for over a century now.

            2. You said:

            So, what is being said here is that the U.S. Judicial Branch’s power over all judicial cases comes from the U.S. Supreme Court and applies to
            all judicial cases in the U.S. That is it.

            That’s not even what your own cited source says. The Judicial Learning Center’s own page, the very one you used to try and defend your point, says Section One grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law of the United States. It’s a deliberate investment of power.

            3. You said:

            The U.S. Constitution does not give the U.S. federal government, in general, the duty and the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage.

            That wasn’t what Oberfell was about. It was entirely about a constitutional issue; whether the state marriage laws violated a constitutional guarantee of protection that the law would treat all citizens equally. It’s dishonest to present it as otherwise.

            You might disagree that the Constitution’s equal protection clause ensures equal treatment by citizens, but the Supreme Court has the legal power invested in it to interpret the law, and its interpretation stands.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “My answer to this is that the equal protection clause states that no state may deny a person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws. That is, it need not be a right guaranteed by the Constitution but can, indeed, be any law. All people must be treated equally by the governments of the United States, without exception. If a law treats people differently for arbitrary reasons, it is deemed unconstitutional.

            This has been consistently interpreted by the Supreme Court as the case for over a century now.”

            axelbeingcivil said: “That wasn’t what Oberfell was about. It was entirely about a constitutional issue; whether the state marriage laws violated a constitutional guarantee of protection that the law would treat all citizens equally. It’s dishonest to present it as otherwise.

            You might disagree that the Constitution’s equal protection clause ensures equal treatment by citizens, but the Supreme Court has the legal power invested in it to interpret the law, and its interpretation stands.”

            This depends entirely on what the U.S. state laws in question are. It merely forces them to apply existing U.S. state law to all people, equally. It does not tell the U.S. states what they laws should be.

            In application, Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that all U.S. state laws which apply to heterosexual marriages–the only existing U.S. state law on marriage–must be applied to all married, heterosexual couples, equally. That is it.

            However, in contrast to simply demanding that all U.S. state laws which apply to heterosexual marriages–the only existing U.S. state law on marriage–must be applied to all married, heterosexual couples, equally, your interpretation of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution goes beyond demanding this and demands the creation of new U.S. state law, law which allows homosexual couples to get married.

            There is no Constitutional basis for such a demand, unless you can cite a place in the U.S. Constitution where it guarantees U.S. citizens the right to engage in homosexual marriage. And, as I have been repeatedly saying here, there is no place in the U.S. Constitution, where it guarantees U.S. citizens the right to engage in homosexual marriage. In fact, the U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage, at all.

            And the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court says otherwise, by itself and in and of itself, does not make this line of logic false and proves nothing. To assert otherwise is to engage in an appeal to authority logical fallacy. So, you can jump up and down and say “The U.S. Supreme Court said so!” until you are blue in the face, so to speak, and doing so will accomplish nothing here.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “That’s not even what your own cited source says. The Judicial Learning Center’s own page, the very one you used to try and defend your point, says Section One grants the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law of the United States. It’s a deliberate investment of power.”

            Out of context argument. Text twisting. I already pointed out:

            EscapefromDarkness said: “Conversely, nowhere does Section One and Two of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution say that the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all judicial matters. In fact, Section Two does name the types of judicial cases that the U.S. federal courts will hear, under the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to saying that the U.S. federal courts can hear any and all judicial cases that they choose to hear, at will (ref. judiciallearningcenter {dot} org {forward slash} article-3-and-the-courts {forward slash}).

            Now, in particular, notice the use of the phrase ‘under the Constitution’ here, in this text, as a qualifier. This brings us back to my original point here: The U.S. Constitution does not give the U.S. federal government, in general, the duty and the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage. Therefore, pursuant to the language of Section Two of Article Three of the U.S. Constitution, it makes no sense for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue rulings on this issue, if they are exercising their judicial power under the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. Constitution.”

          • axelbeingcivil

            See, now we run into an actual point of contention: Claiming that the states only had to apply heterosexual marriage law equally, and that there is no requirement to allow homosexuals to get married.

            Laws that seemingly act equally can still be discriminatory. Marriage laws in the past have definitely been discriminatory. See the laws against interracial marriage, for example. In theory, said laws aren’t inherently discriminatory – they apply to every ethnicity, after all – but they still ultimately discriminate against people of different ethnic backgrounds who wish to marry. There is no appreciable reason to do this save for the skin tones of the people involved, making this blatantly a case of racial discrimination.

            This was basically the basis of Perez v. Sharp; government services and contracts – of which marriage is both – cannot be restricted on the basis of prejudice. Even though there is no immediate apparent discrimination – after all, the law applies equally to everyone, right? – the law limits people from engaging in behaviours that are only restricted for discriminatory purposes, not any secular benefit.

            (This is the same ruling, incidentally, when the court held that marriage is a fundamental right.)

            As with Perez v. Sharp, there was no factor in marriage the defendant could bring forth to suggest the law existed for any reason save discrimination. The result? Gay marriage is legal now.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “See, now we run into an actual point of contention: Claiming that the states only had to apply heterosexual marriage law equally, and that there is no requirement to allow homosexuals to get married.

            Laws that seemingly act equally can still be discriminatory. Marriage laws in the past have definitely been discriminatory. See the laws against interracial marriage, for example. In theory, said laws aren’t inherently discriminatory – they apply to every ethnicity, after all – but they still ultimately discriminate against people of different ethnic backgrounds who wish to marry. There is no appreciable reason to do this save for the skin tones of the people involved, making this blatantly a case of racial discrimination.

            “Discrimination” based on what standard? Clearly not the U.S. Constitution itself, since the U.S. Constitution says nothing about marriage (i.e. it is neither for nor against interracial marriage).

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “This was basically the basis of Perez v. Sharp; government services and contracts – of which marriage is both – cannot be restricted on the basis of prejudice.”

            Absolute nonsense. At a minimum, “marriage” is not necessarily a contract with the U.S. federal government. Nothing necessitates that it be such. As such, the U.S. federal government and the U.S. Constitution do not necessarily need to weigh in how to regulate it.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “As with Perez v. Sharp, there was no factor in marriage the defendant
            could bring forth to suggest the law existed for any reason save
            discrimination. The result? Gay marriage is legal now.”

            Sounds to me like you are citing a case that resulted in a bad decision, which was based on backwards logic and a fallacious challenge to bear a negative burden of proof.

            I’m not surprised, though. Your whole line of argumentation on this comment thread is backwards, since you presuppose that the right to homosexual marriage exists from the start, then work backwards from there in order to shoehorn your presupposition into the U.S. Constitution by any means necessary.

          • axelbeingcivil

            There’s no right guaranteed by the Constitution to homosexual marriage any more than there is to heterosexual marriage. While Perez v. Sharp did lead to the court claiming such a right existed, it’s not necessary to cite in this case.

            This isn’t a question about marriage. It’s a question about government contracts. If marriage were an entirely private matter with no government involvement, this wouldn’t matter in the least; people could claim whatever they wanted.

            Since the government can and does offer marriage contracts, which include within them certain benefits, it is burdened with necessarily ensuring the fairness of those contracts; that they do not discriminate against any protected class.

            As of now, a series of laws and legal rulings determine what constitutes a protected class. That list at present includes:

            -Race
            -Color
            -Religion
            -National origin
            -Age (40 and over)
            -Sex
            -Gender (presentation)
            -Sexual orientation
            -Pregnancy
            -Citizenship
            -Familial status
            -Disability status
            -Veteran status
            -Genetic information

            The government offered marriage contracts that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and gender, both of which are protected classes. Since the defendants could present no secular reason for this discrimination, the court ruled it unconstitutional.

            I want to emphasize that it’s not marriage specifically that’s at issue here. This would apply to any government service, and that the government’s definition of marriage only applies in a purely civil sense. Call marriage whatever you want in your private life.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “There’s no right guaranteed by the Constitution to homosexual marriage any more than there is to heterosexual marriage.”

            Right. Because the U.S. Constitution leaves the matter of how to manage marriage to the U.S. states.

            My point here is not that hard to understand. At this point, after seeing this reply from you, I think that you are purposely not paying attention to my points here and, conversely, you are trying to pave over my points here by purposely talking past them in various ways.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            axelbeingcivil said: “This isn’t a question about marriage. It’s a question about government contracts. If marriage were an entirely private matter with no government involvement, this wouldn’t matter in the least; people could claim whatever they wanted.

            Since the government can and does offer marriage contracts, which include within them certain benefits, it is burdened with necessarily ensuring the fairness of those contracts; that they do not discriminate against any protected class.”

            And I already replied:

            EscapetheDarkness said: “At a minimum, ‘marriage’ is not necessarily a contract with the U.S. federal government. Nothing necessitates that it be such. As such, the U.S. federal government and the U.S. Constitution do not necessarily need to weigh in how to regulate it.”

          • axelbeingcivil

            Marriage is a contract with the federal government and, indeed, state governments. The latter are held to the same rules as the former, as per the 14th Amendment as regards the rights of their citizens. Marriage entails special benefits – like joint filing, shared social security saving, guaranteed hospital access, shared adoption, etc. – that are not available to the unmarried; benefits directly derived from the government itself.

            If marriage was a purely private contract between individuals, this wouldn’t be an issue, but so long as the US government offers benefits and recognition (and, yes, both matter) of married couples, it will remain something that must be subject to the equal protection clause.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “Marriage entails special benefits – like joint filing, shared social security saving, guaranteed hospital access, shared adoption, etc. – that are not available to the unmarried; benefits directly derived from the government itself.

            If marriage was a purely private contract between individuals, this wouldn’t be an issue, but so long as the US government offers benefits and recognition (and, yes, both matter) of married couples, it will remain something that must be subject to the equal protection clause.”

            There is no reason why the U.S. federal government needs to be involved in dealing with such things (i.e. socialist policies like income taxation {as opposed to other forms of taxation}, the provision of Social Security benefits, and so on) and bestowing benefits to married couples accordingly. There are plenty of possible alternatives to such things, on the federal level. Moreover, when such things are demanded by the U.S. public, individual U.S. states can deal with them and administer them, as they wish to, in the place of the U.S. federal government. In fact, this might help incentivize the U.S. states to be a little more competitive, in a good way.

            Problem is, we, as a nation, never talk about and explore such alternatives in an meaningful way because we have been conditioned to believe that the U.S. federal government is our big, all-controlling central government and this is just the way things are in the U.S., period.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Whether the government needs to be involved in those things is debatable. The fact of the matter is that it IS involved with them. So long as it is, it needs to do so in a manner that is constitutional.

            Like I said before, if marriage weren’t a government contract, this wouldn’t be a legal issue.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ axelbeingcivil

            axelbeingcivil said: “Whether the government needs to be involved in those things is debatable.”

            Actually, that is the point in contention here, according to your counterpoints which you have offered me in our conversation here. Specifically, you claim that the U.S. federal government needs to be involved in the issue of regulating how marriage is handled in the U.S. because it needs to be involved in such policies and programs, which determine how marriage is administered in the U.S..

            In response, I am saying that none of this is necessary, at all. Moreover, to boot, the U.S. Constitution does not give the U.S. federal government, in general, the duty and the right to regulate the matter of how U.S. states handle the matter of marriage, period.

            Now, you can say that the U.S. federal government is already involved in such policies and programs and, thus, it is already involved in the issue of regulating how marriage is handled in the U.S.. So, this situation is what it is. And I would agree that this is a valid point, for what this point is.

            However, even though things are the way that they are, right now, this still does not justify the U.S. federal government’s involvement in regulating how marriage should be handled in the U.S.. In fact, this never will. And this is the key point here, since the most central point of our entire discussion here is over the issue of if the U.S. Supreme Court was justified in making the ruling that it did in Oberfell vs. Hodges (i.e. did it need to do so, was it authorized to do so, and so on), regardless of how you decide to phrase this issue.

          • axelbeingcivil

            Why do you feel that the federal government has no business mandating how state governments function when the fourteenth amendment clearly states that it does? The fourteenth amendment specifies circumstances when the federal government can – nay, must – intrude on state governments.

            The US government intervened previously when schooling and segregation were the issues. Why do you feel marriage is any different? The Constitution, to my knowledge, says nothing about schooling either, yet the federal government is constitutionally guaranteed to regulate that for anti-discrimination, is it not?

  • Connie Tomas

    Since I cant make heads or tails out if thus court rulings..im a firm believer in the Bible…n there is no mentioning of lesbians n hats marrying. If the judges wanna change the readings of the bible…only they will reap the benefits upon their death as it us quite clear in the bible there is to be one woman n one man.. those that change the bible will have to account for that when they die….it’s on their shoulder from then on…God didnt make two men to say…. “go ye forth n multiply “…..

    • Josey

      amen connie, God’s word is absolute, final!

    • james blue

      Judges have to rule by the law, whether they like the law or not, They are not to rule by their faith, if they rule by their faith over the law they should be removed.

      • Myrtle Linder

        There ar “dis-obeyers of the law”, among judges, called dirty judges, just as there is every other group, so don’t get you hopes up.

  • Amos Moses

    BAR ASSOCIATION TARGETS CHRISTIANS FOR ‘DISCRIMINATION’
    New rule seeks to ‘purge’ believers from legal profession

    • Tangent002

      Religion is not a license to ignore the law.

      • Myrtle Linder

        Law should be based upon the truth, this is what so many hate, truth is unacceptable to many, far too many!!

        • james blue

          So should we be locking up those who worship a God other than ours?

          • Connie Tomas

            I cant speak for others n what they believe… I can only speak for myself. Others might have a different point of view.. Im not judging anyone …im only expressing my upbringing

          • Connie Tomas

            Everyone in life has a choice…its not necessarily made for u…people change as they age. Rather some do n some dont…its not for me to tell anyone what god to worship…but when I see certain people chopping off heads in the town square or hands..its hard to realize a god would be in the punisher’s heart. Its also hard to see a race of people who rape at will…be they little girls or which ever the first female that crossed their path….like “its theirs for the taking.” We all have different faiths…normally we believe the way we were brought up…some consider certain things sins others dont… Ive got to worry about mine n how I believe…others can do the same ..

          • Connie Tomas

            U might try the jillion muslims that obama brought our way…after all.obama is leader of all people here n one to follow as king of all men…..look at the wonderful church he worshiped in for 22 years…….doubt if anyone could fall asleep while listening to such a devoted man of God…!!!!

          • sangrita

            You’re saying Obama is a Muslim?

          • Myrtle Linder

            Church of Satan, I believe!!!

          • Connie Tomas

            Im.not telling who anyone should worship…im only expressing.what I believe….

          • Myrtle Linder

            Of course not, HE, HIMSELF give us the choice to follow HIM or to deny HIM. HE will reward HIS people, and allow Satan to do what he does with his people. Being forced to follow would not count as following HIM but for those who are doing the forcing.

            Ignorance is said to be , “A hell of a thing and can destroy us, if we allow it to do so”!

          • Myrtle Linder

            There is GOD, the CREATOR and IS SON JESUS CHRIST, there is no other, except the false gods!!!!!!

          • james blue

            But God said have no other Gods before him, so instead of getting mad and shouting, please answer the question.

          • Myrtle Linder

            How do you discern when someone is shouting? Is it when they disagree with you?

          • james blue

            Still not answering the question I see.

          • Myrtle Linder

            You didn’t answer mine, either. Since you were the one shouting, not me, you should answer and tell me what your problem is, and what I had to do with it!!

          • james blue

            You said “We forget, that the law, began with GOD, who gave us HIS laws to live by, the laws that the criminal minds hate!!” So should we enforce the ten as our laws or shouldn’t we?

            By all means feel free to not answer and go off on another tangent.

          • Myrtle Linder

            So you wan t tangent, well just listen to your self and you will hear one. You are realy good at making a tangent, just to get one in return!! I think I’ll disappoint you and will not answer in kind!!

          • Myrtle Linder

            What is the penalty for not answering a nonsense question?

          • Myrtle Linder

            Since GOD give us the right to believe as we choose it is up to HIM to punish, not us!1

      • Amos Moses

        The law is not a licence to ignore the rights of others ………..

        • Connie Tomas

          Some rights have changed over the years cause of demands. I do not care if gays n lesbians live together or marry..when the coming of christ is here who will be caring then???

        • Connie Tomas

          ….n who voted those rights into action. ? Was it our Lord n Savior

        • Myrtle Linder

          To stand for what we believe is right , is not ignoring the rights of others, it is our given, by GOD, our right to advise others when we see they are wrong. If they do not want to change that is their right, and I guess, if they don”t like being advised, that is your right, too, but we have preformed our duty to GOD!!

      • http://www.bing.com/ Martin Smit

        Unless that religion is secular.

        • TheKingOfRhye

          That phrase is a contradiction in terms.

    • axelbeingcivil

      The Bar Association’s new rule prohibits harassment and discrimination in legal practices. It doesn’t prohibit private speech, taking cases, giving legal advice, membership of any church or association, etc.

      The only way you could possibly assume the new rule targets Christians would be if Christians committed a disproportionate number of cases of harassment or discrimination.

      • Amos Moses

        The only way to practice “tolerance” ………….. is to be INtolerant” …. as is demonstrated here day after day after day ….. by the “tolerant” …………..

    • Barry Fitzgerald

      My brother-in-law is an attorney in a mid sized city in Judge Moore’s Alabama. He witnesses two different state circuit judges tell a Christian attorney that he had to remove his lapel pen, which was a small gold cross. Both said it “violated the Establishment Clause” and one said that it would “Influence a Jury”.
      It certainly does not violate the Establishment Clause unless the state is forcing him to wear the cross but it sure does violate the Free Exercise Clause.

      As to influencing a jury, that is speculation on the judge’s part. It could hurt the attorney just as easy. It so happens that both of these judges are democrats and neither uses “So help me God” when they administer the oath to witnesses. That is legal, if the witness request it, but they do that without it being requested.

      • Amos Moses

        Persecution is not coming …. it is here … as plainly visible in the news everyday that passes …. His return is near ….

        • Nogods

          Isn’t it interesting to think that, over the past 2,000 years, BILLIONS of Christians have believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have gone to their graves COMPLETELY WRONG. Do you think that your reality will somehow be different then the billions that have come before you?

          • Amos Moses

            “Do you think that your reality will somehow be different then the billions that have come before you?”

            Did not say my lifetime ……… but scripture says …. when He does …. all those billions …. will see Him at about the sametime the rest of us do ………… so no ………

          • Nogods

            Do you think Jesus was just a man and that is why he is still dead? 2,000 years and not a peep from him is pretty compelling evidence don’t you think?

          • Amos Moses

            No ………….

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it weird how gods never write books – men do. Why is it that the supposed all-powerful creators of everything, can’t write? YHWH didn’t write the Torah – men did. Jesus didn’t write the bible – men did. Allah didn’t write the Quran – men did. And Zeus never wrote any of his holy books either – men did. So why can’t gods write anything without the help of men? Do you think it is because they are ALL fictional? You already know that the thousands of gods you could think were real are fictional. Yet, the evidence supporting their existence is IDENTICAL to that supporting the existence of your god. The math really isn’t that difficult. Do you think that your god doesn’t write books for the exact same reasons Zeus doesn’t write books?

          • Amos Moses

            God did write the bible ……. all of it …… God/Christ is a big fan of the written word …. he even has done it Himself from time to time ……

          • Nogods

            “God did write the bible ……. all of it ..”

            That’s weird, no one else believes that. You are either special, or you know nothing about Jewish and Christian mythology.

          • Amos Moses

            Christians do ……… you …. an unbeliever …. not so much …….

          • Nogods

            No. Christians don’t think Jesus wrote the bible.

          • Amos Moses

            If they do not ….. it is in contradiction to scripture …. and so not christian orthodoxy … so outside of christianity ……………

          • Nogods

            You have some loose screws. Seriously.

          • Amos Moses

            Must be that image you see in the mirror that you are speaking to about that ……………

          • Nogods

            Cute. I remember saying things like that in 5th grade.

          • Amos Moses

            Yeah, well, im polymerized tree sap and you are an inorganic adhesive so whatever verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off of me, returns on its original trajectory and adheres to you …….

          • Nogods

            Ok

          • Lino Becerra

            Did you ever make it to 6th grade?

          • Nogods

            Yeah, that is when I figured out that gods were fictional. And that is why they never do anything. Here, I will show you: Tell me what your god does that Zeus doesn’t do? Let’s start with a list comparing Zeus with Jesus.

            1. Jesus doesn’t heal people. Zeus doesn’t heal people.
            2. Jesus doesn’t prevent bad things from happening to good people. Zeus doesn’t prevent bad things from happening to good people.
            3. Jesus doesn’t stop priests from raping young boys. Zeus doesn’t stop priests from raping young boys.
            4. Jesus doesn’t stop anyone from having an abortion. Zeus doesn’t stop anyone from having an abortion.
            5. Jesus never defends his ethics himself but relies upon his followers to speak on his behalf. Zeus never defends his ethics himself but relies upon his followers to speak on his behalf.
            6. Jesus never makes TV appearances to clarify his book. Zeus never makes TV appearances to clarify his books.
            7. Jesus never writes anything. Zeus never writes anything.
            8. Jesus is invisible. Zeus is invisible.
            9. There is no clear and objective evidence supporting the claim that Jesus was magical. There is no clear and objective evidence supporting the claim that Zeus was magical.
            10. The existence of a magical Jesus is only documented in an ancient book. The existence of a magical Zeus is only documented in ancient books.
            11. There are a million things Jesus could do that would immediately convince everyone that he is real, but he does none of them. There are a million things Zeus could do that would immediately convince everyone that he is real, but he does none of them.
            12. Jesus doesn’t stop Christians from having their heads lopped off by Muslim extremists. Zeus doesn’t stop Christians from having their heads lopped off by Muslim extremists.
            13. Jesus doesn’t feed starving children. Zeus doesn’t feed starving children.
            14. The followers of Jesus don’t think that he does anything himself but claim that he has to “work through” people. The followers of Zeus don’t think that he does anything himself but claim that he has to “work through” people.

            So what do you think your god actually does?

          • Lino Becerra

            Hahaha. Knucklehead you’re not there always so you can’t say never stops or does something. And just because you were raped by a priest doesn’t mean another person wasn’t kept from being raped. When something bad happens to you it doesn’t mean GOD couldn’t stop it, it means you are not HIS child or friend. I wonder when the last time you read the Bible was, for you to say HE never defends HIS ethics? I would tell you but then you’d never bother to look for yourself. JESUS has the ability to do and work Supernaturally naturally. You couldn’t see it in your life because you don’t want too. That and, HE’S not going to cast HIS pearls before swine, and waste HIS time on a lost cause like you. You knew enough in the 5th grade at the moment you changed your mind and decided against GOD you proved you were called but not chosen.

          • Nogods

            Did Jesus save any aborted babies today? Or is he STILL just monitoring the situation? 58 million aborted babies + 1. Still not a peep from that invisible friend. But don’t worry, Thor never does anything either.

          • Lino Becerra

            I’m sure JESUS did save some aborted babies today, can you prove HE didn’t? Where you there while every pregnant woman that was contemplating it changed her mind? Of course you weren’t but your puny mind can’t fathom something happening without its approval or knowledge. YOU have to see it. It’s not about you. At a moment a child is saved it was about that child, not you Knucklehead.

          • Nogods

            “I’m sure JESUS did save some aborted babies today, can you prove HE didn’t?”

            If you think there have been 58 MILLION abortions just in the US since roe, your god is doing a HORRIBLE job! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! And you have NO IDEA what success looks like! You sure are a gullible fool.

            “Where you there while every pregnant woman that was contemplating it changed her mind?”

            And 58 MILLION times, your god was MIA! (Face palm goes here!)

            “Of course you weren’t but your puny mind can’t fathom something happening without its approval or knowledge.”

            58 MILLION!!!

            “YOU have to see it. It’s not about you. At a moment a child is saved it was about that child, not you Knucklehead.”

            If you think 58 MILLION is success, I can’t imagine what failure looks like! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

          • Nogods

            If your local sheriff knew that a man down the road was raping young boys every weekend and he never did anything to stop it, even though he had the power to do so, what would you think of him? Christians believe Jesus is god, and all powerful and all knowing, and all good force. He watches ever single child that gets brutally raped. He listens to every cry for help. And he does nothing. So if you condemn the do-nothing sheriff, shouldn’t you also condemn the do-nothing god?

          • Lino Becerra

            You think HE does nothing, but everlasting punishment is something. Being raped in prison by other inmates when they find out what you did is something, catching an STD from someone got raped is something. You think HE’S not doing anything, but vengeance is HIS HE will repay. Believe me the person that did that to you will pay and continue to pay, what happened turned you from GOD that rapist will pay.

          • Nogods

            Lol. Your god sounds like a sadistic psychopath.

          • Lino Becerra

            Hahaha you can never be satisfied, HE does nothing HE’S a do-nothing god HE does something HE’S a psychopath. You can’t have it both ways pick one. Have you thought that maybe just maybe you’re the one with problem?

          • Nogods

            Have you ever thought that maybe you are a brainwashed cult member?

          • Myrtle Linder

            Only Satan could have written such filthy lies!

          • Nogods

            Satan – not real. Ancient civilizations believed in devils. But we are past that now. We now understand that mischievous magical creatures don’t make bad thing happen. Can you tell me where devils live? What they eat? How they travel around? How many scientists do you think are studying devils and their habitat? If I wanted to learn about devils, would I read about them in a biology book or in a book about mythology? Who do you think would know more about devils: a witch doctor from the jungles of Malaysia who has had no contact with western civilization, or any professor from MIT?

            Scientists study everything. Yet, no scientists study devils and their supernatural powers. Do they not study devils for the same reasons they don’t study Spider-Man and his powers?

          • Myrtle Linder

            Christians really do not “think” the Bible was written at the hand of GOD, we ‘KNOW’ that it was written just as HE dictated!!!!

          • Nogods

            Weird how gods never write their own books.

          • Lino Becerra

            Scripture is GOD Breathed. The reason you don’t believe it or understand it is because it was written for the man of GOD not a child of the devil knucklehead. II Timothy 3:16‭-‬17 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

          • Nogods

            Ahhhhh…. I see “INSPIRATION” of your god. So it wasn’t written BY your god – just like I said. Isn’t it weird how Zeus and Allah wrote by inspiration as well. What an odd coincidence.

          • Lino Becerra

            I’ve never seen anything claiming to be written by inspiration of zeus or allah. Sooo no it’s not weird or a coincidence. I’m pretty sure the quran does not claim to be written by allah. Mohammed wrote what an angel told him. You need to think this one a little better knucklehead

          • Nogods

            “I’ve never seen anything claiming to be written by inspiration of zeus or allah.”

            You haven’t read the Quran? As for Zeus, you need to read any of the ancient sacred texts such as the Library of Pseudo-Apollodorus, the Iilid, the Odyssey, the Hesiod, the Theogony and the Works and Days, the Homeric Hymns, the epic poems of the Epic Cycles, the in lyric poems, the tragedians, the writings of scholars and poets of the Hellenistic Age, the texts from the time of the Roman Empire by writers such as Plutarch and many other writings that document the Greek gods and their role in everyday life.

            “Soooo no it’s not weird or a coincidence.”

            You just proved that you are ignorant.

            “I’m pretty sure the quran does not claim to be written by allah. Mohammed wrote what an angel told him. You need to think this one a little better knucklehead”

            How does someone get as dumb as you? Really, I am curious? “Muslims believe that God (Arabic: ألله Allah) revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad via the angel Gabriel.[41]Muhammad is considered to have been the Seal of the Prophets and Muhammad’s revelations, the Qur’an, is believed by Muslims to be the flawless final revelation of God to humanity, valid until the Last Day. The Qur’an claims to have been revealed word by word and letter by letter.”

          • Lino Becerra

            Knucklehead you just saidour it yourself the quran doesn’t to be written or inspired by GOD but spoken by a angel to Muhammad. And no I don’t need to read what you tell me too, mainly because it’s not sacred text, and I don’t like to read fiction. That doesn’t make me ignorant, it shows I have self will and can make up my own mind as to whether something is worth my time or not. However calling something sacred just because others do makes you a bit gullible. It might be ancient but it’s certainly not sacred.

          • Nogods

            Oh dear. The Quran was written by Mohammad who was inspired by Allah. You know, the IDENTICAL story of your bible.

            The Greek texts are no different.

            Isn’t it weird how gods never write books? I wonder why.

          • Lino Becerra

            No It’s not the identical story of the Bible sorry Knucklehead you got that one wrong again.

          • Nogods

            Oh dear. You are as dumb as a rock, aren’t you. The Quran is the inspired word of a god, written by men, just like the bible.

          • Nogods

            Seriously, the rocks under my feet are smarter than you!

            Isn’t it weird how most Christians believe that their god listens to them and answers their prayers? For many, this is compelling evidence that their god must be real. So if your god heals them in response to prayer, why do Christians have the same life expectancy as everyone else (all other things being equal)? The simple math says that your god does nothing, and certainly isn’t healing people of anything. Do you think it is because he is fictional just like all the other gods you already know are not real?

          • Lino Becerra

            GOD isn’t a puppet HE does what HE wishes some HE heals others HE takes Home. If you had children it might be easier for you to understand. Just because your child asks for1st something doesn’t mean they get it.

          • Nogods

            So lets try this again. Pay CLOSE ATTENTION HERE. Let me explain what you are missing: So if your god cures anyone of illness, the assumption is that they will continue to live a longer life then if they had not been cured by your god. As an example, assume that someone with a particular illness would have died at 20, but due to your god’s intervention, lived to be 21. Now if you average all those that died earlier because your god did not perform any miracles, and compared that number to all those in which your god did perform miracles, the number for the group in which your god performed miracles should be larger. Unfortunately, it is not. And thus, there is no evidence your god performs miracles.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            How do you know. Were you there sitting on a rock watching, evil one.

          • Nogods

            Oh dear. Another Christian who hasn’t read his bible. Sad.

            One week my friend. Act quickly! Don’t let the first bad thing happen!

          • Myrtle Linder

            GOD dictated the WORD to HIS followers and they did the print work, only!

          • Amos Moses

            The only reason you do not hear Him …. you choose not to hear ………….

          • Nogods

            Wow, you sure underestimate the powers of your supposedly all-powerful friends. The followers of Zeus used to say the same thing; and we both know how that story ended.

          • Amos Moses

            You can stand in a room full of people and not hear …… it is called selective inattention ….. you do not hear because you choose not to listen ……… if you actually heard His voice ….. you would tremble in fear …. be happy you do not hear His actual voice …….

          • Nogods

            If you fear your god, he is a dictator. Don’t be a brainwashed cult member.

            I fear your god as much as you fear Zeus. Isn’t that the funniest thought that you have had all day?

          • Amos Moses

            You are not all that funny …… keep your day job ….. if you indeed have one …..

          • Nogods

            Tell me how concerned you are about the impending wrath of Allah?

          • Amos Moses

            You first ………….

          • Nogods

            Gods are fictional. So I’m not afraid of any of them.

          • Amos Moses

            Then why are you here to not talk about them …… kind of a contradiction in terms …. to come to a place to talk about something you say does not exist ….. to prove to others …. sorry …. what is it you are trying to prove again ………….

            FYI, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ……….. what you got ………

          • Nogods

            Smart people understand that they aren’t limited to only talking about subjects they “believe in”. I don’t believe in Santa clause. But I talk about him every Christmas. I don’t believe in many conservative political ideas. But I also talk about them. I don’t believe in fictional characters, but I talk about them. And i don’t believe in ancient superstitious beliefs like yours. Smart people talk about things that affect their lives – not necessarily what they believe in.

            And thank you for ADMITTING that there is an absence of evidence! I would call that progress. Please go tell all your friends that they are just fooling themselves when they claim that your god has performed some type of miracle. Because that would be evidence – which you just admitted doesn’t exist. So your friends are just fooling themselves.

          • Amos Moses

            “Smart people understand that they aren’t limited to only talking about subjects they “believe in”. I don’t believe in Santa clause.”

            i see …. so you spend your time taking about how “Santa” does not exist …. to what end …. and is it you have nothing better to do with your time …. to try to prove that a thing does not exist …. how do you go about proving that ……..

          • Nogods

            As I said, I talk about Santa every Christians.

            ” to try to prove that a thing does not exist …. how do you go about proving that ……..”

            I already conspired your god to Zeus. And they are identical. You already KNOW that Zeus is fictional. And if your god is IDENTICAL to Zeus…. I will let you do the simple math.

          • Amos Moses

            Not identical ……….. not even close ……… so wrong ……. try again ……….

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            If you are so sure why do you feel the need to keep repeating it. Be Gone Satan.

          • Nogods

            One week! Don’t be late! Time is ticking…..

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            In Jesus Name.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            Not at all because be was an insane, non-believing pedophile who is with you in Hades, Be Gone.

          • Nogods

            You should never have written back to me. I now own your soul! You are now under my spell! Three bad things will happen to you over the next 30 days. There is only one way you can free yourself: you must donate 20% of your wealth to a LGBT charity. If you do not do this quickly, the first bad thing will happen to you within a week! Do not delay!

          • Myrtle Linder

            It is not the Christian that need to fear, it is the anti-CHRIST, but when you see HIM, it may be too late!!!.

          • Nogods

            What a scary dictator you worship.

          • Myrtle Linder

            You will meet HIM one day, face to face, and by that time your arrogance, will disappear!!

          • Nogods

            Arrogance? And here I thought arrogance was someone claiming that they could talk to god; claiming that god talks to them; claiming they have a “relationship” with god; claiming to know the will of god; claiming to be one of god’s children, and pretending to know things you clearly do not know.

          • Myrtle Linder

            That is not arrogance, that is heeding and standing for the truth, the absolute truth, as every person that ever lived or will live on this earth will experience, be prepared for it, HE will come for HIS own, be ready or “you will be left behind!” for Satan to pick up!

          • Nogods

            Myrtle, that is a silly superstitious belief.

          • Myrtle Linder

            Just when did the truth get to be a superstition, GOD and HIS SON created the universe, fools that do not believe, cannot ever change that, Hebrews 1:1-2, 8-14, 2 Timothy 1:19

          • Nogods

            Your gods is as real as Zeus.

          • LadyInChrist♥BlessedBeTheLord

            Amen!

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            I love my God, you fear your’s because he has you imprisoned in Hades. Be Gone, King of Lies.

          • Nogods

            You’re a hoot! BOO!!!

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            I will cast thee into the pit of fire from where thou came. BE GONE.

          • Nogods

            I am still here berry. My powers are no match for me. One bad thing. This week. Good luck.

          • Myrtle Linder

            You are an antichrist!!

          • Nogods

            Devils are fictional Myrtle.

          • Myrtle Linder

            Really! A devil denying devils, beleive it or not, it is happening!!!

          • Nogods

            You’re a kooky old bird, Myrtle. Go do something positive with the rest of your life and stop wasting your time on your doomsday cult.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            Why are you here, imp? Did the Serpent assign you the task of plaguing God’s children today. Be Gone, Evil One.

          • Nogods

            Don’t be a superstitious fool. I bet you are also REALLY afraid of black cats aren’t you!?

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            You find my bio and see if you thin I am afraid of anything, especially an imp.

          • Nogods

            My powers over you are unmatched. One bad thing berry. This week. Bark my words. You know it’s coming. Be prepared. Come back here after it happens so I can help you avoid the other two.

          • Myrtle Linder

            I have to admit, the powers of Satan are strong, but he will go into the same place that all go to hate GOD and HIS people. For a good report on this read Revelation 20:1-15, read it and weep!!

          • Myrtle Linder

            Nogods is one of Satan’s favorite servants, working his way into the place where Satan and his servants go at the end of time. If you can find a copy of “GOD’S WORD” for HIS promise for those who follow Satan. A good reference is Revelation 20:1-15, another is Revelation 21:8. Before you scream, check it out, I dare you!!!

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            Thank you

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            I hear him all the time. You don’t because you are influence or possessed by Satan. Be Gone, Wicked Dark Angel.
            “Legibus sumptis desinentibus legibus naturae utendum est.”

          • Nogods

            You are obviously suffering from delusions. There are people that can help you. They are called “doctors.” Seek them out.

            Let’s stay focused for a moment and discuss one very particular aspect of your superstitious beliefs: the devil

            I would like for you to do two things for each question below: 1. answer the question. And 2. state the source of information you relied on to answer the question.

            1. Where does the devil live?
            2. What does he eat?
            3. How does he travel around?
            4. Why don’t scientists study devils and their habitat?
            5. Why aren’t devils discussed in any science books?
            6. Why are devils only mentioned in fiction and books about mythology?
            7. Who do you think would know more about devils: a witch doctor from the jungles of Malaysia who has had no contact with western civilization, or the entire science faculty from MIT?
            8. How do devils reproduce?
            9. What life form have devils evolved from?
            10. Do devils get sick?
            11. How long do they live for?
            12. Do they have brains like humans?
            13. What type of circulatory system do they have?
            14. Has anyone taken a photo or video of one?
            15. What language do they speak?
            16. How do they communicate with one another?
            17. What languages do they understand?
            18. How large is the devil population?
            19. What is the life expectancy of a devil?
            20. How long do Devils care for their young?

            Now go back and change the word “devil” to “leprechaun” and answer all the same questions again. See any difference?

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            You are the delusion, imp. BE GONE.

          • Nogods

            I own your soul berry. My powers are immense. You are testing me berry. That is a mistake. One bad thing is now going to happen to you this week. There is nothing I can do now to stop it. But there is still time to stop the other two bad things from happening. For the safety of your family Barry, please make that donation.

          • Nogods

            Berry, I am still here. 20%. 1 month. Act fast.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            You need to go away. Take my advice. Look at my profile and take my advice. I already know who you are. Stop bother these people or there will be consequences.

          • Nogods

            Today may be the day. I hope not.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            You have made you choice. Out.

          • Nogods

            One week. It will happen. You will see. Then you will believe me berry.

          • Nogods

            1 week. Act fast. I can help you.

          • Lino Becerra

            When heathens fulfill prophecy. Hahaha. II Peter 3:2‭-‬9 “that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.”

          • Nogods

            People have been scoffing for 2,000 years. STILL MIA. Your invisible friend sure seems dead.

          • Lino Becerra

            Just because you can’t see someone doesn’t mean they’re dead or invisible, it could be you’re blind or you refuse to see and have turned away or closed your eyes knucklehead

          • Nogods

            Your god is as visible as Zeus.

          • Lino Becerra

            The day you rise to be judged you will see my GOD and you WILL bow and go to everlasting torment unless you repent of your sins and accept HIS atoning sacrifice before you die son of the devil.

          • Nogods

            I just can’t figure out why anyone would choose to worship a god that threatens to torture you if you actually use the mind he supposedly has given you. Most people are opposed to sadistic dictators; Christians claim to have a “relationship” with one – and to love him.

          • Lino Becerra

            You are not punished for using your mind you’re punished for willfully refusing to see and obey. GOD makes the rules if you don’t like it make your own universe, get off HIS planet, and stop breathing HIS air.

          • Nogods

            Koo koo. What a sadistic dictator – just like I said.

          • ILikeTrollingTrolls

            I’m going to sleep princess I have a job…

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it weird to think that when you wake up tomorrow, another few thousand abortions will have occurred and your invisible friend will not have stopped a single one of them. But don’t worry, Zeus won’t stop any of them either.

          • Nogods

            “Princess?” – creep.

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            “Ego te, immunde spiritus, omnis satanica potestas cum hostium omne phantásma , omnis cecidit et sociorum + in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Et recede procul recedite ab hoc plasmate Dei.”

          • Nogods

            That won’t work against me berry. After the one bad thing happens to you, come back to speak with me. We can work together to prevent the other two bad things from happening.

          • Nogods

            Isn’t it interesting to contrast our sources of information: I choose to look for answers from the smartest, most educated segment of our population, who are performing the most cutting-edge research with the most sophisticated and technologically advanced tools humankind has ever created. You, on the other hand, choose to look for answers from a 1st century superstition written by bronze/Iron age nomadic sheep herders, who occupied a remote desert oasis, during the prescientific age, who spent an inordinate amount of time consumed with the measliness of sheep and goats, and who had no knowledge of such simple things as paper or the number zero.

          • Lino Becerra

            The people you follow aren’t wiser than the ancients, I doubt they could last a week in their sandals. Your fathers maybe didn’t understand zero but the Prophets of GOD constantly say “none”. That means zero.

          • Nogods

            “The people you follow aren’t wiser than the ancients, I doubt they could last a week in their sandals.”

            You are obviously right! They made much better space ships, and cell phones, and cars, back then!

            “Your fathers maybe didn’t understand zero but the Prophets of GOD constantly say “none”. That means zero.”

            “None” isn’t a number smart guy!

          • Barry Fitzgerald

            It is more amazing that billions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintos, and Atheists have died rejecting ,Jesus Christ as their Savior and they are now being tortured in Hades for eternity. Are you ready to join them?

          • Nogods

            What a sick sadistic cult you belong to.

          • Chet

            And over those same 2k years, how many Christ rejectors are now in eternal Hell thinking the Word of God was of no value? Now, they have all eternity to believe but, alas, too late…

          • Nogods

            Zero. Hell is a fictional place. It is like Santa’s workshop in the North Pole. It only exists in your imagination.

          • Chet

            I suppose those who are there now thought pretty much the same thing, but, sadly, they now know otherwise, albeit too late. And worst of all, perhaps, is that none who enter Hell had to go there as God loves all us sinners and sent his only begotten Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to die for us on Calvary’s Cross and pay the debt of sin we owe… I note your icon is crafted to represent man’s imagination of the Devil’s appearance, coincidence…

          • Nogods

            Jesus didn’t die for anyone’s sins. That is just a 1st century superstitious belief. From purely a logical point of view, you can’t hurt an all powerful god. And you certainly can’t kill one. So the whole death/resurrection was just an elaborate theatrical performance to entertain the delusional masses. If you weren’t a brainwashed member of a doomsday cult, this would not be difficult to understand.

            Jesus was not a god; he was just a man. That is why he is STILL dead after 2,000 years. How many more thousands of years have to pass by before you accept the fact that he is STILL dead and will NEVER be returning?

            So let me get this straight, your god creates people and sin, and then he decides that was a big mistake, so to free the people of the sin he created, he pretends to commit suicide so that he won’t have to murder all the people later, but only if they believe that he pretended to commit suicide to save them from himself. How does someone actually come to believe that this insanely ridiculous story is true?

          • Chet

            Wow, Sir, you’re all all over the map. So then, do you believe in sin or no? Christ was/is God in flesh as part of the triune Godhead, the Holy Spirit being the other. Each plays a part in life and death and all things in between, save sin, of which you seem to think God caused. No, Sir, God gives all men free will to do as they please and none are robots at his beckon call.

            Aside from the more than 500 witness who saw Christ after his resurrection, you might checkout a book entitled The Writings of Jocephus, a noted historian of that era and not in any wise connected with the Holy Bible. He too attested to the fact.

            It actually takes much more faith to perceive the Lord in the fashion as you’ve so described than to accept his Word as written in plain English or whatever might be your first language. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to trust God and be prepared to enter Heaven at life’s end all thanks to my most merciful God and Friend, Jesus Christ my Saviour. Thanks for the exchange of views.

          • Nogods

            Here is a list of things that are not real. Study it well so you are not fooled so easily in the future: spooks, spectors, free-floating apparitions, ghosts, werewolves, gods, Santa Claus, witch-doctors, witches that fly on brooms, heaven, hell, sin, Frankenstein, living mummies, the bogeyman, goddesses, fortune tellers, devils, divining rods, mystics, zombies, spirits, miracles, and mind-readers.

            Free will does explain why gods don’t answer prayers or perform miracles.

            Josephus wasn’t even born yet when Jesus was killed. He wrote about Jesus 70 YEARS AFTER Jesus was dead! He was just retelling the stories of Christian mythology.

            The magical aspects of Christianity are obviously false. Here are simple facts you MUST ADMIT ARE TRUE:

            1. YOU MUST ADMITTED THAT AT LEAST SOME OF THE SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS MADE IN THE BIBLE ARE FALSE. This would include such things as the story of Adam and Eve (science is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Adam and Eve were not the first humans and there is no evidence or reason to believe they ever existed. So the entire story of jesus is built upon this false premiss) and noah (there is NO evidence of a world-wide flood let alone one of the proportion or duration as described in the bible.) If this is true, it places into question the reliability of ALL supernatural claims made in the bible. And the resurrection of Jesus is really the ONLY claim upon which his divinity is based.

            2. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION ARE INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT. This again is evidence that the accounts are unreliable. As an example, did Jesus ascended into heaven the day of his claimed resurrection (Luke 24:51), or 40 days later? (Acts 1:3). When Jesus died, did an earthquake open all the graves unleashing a zombie apocalypse (as recounted in Matthew). Why is that fact completely ignored by the other gospels. Was Jesus crucified on the day before Passover (John) or the day after (the other three.) Three gospels give three different versions of the last words of Jesus. Matthew says that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. Acts claim that he was buried by Jewish strangers and their rulers. The four gospels conflict in their account of the number of women that came to the tomb Easter morning. Matthew and Mark claim that one woman was at the tomb. Luke and John claim there were two. Matthew claims that the tomb was not open when they got there. The other three say that the tomb was open. There are many more contradictions. And they all can’t be right. But they all can be wrong.

            3. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS REGULARLY DEIFIED MERE MORTALS. The early Romans were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that men could become gods and gods could become men long before the time of Jesus. Early roman gods included Julius Cesar, Caesar Augustus, and Romulus. Almost ALL roman emperors were ultimately declared gods. This supernatural claim was bestowed upon virtually ANYONE who showed some type of special skill or authority. Thus, bestowing this title upon Jesus would be NOTHING unusual.

            And as it turned out, the early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about all these other gods. But these were the EXACT SAME people that claimed that jesus rose from the dead and proclaimed him a god, just as they had proclaimed many others before and after him. And just as these early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence as to the existence of all the other roman gods, they were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence about your god and his resurrection.

            4. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS ERRONEOUSLY BELIEVED IN THE EXISTENCE OF MANY GODS. Romans were ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that Jupiter was a real god. They believed that for a thousand years, even in the face of uncontrovertibly evidence that their polytheistic beliefs were wrong. But as you must admit, the early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG about all these other gods. But these were the EXACT SAME people that claimed that jesus rose from the dead and was a god. But this is the EXACT same claim they had made about many gods before him. And just as these early Romans were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence as to the existence of all the other roman gods, they were ABSOLUTELY WRONG in their evaluation of the evidence about your god and his resurrection.

            5. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE EARLY ROMANS ATTRIBUTED SUPERNATURAL EXPLANATIONS TO OBVIOUSLY NON SUPERNATURAL EVENTS. At the time jesus arrived, the early Roman culture was awash in erroneous supernatural beliefs. The early Romans attributed supernatural causes to natural events. This was typical of virtually all pre-modern cultures. The cultural acceptance of these beliefs was further reinforced by the government and were just a simple part of every day life. Thus, attributing a supernatural explanation to almost any event was nothing unusual. This would include attributing supernatural explanations to stories related to Jesus.

            6. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE STORIES DOCUMENTING THE RESURRECTION WERE NOT MEMORIALIZED UNTIL 30 TO 90 YEARS AFTER THE CLAIMED EVENTS HAPPENED AND INVARIABLY DO NOT ACCURATELY DOCUMENT THE EVENTS. Without a doubt, the oral tradition that perpetuated the stories was embellished and modified as it was passed along. The inconsistencies in the gospels clearly demonstrates this.

            7. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT JESUS WAS NOT REGARDED AS A GOD DURING HIS LIFE TIME BUT WAS ONLY ELEVATED TO THAT STATUS DECADES AFTER HIS DEATH. It was not until the 4th century that the roman ruling class defined the supernatural nature of Jesus.

            8. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THERE ARE NO CONTEMPORANEOUS OR RELIABLE EXTRA BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE RESURRECTION THOUGH THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF HIS PERSONA AND THE PENULTIMATE EVENT THAT MADE HIM A GOD. While there are extra biblical accounts referencing Jesus, NONE of them are contemporaneous (most being written many decades after his death), NONE claim to be first-hand accounts, and NO RELIABLE writing reference ANY supernatural aspects of his life. Though one would suspect that if the claim were true, there would have been MANY contemporaneous writings, written first-hand, and the alleged supernatural aspects of his persona would have been the FOCUS of any extra biblical account.

            9. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT CRUCIFIXION WAS COMMON IN THE EARLY ROMAN EMPIRE AND THAT ONLY ONE BODY EVIDENCING DEATH BY CRUCIFIXION HAS EVER BEEN FOUND. Detailed historical records document that during the early Roman Empire, THOUSANDS of people were crucified. And of those THOUSANDS that were crucified, only ONE body has EVER been discovered. If a missing body is evidence of resurrection, then THOUSANDS of other people have also rose from the dead.

            10. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS ARE ONE OF THE MOST UNRELIABLE FORMS OF EVIDENCE. Empirical studies have consistently shown that eye witness accounts, while highly valued, are the most unreliable form of evidence. This is especially true when the claimed events occurred in the prescientific age and involve an uneducated and illiterate population easily swayed by claims of the supernatural. To this day, comparable indigenous populations are easily convinced of all kinds of comparably ridiculous claims. This fact is equally true of highly educated people living today.

            11. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT PEOPLE DIE EVERY DAY HARBORING MISTAKEN BELIEFS. In defense of the resurrection, Christians often ask, why would the disciples of Jesus sacrifice their lives over a belief they knew was false. But that is simply the wrong question to ask. The disciples of Jesus believed Jesus rose from the dead. But their belief was just wrong. So the disciples of Jesus were willing to sacrifice their lives for a MISTAKEN BELIEF. This happens every day. Just ask ISIS members about that. They think they are fighting for a god that you know isn’t real. You also know that there will be no 72 virgins waiting for them. And just like the followers of Jesus, the members of ISIS are willing to die for a mistaken belief.

            12. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE CONTESTED THE DIVINITY OF JESUS IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH AND SUPPOSED RESURRECTION. Christians are quick to claim that if Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead, people living at that time would have contested such false claims. It is UNDENIABLE that millions of people did just that: they were called the Jews. The Jews who were alive at that time, AND EVEN TO THIS DAY, deny that Jesus rose from the dead, that he is the son of god, or that he is god in the flesh. Jesus, if he was a historical figure at all, was at most, one preacher among many at that time, spreading the gospel of a Jewish sect. But he certainly wasn’t a god, and the Jews living at that time knew that and reject that claim.

            13. YOU MUST ADMIT THAT THE NON APPEARANCE OF JESUS FOR THE PAST 2,000 YEARS, IS COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT HE IS STILL DEAD. Over the past 2,000 years, BILLIONS of Christians have believed that Jesus would return during their lifetime. And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM have gone to their graves COMPLETELY WRONG. Dead people don’t come back to life. Believing that they do is a superstitious belief that has ALWAYS been wrong. At most, Jesus was just a man. And as a man, a rational person would conclude that if he were killed, he would never be returning. The complete absence of Jesus for the past two-thousand years is overwhelming evidence consistent with this idea.

            The god of Christianity is no different than all the other gods most people already accept are fictional. It really is that simple.

          • Chet

            Man, I admit to nothing of which you’ve painstakingly stated. One thing is for sure, however, it takes a WHOLE lot more faith to disbelieve as you’ve noted here that to accept God’s Word as written. For the sake of arguing, we are now out.. Thanks again for the exchange of views.

          • Nogods

            There are thousands of gods one could choose to worship. You choose to worship just one. But your god really isn’t that special or unique. Most of the world doesn’t worship or believe in your god. And when you choose to believe in the supernatural, there are no limits on what is a god and what is not. Look at YouTube and you will see many other people that believe they are prophets of gods or gods with powers to heal, levitate, read minds…. These people and their claims are just as legitimate as your religious superstition – if you believe in the supernatural.

            You believe in your 1st century superstition because of faith. That means you will not find any scientific support for your superstitious beliefs in the natural world. So it is pointless to look for it and dishonest to claim you have found it.

      • Nogods

        Your story sounds fictional.

        • Myrtle Linder

          “YOU ARE THE FICTION!!”

          • Nogods

            If I’m fictional, you are delusional.

          • Lino Becerra

            Since you used a fictional pseudonym you are indeed fictional by definition. However the fact that you are fictional does not make another delusional. I should’ve gotten a pseudonym, something like, “Iliketrollingtrolls”. Hahaha

          • Nogods

            “Since you used a fictional pseudonym you are indeed fictional by definition.”

            Your attempt at logic is seriously flawed. You must be a Trump supporter with a mind like that. A label has no bearing on the veracity of the underlying claim.

            “However the fact that you are fictional does not make another delusional.”

            Someone that is communicating with someone that they think is fictional – is delusional – just like I wrote.

            “I should’ve gotten a pseudonym, something like, “Iliketrollingtrolls”. Hahaha””

            Moron is more fitting.

          • Lino Becerra

            Actually GOD has said that YOU are the moron in HIS WORD multiple time Knucklehead: Psalms 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, “ There  is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.”
            Psalms 53:1 “The fool has said in his heart, “ There  is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There  is none who does good.”

          • Nogods

            Oh dear. I am sure you think the bible is true because it says it is true. A smart person should see a problem with that.

          • Lino Becerra

            Actually I believe the Bible because of the prophesies it has predicted and have come to pass.

          • Nogods

            There are no prophecies in any holy books. The claimed prophecies have either been consistently wrong, are so general they are meaningless, or they were written decades after the actual events occurred. Here is what a real prophecy looks like: “On January 22, 2015, at 2:17p.m., Jesus will descend from the sky and will land by the right foot of the Lincoln memorial.” Unfortunately, there is nothing even remotely close to being a prophesy in your holy book.

            The only correct “prophecies” in the bible are the ones that were written after the events they claim to have prophesied had happened; they didn’t predict the future, they simply recorded the past. A perfect example of this is the book of Daniel. Daniel gets right all the “prophecies” made before 167 bce. But Daniel gets wrong all the prophecies made after that date. That in why there is almost universal agreement among biblical scholars that Daniel was written around 165 bce.

            It’s also not hard to get “prophecies” correct when you’re writing the second half of a book while holding the first half of the book in your hand. The authors of the bible held the Old Testament in their hands while they wrote the New Testament. They knew EXACTLY how all the events were supposed to end. So it wasn’t hard to make the second half of the book align with the first half of the book, especially when you are writing fiction.

            If you think scripture accurately predicts the future, tell me three things that are going to happen this week, or this month, or this year? I am sure your Christian friends have made LISTS of HUNDREDS of events that scripture says will happen over the course of the next hundred years. Show me the lists? And I bet you will NEVER find TWO lists that are the same if such lists existed because THERE ARE NO PROPHECIES IN THE BIBLE.

          • Lino Becerra

            No prophesies? That means I only need to come up with one that you can verify happening after it was written… Amos 9:14‭-‬15 “I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them,” Says the Lord your God.” Go to Israel and see for yourself.

          • Nogods

            Go look up “self fufilling prophecy” and learn something new today.

    • Connie Tomas

      I would imagine it depends one’s beliefs. Some times it might be benificial to keep one’s thoughts to ya self……

      • Myrtle Linder

        You are right, if you are a fool, you should be quiet and let mankind think that you know something!! JESUS LIVES, FOREVERMORE!!

  • Connie Tomas

    If this is the ONLY thing u can find about Trump to print is about his daughter taking diet pills…u’ve reached the ultimate low point in life… n I pity u…!!!!

  • james blue

    I’m thankful that whatever is in your head isn’t in mine.

  • This style ten and six

    You seem to have not noticed that a black man is your President. Presumably he did well in school.

    • Connie Tomas

      Yeah. He did!! He lied a lot!!!

      • This style ten and six

        So you are familiar with Barack Obama’s school and college days? Give over, you just pulled that out of your hat.

        You are lucky to have such a man as your President.

        • The Skeptical Chymist

          We ALL are lucky to have such a man as our President, even those who don’t recognize that fact.

          • Myrtle Linder

            I think perhaps, it maybe good, because this evil is going to bring JESUS CHRIST back for HIS people, I am ready for HIM!!!

            It is in GOD’S hands!!!

  • Barry Fitzgerald

    We all know the type, don’t we? The new insurance agent, he is on every committee at Church, Sunday school teacher, Deacon, after every service he is shaking everyone’s hands at the door like he is the pastor. In a few years, he is the biggest insurance agent in town. Next he is joins the Episcopal Church.

    Just before the War Between the States there was a song that may of may not apply to Judge Joiner. It was the Southern version of Yankee Doodle directed especially to New England shopkeepers. This is from memory so it may not be exact:

    “Yankee Doodle is a knave and everybody knows it.
    For swindling is his natural trade for by his tricks he shows it.
    He’ll go to Church, sing and pray be full of Grace on Sunday.
    With wooden hams and paper shoes he’ll cheat you on Monday.”

    • Myrtle Linder

      There is scriptures about false judging, too, we will be judged with the judgment that we use to judge others, so try to be truthful, at least!!

  • Nogods

    Fortunately, mans law trumps Christian sharia law.

    • Myrtle Linder

      GOD’S laws trump all the laws of man, whoever he may be, or how important that he may think he is!! Christian and sharia are two entirely different things!

      • Nogods

        Thanks for the lesson on Christian sharia.

        Isn’t it interesting how many Christians regard the Ten Commandments as god’s law which should be followed? But oddly, only 2.5 of the 10 commandments are actually law in the US. The other 7.5 would violate the constitution and the American ideals of freedom if they were memorialized as law. The only place the other 7.5 are enforced are in Muslim countries that practice sharia law – like Iraq and Afghanistan. And to think, Christians proclaim the 10 commandments as model laws to live by. Let’s just hope that the Christian Taliban is never successful in their effort to institute Christian sharia law in the U.S.

        • Myrtle Linder

          They are ll GOD’S laws which stand strong with Christians in the USA as well as the rest of the world. Only the anti-CHRISTs deems the Ten Commandments not be followed here!!

          • Nogods

            You must be at least 75 years-old.

          • Myrtle Linder

            86!!!!!!! Born 1930 to Christian parents, grandparents and great grandparents…….!!

          • Myrtle Linder

            86!!!!! And going strong have several ears to catch up with my grandparents ages!!

          • Nogods

            Keep going strong!

          • Myrtle Linder

            I will be 86 in one month and plan to live into my 90’s, as did my grandparents, so get used to the truth!!

          • Grant

            Whatever happened to the verse about not throwing pearls to the pigs? Pay this guy no attention. There’s no doubt Jesus existed. The argument is not did He exist BUT was He or wasn’t He the Son of God.

          • Myrtle Linder

            Most of th pigs that I know of is in the government!!!

            There’s is no doubts that JESUS CHRIST was the SON OF GOD!”

          • Myrtle Linder

            You need to read Matthew7:1-12 to find your answer and settle your doubts.

  • Myrtle Linder

    We are becoming “the cesspool of evil!: 2 Timothy 3:1-5.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Love Jesus

  • Myrtle Linder

    Judge Roy Moore is being persecuted by Satan’s followers because he is a man of power standing for GOD.

    Matthew 5:10-12
    10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of GOD.
    11 Blessed are ye, wen men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
    12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they, the prophets which were before you.

    Matthew 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my names sake but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    Keep you chin up Judge Roy Moore because GOD’S people are supporting you. We know that you like the rest of us, are not perfect but GOD’S imperfect people must stand together and “Pray Without Ceasing for HIM to lead us and guide us, protect us and to give us the courage to stand against evil!!!”

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Kingdom Ambassador

    Judge Roy Moore is actually reaping the results of his allegiance to the Constitution.

    All of this is the consequence of the constitutional framers rejecting Yahweh as sovereign and shunning His law as supreme. It could never occur had the 18th-century founders (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial forbears) established government and sovereignty on Yahweh’s triune moral law.

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my picture, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 6.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  • Chet

    The authority’s “church” and training is more on the order of that of The Church Of What’s Happening Now or perhaps The First Confused Church Of Mother Earth Worshipping Fools. And he’s surely forgotten the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good…

  • Barry Fitzgerald

    With all due respect to the office Judge Joyner occupies, when he was a circuit judge in Shelby County he always put wet finger in the air before he ruled to see which way the political winds were blowing. For him, having a spine of jello, they seemed to always blow in favor of the rich and powerful. He will vote against Chief Justice Moore, then wash his hands like Pontius Pilate.

  • http://HisPlaceDanville.com Stephen Anderson

    They display where their true loyalty lies. Such people put man’s opinion above God’s Law.

  • Florenca Mcdowell

    JUDGE MOORE IS RIGHT IN GOD’S EYE’S.
    I am afraid my fellow Christian’s that Satan and Obama have won another case.
    Jesus said Stay firm until I return. The left have used this establishment clause as a floor mop to be evil. Fellow Christians we can think of this. The judges which approved Abortion law are now ALL Dead and have stood before God. These Judges will someday face God for this decision. Judge Moore God Bless You and keep you safe until he returns.