Liberty and justice for all
By: Marvin Olasky, Sarah Schweinsberg
Religious liberty is indeed under dire threat from secular progressives and their allied lobbies. It must be defended for all believers of all religions in America.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Four years ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of same-sex marriage. Despite the closeness of the vote and faulty reasoning in the majority decision, that battle (unlike the 47-year battle concerning abortion) seems to be over—for now.
Persevering pro-life counselors outside abortion businesses contribute to some last-minute changes of heart, but pro-Biblical-marriage counselors are not standing outside city halls and wedding chapels pleading with same-sex couples about to make their vows.
The gay lobby, though, is not declaring victory and going home. It’s pressing for unconditional surrender, not just acceptance. Christians need to respond to attacks carefully and non-hysterically. That’s why Becket attorney Luke Goodrich’s Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America—a reasonable and hype-free work—is WORLD’s Book of the Year in the Understanding America category.
The battle over wedding cakes and nuptial photographs is only one among others—contraception and abortion are still hot issues—so Goodrich’s overview gives an excellent context for understanding the headlines of the next several years. Here’s an abridged and edited transcript of Sarah Schweinsberg’s conversation with Goodrich.
You write that violations of religious freedom are when the government demands what belongs to God. What or who determines what belongs to God versus the government? In American law, we start with freedom of belief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that freedom of belief is basically absolute. But the freedom to act on your beliefs is necessarily limited. And that’s really the hardest challenge: How do you discern the limits of religious freedom?
Do health, welfare, and safety concerns transcend any free religious context? Just because the government invokes health or safety doesn’t give it a blank check to restrict religious practices. Take our Hobby Lobby litigation in the Supreme Court. The government required many businesses across the country to provide insurance coverage for all forms of contraception, including those that could cause an abortion.
What happened? We invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. It creates a balancing test, says if the government is going to substantially restrict religious practices, the government must prove that imposing the restriction on the religious person is “the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.” And so the government has to have a really, really powerful interest, a compelling interest—and it has to show that the law is really the only way to further that interest.
Has the federal RFRA lost support? It passed in 1993 by unanimous consent in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate. Bill Clinton signed it into law. A diverse, bipartisan array of civil rights groups supported it. Fast-forward 20 years. Progressive groups called them a license to discriminate against LGBT individuals. If you look at how RFRA and state RFRAs have been applied in the 25 years since enactment, they have not been used as anything like a license to discriminate. They’ve primarily benefited religious minorities.
You write that when religious freedom is violated or restricted, other human rights will also be violated. Why do other rights hinge on religious freedom? Religious freedom is rooted in human dignity and who we are as human beings. When the government restricts religious freedom, it’s basically denying who we are as human beings and denying the image of God in human beings. Once the government takes that to itself, there’s really no more limit on what the government can do.
Why should Christians be concerned about protecting the religious liberties of all religions? One argument is from self-interest: When the government has power to restrict religious freedom for one faith group, it also has power to restrict religious freedom for Christians. A second reason is the argument from evangelism: We ultimately want people to come to Christ. When we use government power to suppress the exercise of non-Christian faiths, it doesn’t bring people closer to Christ. A third argument is from principle and the definition of justice. When the government restricts religious freedom, even for non-Christians, it’s doing something that’s unjust, and we as Christians should be seeking justice for all people.
What is the difference between morality and legality—and why is complete moral acceptance and not just legality so important to the dominant secular culture right now?Our culture currently draws a distinction between good religion and bad religion. Good religion according to our culture is tolerant. It doesn’t make absolute truth claims. A bad religion makes absolute truth claims and tries to evangelize and actually convert people. I think some of the modern beliefs about abortion, human sexuality, and even who we are as human persons are held with an increasingly religious fervor. It’s not enough to hold those convictions and be left alone. You want to convert others to holding those same convictions.
When is discrimination a necessary part of human judgment, and when is it morally wrong? The legal scholarship on what makes discrimination wrong is very badly under-theorized. It’s very hard to come to clear agreement on what’s invidious discrimination that the law should punish and what is legitimate “discrimination” that’s necessary for running an organization.
Do you have any predictions on how long it will take for all of these legal questions concerning abortion, gay rights, and religious freedom to shake out? We’ll be arguing about these issues or some variation of them until the Lord returns or our civilization disintegrates. But there are a lot of things we can do to push the outcome in a better direction. We’re not called to win a culture war. We’re not called to fix the American legal system as our primary calling. We’re called to honor Christ in everything we do and everything we’ve been given to do. When I’m litigating a case, it helps tremendously if the organization has thought through its religious beliefs, inculcated those beliefs throughout the organization as adopted policies that are consistent with those beliefs, and enforced them consistently but in a kind and humble manner. The other side in these cases is always looking for the bad examples. It’s extremely unlikely that we’ll have a single case that provides a clear answer and resolves all these conflicts.
How do we get people who are not religious to care about religious freedom? There are purely philosophical arguments about how religion affects society. When religious people are perceived as being in a pitched battle against everything the culture holds dear, others are not very excited to protect religious freedom. But when we’re caring for the poor, educating people, providing homes for children in foster care, providing for the needs of strangers, that opens the door for others to say these religious people are doing a lot of good, and we should respect what they’re doing.
What do Christians who are afraid of the current climate need to know? One of the biggest problems with Christians and religious freedom today is how much we’re driven by fear of losing our rights, fear of suffering, fear of losing the culture war. As Christians, we’re called to approach this not with fear but with faith. Part of that is having basic knowledge you need to know about religious freedom, where it comes from, how it’s threatened. Part is knowing about many of the victories, the good results. Ultimately, it’s getting recentered from trying to win a fight to protect ourselves, to seeking an issue of justice and trusting the sovereign God to prosper us in our work.
Christians on the other side of the spectrum who aren’t concerned at all: What do they need to understand? They need to have a consistent ethic of justice. When a Christian ministry is hugely effective in placing children in foster care and supporting foster families like Christian ministries, they are caring for the fatherless and for the widows. When it gets shut down because the government says, I don’t like your beliefs about human sexuality, that is unjust. It also harms children who would otherwise be helped. And so if you care about justice, you also need to care about religious freedom.
UNDERSTANDING AMERICA
BOOK OF THE YEAR
Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America
Becket law firm attorney Luke Goodrich shows that some leading abortion and gay rights activists are not content with legalization, acceptance, and even general approval. We’ve already seen the assault on anyone who doesn’t applaud a same-sex marriage, but what if declining to perform an abortion becomes an illegal act of sex discrimination? Goodrich shows how to combat views that not baking a wedding cake is the same as refusing to serve lunch at a diner. He also takes on misunderstandings among Christians who are pilgrims, martyrs, or beginners: Religious freedom should not be a tool for regaining Christian cultural dominance.
SHORT LIST
How America’s Political Parties Change (And How They Don’t)
Many pundits in their 20s and 30s talk of unprecedented developments in American politics, but such chatter often means that they haven’t seen something before during their brief careers. Michael Barone, co-author for half a century of The Almanac of American Politics, has seen it all and refuses to panic. He points out that our current political situation resembles the polarized partisan parity of the 1880s, and that Republicans have always formed themselves around a core group considered to be “typical Americans,” while Democrats have typically been a coalition of disparate demographic groups.
Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse
Tim Carney connects the dots: White Americans are less likely to attend religious services when they are unemployed and more likely to be divorced. Less church and community involvement often leads to a give-up attitude that among 10 percent of the populace worsens job prospects. Carney is also helpful in distinguishing between two kinds of Trump supporters. When Trump was running in the primaries against opponents like Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, his base was “white evangelicals who do not go to church.” Phase two support came once Trump won the nomination: “white evangelicals who go to church.” For more, see WORLD’s Carney interview in our July 19 issue.
Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America
With gut-punching photographs and stories, Chris Arnade shows what life looks like from the “back row,” the benches of the unemployed and uneducated, the drugged and depressed, the homeless and hopeless. When Emily Belz interviewed Arnade, he described himself as an atheist who nevertheless understood the spiritual hole in many lives. Is Arnade himself on the path to faith in God? He says he doesn’t have the humility “to understand other things greater than we can understand,” but his book can help the affluent and middle class understand how the other fifth lives. For more, see WORLD’s Arnade interview in our Oct. 26 issue.
Who Killed Civil Society? The Rise of Big Government and Decline of Bourgeois Norms
Howard Husock shows how poverty-fighters a century ago promoted an American three-self doctrine: self-respect, self-control, self-government. He compares that emphasis on honesty, trustworthiness, and truth with a social work textbook published in 2012 that turns the spotlight not on what the poor can do but on how the rich “oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power.” That textbook misses the need to promote what Husock calls “constructive norms for personal behavior … the ethical soil in which individuals and their communities can thrive.”
Who Killed Civil Society? reminds me of Marsh Ward, a leftist who created Clean and Sober Streets to help drug addicts in Washington: Ward used to think society imprisoned them in a brick cell, but “if I take a guy from outside, sober him up, teach him how to read, and teach him the computer, there’s a hole in the wall for that man. He goes right through.”
Tags
Who is online
139 visitors
The battle over wedding cakes and nuptial photographs is only one among others—contraception and abortion are still hot issues—so Goodrich’s overview gives an excellent context for understanding the headlines of the next several years. Here’s an abridged and edited transcript of Sarah Schweinsberg’s conversation with Goodrich.
You write that violations of religious freedom are when the government demands what belongs to God. What or who determines what belongs to God versus the government? In American law, we start with freedom of belief. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that freedom of belief is basically absolute. But the freedom to act on your beliefs is necessarily limited. And that’s really the hardest challenge: How do you discern the limits of religious freedom?
Do health, welfare, and safety concerns transcend any free religious context? Just because the government invokes health or safety doesn’t give it a blank check to restrict religious practices. Take our Hobby Lobby litigation in the Supreme Court. The government required many businesses across the country to provide insurance coverage for all forms of contraception, including those that could cause an abortion.
What happened? We invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA. It creates a balancing test, says if the government is going to substantially restrict religious practices, the government must prove that imposing the restriction on the religious person is “the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.” And so the government has to have a really, really powerful interest, a compelling interest—and it has to show that the law is really the only way to further that interest.
Has the federal RFRA lost support? It passed in 1993 by unanimous consent in the House, and 97-3 in the Senate. Bill Clinton signed it into law. A diverse, bipartisan array of civil rights groups supported it. Fast-forward 20 years. Progressive groups called them a license to discriminate against LGBT individuals. If you look at how RFRA and state RFRAs have been applied in the 25 years since enactment, they have not been used as anything like a license to discriminate. They’ve primarily benefited religious minorities.
You write that when religious freedom is violated or restricted, other human rights will also be violated. Why do other rights hinge on religious freedom? Religious freedom is rooted in human dignity and who we are as human beings. When the government restricts religious freedom, it’s basically denying who we are as human beings and denying the image of God in human beings. Once the government takes that to itself, there’s really no more limit on what the government can do.
Why should Christians be concerned about protecting the religious liberties of all religions? One argument is from self-interest: When the government has power to restrict religious freedom for one faith group, it also has power to restrict religious freedom for Christians. A second reason is the argument from evangelism: We ultimately want people to come to Christ. When we use government power to suppress the exercise of non-Christian faiths, it doesn’t bring people closer to Christ. A third argument is from principle and the definition of justice. When the government restricts religious freedom, even for non-Christians, it’s doing something that’s unjust, and we as Christians should be seeking justice for all people.
What is the difference between morality and legality—and why is complete moral acceptance and not just legality so important to the dominant secular culture right now?Our culture currently draws a distinction between good religion and bad religion. Good religion according to our culture is tolerant. It doesn’t make absolute truth claims. A bad religion makes absolute truth claims and tries to evangelize and actually convert people. I think some of the modern beliefs about abortion, human sexuality, and even who we are as human persons are held with an increasingly religious fervor. It’s not enough to hold those convictions and be left alone. You want to convert others to holding those same convictions.
Christians on the other side of the spectrum who aren’t concerned at all: What do they need to understand? They need to have a consistent ethic of justice. When a Christian ministry is hugely effective in placing children in foster care and supporting foster families like Christian ministries, they are caring for the fatherless and for the widows. When it gets shut down because the government says, I don’t like your beliefs about human sexuality, that is unjust. It also harms children who would otherwise be helped. And so if you care about justice, you also need to care about religious freedom.
Heartland America, I have to wonder why you above many who bring forth discussions here, would venture out to tie justice to a a narrow pretext of caring for the fatherless (or motherless) and widows, as if human sexuality, namely homosexuality and its adherents, can't have a valued voice in our government. Interestingly, in harmony with the tenor of your article:
It is an injustice legally and morally for Christians to spend any of their collective time attempting to legislate any citizen out of proper civil rights in our shared national community (intended for all law-abiding people).
Are you suggesting it be better for orphans or kids removed from homes not be placed in loving homes at all or that the widow and the poor and homeless not be given aid at all of the alternative is allowing a church like the Catholic Church which doesn’t believe it should be involved in gay marriage or gays adopting kids they place tobe the ones providing support. As you know in some progressive municipalities and states that catholic social services closed down completely dumping their caseload upon the jurisdiction rather than comply with what they see as an abomination before God. Is it really worth it to society to close down catholic and Evangelical Protestant as well as JW and LDS charities because we won’t deviate from Biblical teachings on sex, marriage, families. Would it be better for recipients of such assistance we provide to get nothing in our absence?
What I am saying is churches, like the state, in harmony can feed and care for people as a whole system. However, if the church bows out. The state is "goodly" when it continues obligating itself to the 'mission' of bringing assistance to the needy of all kinds. Of course, if the state provides the assistance - God will NOT get the glory!
Jesus reminded us of these things in a parable, (so that those who can hear will and those who can not do not):
Matthew 22: 1-14
22 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Heartland American, what is the (a) spiritual meaning in this telling?
Heartland American, who is it that can declare a thing spiritually clean?
Heartland American, is it the role of the church to segregate this nation's people (choose to prefer this one and not that one), or let them grow together until God reveals in children in the midst of them, or allow one to plant, another to water, and ultimately trust that God will give the increase? This one is NOT a trick question!
the US Constitution has the final word in the matter. it's the document that allows the free exercise of religion within the legal constraints of the law. religious dogma that conflicts with the Constitution will yield to the rule of law in a secular society. xtian beliefs = all and no beliefs. t x 0 = 0
if equal rights can be amended, so can the establishment clause.
Hmmm. Heartland American - what "breaking news" of the future might you have in mind?
Excellent thought question. Especially since every form of acceptable religious freedom in 'America' (there are other Americans besides North Americans) is based on a plethora of different world religions, including the freedom to be non-religious affiliated. Furthermore, my mind "itches" to learn where Heartland American's church family, taking for granted you have one, places its limits on religious freedom.
As a believer in God, I believe we can invite people to worship as I do (alone, or in a congregation for God is pervasive everywhere), and at the same time allow them to not worship at all. All the while hoping (in faith) that God can not fail in accomplishing salvation for all whom wishes it. That is, I believe in religious and secular diversity under the Constitution which lists both equally situated side by side.
Our constitution is has inherently grand schemes of liberty for all (who follow the law) in it. The constitution underpins our dignity in this country (for all). Talk of religious freedom is concerning to religious people who can go in and out of different communities of faith. It is not the only dignity or foundation on which freedoms are rooted. Grandstanding is not a Christian value.
The constitution provides for the free exercise of religious beliefs in the days day living of our Ives and does not compel us to do something that is anathema to them in order to not be harmed by government.
Okay, if that is true:
[Deleted]
This article and the book it reviews is exactly right. It is well researched and well reasoned as to the importance of religious liberty for all.
[Deleted]
...Manipulating God's word, twisting it, misinterpreting and misapplying it, presenting a false gospel in the name of Jesus, have alarmingly become Mayor Pete's niche in this campaign – and it deserves universal censure and rebuke.
I'm fine with the fact that I disagree with South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg on virtually every political issue. We can debate those.
Even though as a Hoosier myself, I am more intimately aware of the mismanaged manure pile his administration has produced, I know that can be endured and fixed.
I am annoyed by his politically-motivated doublespeak regarding Vice President Mike Pence – claiming a positive working relationship with the "nice" Vice President, before sharpening his tongue to stab him as a "fanatical" homophobe when it was expedient. But I can tolerate that as standard political backstabbing.
Where I personally draw the line with Mayor Pete, however, is his persistent, naked attempts to hijack the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures for his own personal gain.
Manipulating God's word, twisting it, misinterpreting and misapplying it, presenting a false gospel in the name of Jesus, have alarmingly become Buttigieg's niche in this campaign. And it deserves universal censure and rebuke. If not from Americans at large, at least from Christians.
As a Christ-follower, my people are His people. My primary citizenship is in His kingdom. My principal concern is the propagation of, and fidelity to, His truth. And since Mayor Buttigieg has chosen to make the central focus of his presidential campaign this effort to misrepresent the Word of God to a watching world, I'll happily go on record issuing a full-throated and unequivocal condemnation.
In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, Buttigieg declared,
"There's simply no way that a literal understanding of Scripture can fit into the Bible that I find in my hands. Jesus speaks so often in hyperbole and parable, in mysterious code."
To anyone who takes Scripture seriously, this was a jarringly incoherent thought. Biblical scholars – including unbelieving ones – understand that far from any "mysterious code," Jesus of Nazareth employed the use of parables in His teachings to ensure the lessons would be within the grasp of even a child. Buttigieg's confusion on that point is either insincere for convenience sake or frighteningly revealing about his lack of exposure to the biblical text.
The Bible itself is a remarkably broad compilation of ancient texts that employ a wide range of genres. There are proscriptive texts as well as descriptive ones. There is poetry, personification, parable – and as any academic worth his salt will affirm, context doesn't reflexively prevent "literal understanding" of a text.
What this intellectually silly statement does do, however, is reveal precisely why Mayor Pete swings so wildly and misses so badly when he attempts to speak from a position of biblical authority: he doesn't understand or even appear to want to understand the Bible.
What he wants is what all human nature wants: to justify acting on his own urges and desires.
Mayor Pete wants to justify acting on his own same-sex desire and urge to be with another man romantically. So despite the objective condemnation of such relationships in Scripture, Buttigieg "contextually" erases such prohibition and declares,
"My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes…it has moved me closer to God."
Mayor Pete wants to justify his own politically-motivated support for abortion. So despite the objective Scriptural affirmation of the inviolability of life in the womb, Buttigieg cherry-picks the singular account of God animating the first human by breathing life into his lungs, and irresponsibly extrapolates outward to say,
"[T]here's [sic] so many parts of the Bible that associate the beginning of life with breath that there's plenty of scriptural basis to reach different conclusions about that."
Mayor Pete wants to justify his own goodness and promote himself a man of merited self-righteousness. So despite the objective teaching of Scripture that salvation is received through the unearned grace of God extended in Christ's redemptive blood alone, Buttigieg piously maintains,
"My faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society."
So let's not be kids. Pete Buttigieg, like any other human being, has the right to voice his thoughts and opinions. What he has no authority to do – indeed what none of us have the authority to do – is to bastardize the Word of God in some vain attempt to give our words more meaning and persuasion than they deserve.
The gospel of Pete is merely a progressive political agenda lightly marinated in the language of Scripture. A discerning mind will not confuse it with the soul-changing power of the gospel of Christ....
Interesting, while I would need a clarification on how Buttigieg meant the phrase "mysterious code," for this occasion I would like you Heartland American to explain how parables which have spiritual meaning are "graspable" by children. The operative words being, "spiritual meaning." A child that has a discerning spirit is an exceptional thing, in my opinion.
Unless one is born again and have faith like that of a child they shall not see the kingdom of heaven.
Okay, I read it. I know it. I trust you can elucidate it. Please proceed. Start with your own faith is it "that of a child"?
this example of exclusionary religious dogma is that of a shrinking fringe cult of fundamentalist extremists that have lost relevance.
That was a paraphrase of Jesus’s words. He who said that No One can come to the father but through him . You are correct that in the last days even as the gospel gets to all the world relatively few sadly will accept it. Narrow is the path to salvation and wide and well travelled is the road to destruction. Salvation is not a popularity contest.
there is more than one path. we are free to pick our own path. my chosen path is equal to all others, in this country, and all paths are equal to none. respect my right to be free from religion.
These thoughts are not so far apart and certainly not stepping on one another. Jesus pitied all who were being oppressed by the Devil, yes or no? Not sure why this si hard to understand and relate to.
What this intellectually silly statement does do, however, is reveal precisely why Mayor Pete swings so wildly and misses so badly when he attempts to speak from a position of biblical authority: he doesn't understand or even appear to want to understand the Bible.
What he wants is what all human nature wants: to justify acting on his own urges and desires.
Mayor Pete wants to justify acting on his own same-sex desire and urge to be with another man romantically. So despite the objective condemnation of such relationships in Scripture, Buttigieg "contextually" erases such prohibition and declares,
"My marriage to Chasten has made me a better man. And yes…it has moved me closer to God."
Mayor Pete wants to justify his own politically-motivated support for abortion. So despite the objective Scriptural affirmation of the inviolability of life in the womb, Buttigieg cherry-picks the singular account of God animating the first human by breathing life into his lungs, and irresponsibly extrapolates outward to say,
"[T]here's [sic] so many parts of the Bible that associate the beginning of life with breath that there's plenty of scriptural basis to reach different conclusions about that."
Mayor Pete wants to justify his own goodness and promote himself a man of merited self-righteousness. So despite the objective teaching of Scripture that salvation is received through the unearned grace of God extended in Christ's redemptive blood alone, Buttigieg piously maintains,
"My faith teaches me that salvation has to do with how I make myself useful to those who have been excluded, marginalized, and cast aside and oppressed in society."
So let's not be kids. Pete Buttigieg, like any other human being, has the right to voice his thoughts and opinions. What he has no authority to do – indeed what none of us have the authority to do – is to bastardize the Word of God in some vain attempt to give our words more meaning and persuasion than they deserve.
The gospel of Pete is merely a progressive political agenda
What does Mr. Buttigieg marriage have to do with you? What does his homosexuality have to do with you? How can he exist in the same land as you, be treated legal as you, but never fair and equal like you?
You are both a citizen of this country under its civil authority and a citizen of Heaven under its spiritual authority. You have discovered ways to scripturally make life work for you and yours, but you stare down and begrudge another man a fair and equal means of doing the same.
Fix your own house; sweep around your own doorstep. You will find it laborious enough to get those you agree with on one accord. God does not need you to issue faith or manage it. God asks you to "have it," faith that is.
You can not give it to another and you can not take faith away. What is it to you if God saves a homosexual in love and marriage to another man or woman?
I would like to "bottom-line" this concern before or in order to keep it from developing legs.
It is not anyone's business in and out of the Bible to just who can be God's servant. Jesus exampled making servants, plural, of plenty of individuals the religious class considered unworthy to sit at 'holy tables and events'; let us go check it out in our bible.
Our "duty" as believers is to be a friend and a joy to others in and out of the faith. We do not accomplish this by conducting ourselves selfishly and compulsively on others. After all, since we profess to be God's children, de facto, we are relieved of doing what God ("the buck stops here") reserves for God. "God gives the increase."
It is the duty of God to change the heart of men, women, boys, and girls through the unique sharing of God's Spirit. Have faith in God. What is our role?
We are to example to the best of humanly possible, agape love. To love everybody from God down to offering our best stewardship of the earth and its animals—including humanity! (All God's "children.")
God being judge will accomplish all that God will in Pete Buttigieg. And, if we have faith in God - we have faith that God can do it.
All we owe anybody as believers is the love of God from above as an experience spreading throughout the Earth. To the measure of our ability to perform it. Anything less and it calls who and what we SAY we are into a major question.
They attempted to sodomize Angels. Their sins were great before that. Nonetheless Jesus told Abraham that He would not destroy the cities if there were even 10 righteous persons between them. There were none. God saved Lot and the family that would come with him for Abraham’s sake. Lot and his family never saw Abraham again and were never again listed among Gods people in the Bible.
Yes indeed, Sodom and Gomorrah had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
Where do you go to find the actual Word of God? Scripture? Do you literally read the words in your King James (or other modern English version) Bible and run with that? If so then you apparently believe that homosexuals must be killed.
Is that your belief, that homosexuals must be killed? If not, then you too apparently 'bastardize the Word of God'.
White Evangelicals support Donald Trump for president: That happens. Nuff said. Speaks volumes.
That is a political issue. Trump was to most Christians a better choice than Hillary based on their position on key issues.
And yet you criticize Buttigieg for having faith that includes God and telling consistent truth on a daily basis. How does the Bible explain sins of omission and lies of omission to you, Heartland American?
Buttigieg is twisting the Bible to say things it doesn’t in an attempt to rationalize his personal abominations to God. He also believes in being saved in part by works rather than being saved by grace through faith alone and that the the resulting works in our lives are done because we love Him and want to please Him not because we can be saved by them.
You can claim that about any Abrahamic religion except for those rare few that literally interpret. Even then, nobody has the original source so there is no way to actually literally interpret the Bible.
What, you mean being homosexual?
In my view, those who use the Bible to claim that the grandest possible entity, the creator of everything considers homosexuality to be an abomination are insulting this entity. They are using the words of ancient men who express their own mores and values while claiming same to be divine wisdom. Pretty offensive stuff to deem to be coming from the supreme being.
The New Testament....
does repeat the commands about adultery, premarital sex, and homosexuality.
In Romans 1:26-27, Paul said, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” The Bible says homosexuality is against God’s natural law with severe consequences. You can be forgiven of homosexuality. You can be forgiven of any sin. But to be forgiven of a sin, you must admit you have sinned. The Bible prohibits homosexual behavior.
The New Testament also prohibits homosexual marriage. Jesus talked about this in Matthew 19. The Pharisees said, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (v. 3).
Jesus answered, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (vv. 4-6). Jesus was saying, “If you want to know the answer to the divorce question, then let’s look at God’s original plan for marriage. Genesis says marriage is one man with one woman for a lifetime.” By affirming God’s standard, Jesus was saying that any deviation from that standard–not just gay marriage but any deviation, such as adultery, premarital sex, or unbiblical divorce–is sin because it doesn’t measure up to the perfect standard of God. Jesus said marriage is one man with one woman for a lifetime.
Why are you talking about the NT? I included the entire Bible in my comment. Your comment is evasive.
As I noted, you are taking the mores & values of ancient men and ascribing them to the supreme entity. You hold that this ancient errant and self-contradictory book is somehow the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, omnibenevolent, omnipresent arbiter of objective morality simply because other human beings have told you so. Well I do not accept the mere words of other human beings as truth. And if there is a supreme entity my guess is that it would not routinely create ~7% of the population with a homosexual orientation only to deem its own creations abominations. What an insult to think so poorly of the creator of everything.
A charge you have not yet proven, because in the New Testament, God demonstrated that the Old Testament was passing away in the vision of a sheet being let down with unclean items on it:
Heartland American, this teaching is not about food for the stomach: (continuing)
Heartland American, for brevity, I left out verses 16 through 22. You are welcome to read this at your convenience.
Peter completed the loop in his mind. God can clean up anyone God wishes in an instance. Harking back to the bible theme, "another's servant," it is not for us to decide who God can make righteous. After all, God humbled you and me in our raggedy state of spiritual lack.
We 'literally' have enough manuscript copies to paste the original biblical scripts together from their duplication. Plus, the dead sea scrolls. But, I add this as a point of clarification. As a point in passing.
The other point is besides the historical elements of the Jewish nation in the Bible; modern Christians, are more interested in the spiritual concepts within the Bible. After all, Jesus stated, 'I will not leave you orphans, but I will send Spirit to be in you.'
God is with the Jewish People. God is in the Christian. or Words to this effect. It is a marked difference, accordingly.
Tig, there is an 'elephant' in your argument:
Fair-minded thinking can allow for God to have a sense of what is right and wrong for mankind. After all, the Book does speak about "choosing" between good and evil.
Case in point (though few would like to argue this), the homosexual for centuries was considered 'nasty and gross.' The pedophile continues to be a 'monster.' But to extend this affirmation by "percentage" argument out to those with a pedophile orientation a supreme entity would not routinely create -- of the population with pedophile orientation only to deem its own creations abominations.
Some of these issues are complex for the human mind to equate across the board, I know. So we are compelled to look for 'safe-harbors' in thought. When we are being fair. . . .
Your larger point here has to do with "God's best." But not all men, women, boys, and girls, can perform at God's best. Thus, the provision of Jesus Christ come in the flesh to cover that which no man, woman, boy or girl can do - none can deliver itself before a pure Spirit. We 'hide' in Christ in order to come near God.
Case in point. It is easy for you, Heartland American, to pontificate about sexual orientation for it is obvious (or is it?) your orientation is on the 'right side' of the 'ledger. Making it easy-peasy for you. Moreover, you can flatly judge the "abominable" because - whew - the majority of sin states in the Book are not "abominable." Whew, again.
But do not forget what you also know as a student of the Word: What is the unforgivable sin?
And thus, all other sins can be provided for.
Copies. And, actually, more like copies of copies of copies. Second century AD original sources are far removed from original.
Well then how do you address comments from people like HA who apparently point to literal scripture to hold that God considers homosexuality an abomination? Do you agree with him that the words in his Bible can be literally translated to reveal the word of God?
He (et. al.) holds up the literal Bible and claims God's word. I, in contrast, would hold up the literal Bible and argue that this cannot possibly be the word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent arbiter of objective morality.
Good point.
One might indeed argue that God has some mysterious reason for creating pedophiles. That it is ultimately a good thing (inexplicably). But that same claim cannot be made about homosexuals. Per the Bible, God deems homosexual acts an abomination. Thus we have God deeming what He created an abomination. I suppose one could argue that God considers homosexual acts an abomination but there is a greater good that justifies these abominations.
Should be clear that this 'greater good' thinking is a grand excuse that logically makes no sense. It essentially is the old 'God works in mysterious ways' excuse that serves as a wildcard out for any logical contradiction. Clearly you understand why that does not persuade me.
That said, do you believe that God considers homosexuals to be an abomination?
Yes, manuscript copies. Sufficient for the task. And the Dead Sea Scrolls. When you compare one with others you can build the whole picture as one word fills in another 'page' and so on and so forth. However, I have no abiding interest in 'developing' how we came about our 'book' in this discussion.
Heartland American? The Word of God? For believers of the Book, yes. For others no. Emphatically.
You will get a more definitive answer from HA about what HA is doing to get his positions. I have a sense of it, yes, but it is too involved for me and honestly HA is doing pretty good to hang with us this long! I am actually delighted he is. (Smile.)
I can not get into other people's worldviews in this way. Let HA share HA. (Smile.)
I'm going to table that 'round' of questioning on the grounds that this discussion is about fair-mindedness. A willingness to look at both sides of all sides of an argument honestly and without deceit before forming a conclusion. If a conclusion is possible.
That was all about God commanding Peter and the disciples to take the Gospel to the gentiles whom they had viewed as unclean. God was transferring His chosen people from a national race to a global church of which gentiles were to take an ever increasing role. He isn’t saying that creatures he’d forbidden before for our own good health are now ok to eat if we just pray over it. We said grace over our food before and after that.
That is in my message @4.3.7. Maybe read it again. The rest of your message is partially confusing. Maybe a quick rewrite is in order, before I reply?
[delete]
Well alrighty then.
I'm going to pick on this piece: ":And so if you care about justice, you also need to care about religious freedom. "
Religious freedom, or as it is usually stated "sincerely held beliefs".
"On day one of Warren’s trial, Franke and her colleagues Elizabeth Reiner Platt, Kira Shepherd, and Lilia Hadjiivanova published a sweeping report illustrating how the federal government has routinely sided with right-wing or conservative causes in religious freedom cases. “The federal judiciary has been treating religious liberty claims, RFRA claims of progressive social activists, very differently than when those faith-based claims are being made by conservative evangelicals,” Franke said.
Collins’s decision in Warren’s case signaled a repudiation of that trend, Franke went on to say. “Not only is the verdict a kind of indictment of the federal government’s immigration policy, but it’s also an indictment of the way they’re protecting religious liberty,” she added. “I have to say, I am delighted because the other RFRA claims that have been raised in the last several years by progressive social activists have been rejected completely by federal judges. So, this is the first one we’ve seen where the judge has positively analyzed a RFRA claim in favor of the defendant, and it’s quite remarkable.”
HUMANITARIAN VOLUNTEER SCOTT WARREN REFLECTS ON THE BORDERLANDS AND TWO YEARS OF GOVERNMENT PERSECUTION
Alright, lets care about religious freedom, lets care bout sincerely held beliefs. But lets care about them in an even handed way. Lets care about all peoples beliefs.
The key issue with this type of article and all those who make similar claims is that theirs is the only correct viewpoint. This deliberately puts them in conflict with anyone who believes otherwise. What the authors of these articles and books really want is for this to be "their" country and no one else need apply.
This author and those before him are all direct descendants of the writings and political activities of Francis Schaeffer.
Interesting.
It's more than interesting. If you want to understand the political activities of the evangelicals, you need to know the writings of Schaeffer and his political activities. Many of the evangelical right do not know their own history. Shame on them. I lived it once upon a life
Schaeffer convinced the evangelicals to focus on one issue, abortion. It matter what else the candidate believed as long as they were anti-abortion. Now we have their heritage to live with.
Isn't he the one who has a son that turned against the evangelicals? The name sounds familiar.
Yes. Emphatically.
Hello Steve Ott! "How Shall We Then Live?"
I know who Francis Schaeffer was during his life. He is the father of "modern" Evangelicalism. He wrote a video series which I have watched in its entirety. When alive he was very articulate and keenly insightful and smart. He was closely knitted and vice versa with the great past and present leaders in White Evangelicalism.
His son, Francis Schaeffer grew up to inherit his ministry empire, but chose not to. Francis Schaeffer speaks out against the evangelical movement is father started and pioneered.
I am sure there is much I do not know because of time and lack of continuing to learn. If you care to inform me, us, by all means do so. I will pay attention and check it out.
Yep.
Francis wrote the books, his son Franky directed the videos and movies. Franky got turned off by the blatant hypocrisy of the evangelical movement in being willing to support immoral politicians as long as they would vote correctly on the issue of abortion.
Religious liberty and the free exercise class including conscience clause exceptions as needed should be provided to all believers of any religion and the practitioners of no religion at all. Religious liberty 🗽 by definition is for all.
Your delusions do not give you the right to discriminate against anyone.
And no decent human being would even want to discriminate against anyone.
I actually find it fascinating that you would put that in writing. I can only hope that you personally practice it.
There are however, far too many who don't believe that way. They believe it is for christians only and even then, the right kind of christians. Some go so far as to say the full force of the government should be used to enforce correct belief and action. In other words, they want an enforced culture.
I don't know that the author of the above book wants that type of thing, but I am not overly impressed by his answers to the questions asked. Then again, most of these things are just advertisements for the book.
Even the ambassador for religious liberty Sam Brownback and his top assistant Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said and believe as I wrote about religious liberty being for all people regardless of beliefs or none at all.
Jesus never condemned homosexuality as an abomination with a death penalty. At the best one could only argue that he did it indirectly with Matthew 5:17.
So Jesus might not fulfill the laws of Moses with the death penalty but he certainly suggests that these laws were ALL correct. Yet another logical flaw in the Bible.
Christians today read the Bible as a unit, not as its component parts standing alone. In other words, we see a 'host' of trouble situations in the life and times of biblical figures, and yet new believers are joining the faith in small or large numbers somewhere on the planet everyday. And as popularized by comedians, many homosexuals serve in the churches. Only a fool would join up and participate in an organization they perceive wants them dead. That is one thing
If as you state above and I quote, Jesus might not fulfill the laws of Moses with the death penalty but he certainly suggests that these laws were ALL correct." What justification could Jesus give for not finishing with death to homosexuals if he agreed in the correctness of the laws? Well? Clearly, there is more to this. It is why mature believers continue to read on for discernment beyond merely reading the words. As believers we are captive to this faith and its "book" it behooves us to understand it as best we can. Others (outsiders) can stand a ways off and 'pitch' and pick faults with it. Believers do not have that as a luxury. That is another thing.
"Everything is accomplished." Tig, what does your discernment tell you about this phrase issued from Jesus? I would like to know how you process it. Please be clear. That is my last thing.
That is wise. The problem with that, however, is that the root of the belief —the Bible— does not comport with the beliefs. People (wisely) abstract far from the actual content of the Bible and rely upon a much sanitized, far better abstract interpretation. Basically the interpretation is one that portray a wise loving God who cares for His creations and has a grand plan that can, with faith, lead to a glorious everlasting life. To get to such an interpretation one absolutely must cherry-pick and spin the actual content of the Bible.
This is why I often note that Christianity would be so much better if it were to relegate the Bible as merely the words of ancient men from which one can learn their beliefs, traditions, history, etc. but not view these words as the divine words of a perfect God. Take the Bob Nelson approach of 'God is Love' and believe that there is a creator who cares for its creations. Take the Francis Collins view that nature reveals God and try to understand the creator in terms of that which has been created.
In result, one can believe in a creator without contradiction and by not ascribing characteristics, history, etc. to the creator one is actually holding true to the evidence. You get the God you desire and are not burdened by an errant, contradictory ancient book which, in effect, is a great argument against its own claim of divinity.
Call it what you wish. Some would say certain scriptures are 'dated,' defunct, un -republic, and fulfilled. Yet it happens every day somewhere on the planet that lives are changed for the better, and "the Book" is the: Psalm 119:105 105 Your word is a lamp for my feet , a light on my path . Believers can not deny "the Book" has its peculiar power.
Tig, what does your discernment tell you about this phrase issued from Jesus? I would like to know how you process it. Please be clear.
People can (and clearly do) cherry-pick (as I noted) from the book and make a persuasive pitch. The book (all of its content), however, is its own best evidence that it is not divine.
Well, since you have decided the value of the Bible what remains to discuss?
That the OT law is in place and in full effect until Jesus has accomplished His purpose (which implicitly is the final judgment).
Nothing from my perspective. I know your position and you know mine. If you think I am wrong you can always make an argument. But you know that I have plenty of material to back up my position.
All the ceremonial laws designed either for tribal Israel or the lead up to the cross were done away with at the cross. Gods eternal law, to love the Lord God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves which amount to the first four and last six of the Ten Commandments is still Gods law and forever will be.
Not interested in your off topic secular humanist clap trap here. Keep it on your heavily censored so called critical “thinkers” site.
I am not a humanist. It is extremely rare (usually there is no need) for Critical Thinkers to take any action; only when the poster is being malicious and refuses to stop. (Take a hint.) And if you engage in religious discourse in your seed, you do not get to deem others engaging likewise 'off-topic'.
So homosexuality is not an abomination? God is good with it now?
There was nothing malicious that I posted to your seed. At any rate consider yourself ignored across the site.
It is, always has been, and always will be. No, God is not good with it now.
nothing about the catholic church is divine including their attempt to co-opt and cash in on christians by writing that book.
You are contradicting yourself:
If all the ceremonial laws were done away with then homosexuality is no longer considered an abomination punishable by death.
And I mine. (Smile.)
If this is the case, why is there a New Testament (NT)? And, what did Jesus mean by this:
John 19
28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished , to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.
"It is finished." He said .
Tig,
And what means this verse from Matthew at the moment of Jesus' last breath?
Matthew 25:
51 And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom ;
What is the meaning of the Temple veil?
Let's skip the 20 questions and get to your point. What is your interpretation for the passage?:
I presume you consider Jesus' death to be the fulfillment of the OT laws. If so, does that mean that homosexuality is no longer an abomination subject to death?
Sorry. I won't be 'skipping' anything we need to get to the bottom of. Either you know and should share your knowledge of this, or you should take the time to discover another's (in this case biblical Matthew's and John's points of view) perspective. It is the intellectually honest thing to do and that is what this article is stressing for us to do.
Skipping ahead, and it is NOT 20 questions, about a single point, won't make you any more informed than you are now about the things accomplished , things finished, or the split temple veil.
The operative question starting this was the notion that Mosaic laws such as the death penalty for homosexuality was abolished by Christ's death. You hold that these laws were fulfilled by Christ's death (and thus the New Covenant). But, of course, opinions vary on which laws were abrogated and which still apply under the NC. We are talking about what you specifically believe (because interpretations vary). In your interpretation of NC, is homosexuality no longer an abomination?
If you do not want to answer that is fine, but I am not going to sit here and answer a string of questions about one of many interpretations of the Bible when the ending question is already on the table.
By the way, so you know, here is what I will ask next (and I would be surprised if you answered it). If God no longer considers homosexuality an abomination then did He change His mind? After all, homosexuality is still, it would seem, considered a sin in the NT ... but not an abomination. Is homosexuality (biological sexual orientation) somehow different under the NC?
Arguing matters of belief and God and the Bible with him is a fruitless effort. This kind of “debate” is fruitless for believers trying to get heard with people who are still objectively undecided. He will literally be arguing that God can’t be and that the Bible isn’t Gods word to humanity right in the face of the literal 2nd coming despite all the evidence then to the contrary.
People have been predicting the second coming for thousands of years and haven't been right yet. But somehow I'm supposed to believe you?
And it's very arrogant to believe that you alone have the right answer. For all you know, Vishnu will ride in on his white horse - and then where will you be, worshipping a false god?
I will indeed argue that the Bible is not divine and that the God character defined by the Bible is impossible because the definition is a contradiction (e.g. a perfect omniscient entity cannot be surprised or disappointed). My argument is based on the errancy and contradictions in the Bible and the lack of supporting evidence for its claims.
This does not mean there is no God but rather that the God of the Bible does not exist: is impossible by its own definition.
This is how debate works, HA. People have different views and will produce competing arguments. Some rise to the occasion and put forth an argument. Others run from the challenge and simply repeat claims.
Evidence that you always fail to deliver.
Note also that you proclaim:
I wonder if CB (to whom you just replied) agrees with your view that the NC retains the notion that homosexuality is an abomination. That God considers homosexuality an abomination.
Many will be angry with God for conditioning their eternal salvation to something so simple as rational faith and living accordingly having never showed them some big sign or wonder they demanded as a condition of belief
I call for intellectual honesty here and now. Fair-mindedness means looking at both sides of an issue. Are you saying you won't do that?
This brings to mind Senator Lindsay Graham's, "I won't read the transcripts. . . ." It is a fear of being informed sufficiently to have to act based on proper information.
You can criticize what you do not understand, you can do that, but it does make the point: Apparently you don't know what Jesus accomplished, finished, or the meaning of the split temple veil.
And if you can't be bothered with a 'pesky' thing like fair-mindedness, why write an article showcasing the topic? (On this site.)
Well Heartland American does that mean you are willing to step up and talk bible 'shop' in Tig's stead? For example, what does. . .
mean to you?
I read your comment and understand your interpretation (it is conventional). I summarized your interpretation in my last comment:
If that does not reflect your interpretation then correct it. If that is indeed your interpretation then move to the next step and answer my question.
Honestly, if God existed and behaves as the bible claims it does - it is incredibly evil and I want nothing to do with it now, much less for eternity. The bible describes a genocidal maniac who commands its people to murder, to rape, to enslave, and who punishes people horribly merely for disobeying it or bruising its massive ego (and also punishes people who DIDN'T piss it off, because of its jealous rage). It has serious anger management problems and, if it were human, would be on trial for crimes against humanity.
I can't worship evil, unlike some people. And unlike some people, I don't go around wishing I could discriminate against others and want "conscience clauses" enacted into law (against the Constitution) that would allow me to do just that. I have better morals than that.
I hope you're very accepting if you get tortured for eternity because you backed the wrong deity. After all, it's something so simple - picking the right god and sucking up to its ego, correct?
We all know that's just "Crap".
If everyone was to be "Fair", there wouldn't be a need for "Both Sides" !
"Life"....is NEVER a "One Way Street" !
What a boring world it would be if that were the case ! Just "Plug yourself in" and "regenerate" !
I love that we MUST "Reach across the aisle" stuffy shit too ! It's a "FOR ALL" thingy ! Individualism is NOT Wanted !
We'll put you down as one against God.
You have left a quote of yours open for consideration. Do you hold that the OT law is in place for Christians until the final judgement? Yes or No? Please clarify.
How stupid.
I can't be "against" something that doesn't actually exist. I am against the immorality of many of this god's followers, but that's a different matter.
The character "God" as written in the bible is a psychopathic genocidal egotistical jerk. I'm not fond of the character "Joffrey" as written in Game of Thrones, either.
What the heaven? It Is Me, do you even know what Tig and I are getting after? If so explain yourself here and now. If not, you can simply ask and receive.
If I knew you were reading my post, I would have made it easier for you to understand.
Maybe next time.
I am always surprised and amazed at how much time and effort those who do not believe in God spend bashing Him.
Pretty weird.
No that is not what most Christians believe. Christians interpret the crucifixion to cleanse the sins of all mankind and to end the OC and begin the NC. The interpretations vary (as always) on what is meant by the OC (in particular which parts are ceremonial vs moral). The 10 commandments, for example, still apply under the NC. You are being both vague and evasive instead of stating your meaning so I do not know what part of the OC (if any) you believe continues to the NC.
You asked my interpretation (you did not ask me the common Christian interpretation or to guess your interpretation) and I gave you a response that holds true to the meaning of the word 'everything' (also note: "until heaven and earth disappear"). If everything is accomplished then there is nothing left. Logically, however, the second coming of Christ is something and there are, per many biblical believers, specific actions Jesus will take (in particular, forgiveness and judgment). That is certainly something so everything is not accomplished. The interpretation you apparently follow ignores that but that is common practice in biblical interpretation ... it is usually imprecise and full of semantic leaps.
So quit being evasive: you implied your interpretation (in general) yet apparently refuse to confirm it. We were talking about HA's notion that God considers homosexuality an abomination even with the NC in place. Do you agree with HA or disagree? Why?
Yep !
"If so explain yourself here and now. "
I just did !
Duly noted.
yawn.
I'm always surprised about how much time those who claim to believe in a decent god post articles calling out how evil and discriminatory their beliefs are, and preaching at everyone else, and therefore I respond to correct their lies and immorality.
Nobody's forcing you to come into these articles which "amaze" you so much.
These seeders could save their attempts to convince people that discrimination should be allowed (only by them, of course) for their churches, perhaps. But as long as they seed such nasty bigoted bullshit, moral people will call it out.
No one claimed otherwise. And for the record, that ISN'T what I stated. Read it again. I didn't ever claim the article amazed me--I claimed that people who don't believe in God amaze me with the time and energy they spend bashing something they don't even believe exists.
You can climb down off your moral high-horse now.
Yawn.
I care. You have your mind made up already, so why would I waste time trying to convince you of anything regarding a God you don't believe in?
You have every opportunity to learn more about God. Whether you take advantage of that is all up to you.
I don't belong to a church. I have no mission ministry. Why would you assume such?
Here we go with the back-handed swipes. I won't complain about it being "anything" I will just continue to take my time with this. Patience is a virtue. I will continue in new comment with my thoughts on this.
Trouble is, what I noted is demonstrably correct. Do not make comments that are vague and/or evasive and I will not call you out on it.
Well now you see that is partially the problem with your biblical textual digest. Hermaneutics requires you allow the "Bible" to reckon for itself. Compare scriptures to scriptures. Of course, one has to read the Bible on a few or more occasions to compare scripture to scripture. I can not recall affirmation from you of doing so.
To be clear, to the question: " Do you hold that the OT law is in place for Christians until the final judgement?" You replied in part: "No." Then you carried on about what Christians believe. And you call me vague.
The question is about what Tig believes about the OT law and Christian s , and you redirected in. As a result, I do not have an answer from Tig's perspective. And s o that happened.
Jesus could not have meant "everything" in context of the end times in the verses under question, because John recalls Jesus uttering after taking the hyssop: "It is finished ."
Scripture verifies Jesus is talking about fulfillment of the prophecies concerning his life. Those must be fulfilled before the OT could past away. Then this:
Thus, ending the separation of God from the people. No longer would animals need to be sacrificed or worship require a priest and priests to atone for the people.
I'm going to put this one on "snooze." (Smile.)
The "Savior" comes to light again.
Actually, no. We you and me are discussing this:
6.1 TᵢG replied to Tessylo @ 6 yesterday
Jesus never condemned homosexuality as an abomination with a death penalty. At the best one could only argue that he did it indirectly with Matthew 5:17.
So Jesus might not fulfill the laws of Moses with the death penalty but he certainly suggests that these laws were ALL correct. Yet another logical flaw in the Bible
The operative phrase: The Fulfillment of the Law.
The problem lies with the Bible CB. The fact that human beings have stood on their heads to try to find a way to interpret the Bible in a way that makes sense to them (and it requires heavy cherry-picking and abstraction) does not make any particular interpretation divine truth. It is actually amusing to observe the machinations required to make the Bible 'say' what people want it to say while they ignore that which they wish was not written. What continues to amaze me is why people go through all this effort to believe that which actually defies the evidence. Working overtime to be wrong.
That is silly, you know that I do not believe the Bible. OT law was created by ancient Hebrews to control behavior. I do not believe it came from a creator entity. I do not believe in a divine OC and NC nor in the absurd notion that the grandest possible entity caused an hypostasis to be born as a human being so that it will be killed by His creations so that He can pay for the sins of His creations (with a barbaric blood sacrifice). It is a ridiculous story akin to the other absurd stories emanating from religion (e.g. Zeus' father Cronus killed and castrated his own father Uranus and later ate all his other children -Zeus escaped- fearing they were going to overthrow him).
My interpretation of the Bible is that it is an ancient book written by men pretending to speak for a God that they invented to influence the masses. The only way for me to discuss the Bible as you apparently want to is via a particular interpretation. That means we would have to pick a particular interpretation first. You asked how I (personally) parsed (processed) a particular passage and I interpreted the words based on their meaning. That was not me speaking about any particular Christian theology, I directly answered your question based on the most common meaning of the words of the single passage you offered. And I have explained them yet again in more detail:
In your last comment you asked me about Christian theology and I gave you the answer that any high school student could understand:
You ignore all of this (and that, CB, is indeed intellectual dishonesty). That said, I directly acknowledged your personal beliefs much earlier in this thread ...
... yet you continue quoting scripture as if the above is not what you believe.
The operative question that started this:
What is your answer? (Cognitive dissonance?)
Let's go with that. We will take the most common Christian interpretation of the OC / NC as our basis. There is significant disagreement on what of the OC survives in the NC. A key point of debate is the ceremonial vs. moral laws. The 10 (well 9) commandments is clearly OC law that survives into the NC so by definition there is overlap.
So is homosexuality no longer an abomination?
[Ignored.]
I am going to ignore your interpretation of Christian scripture and OT scripture too. After all, as you wrote in your comment about yourself:
Tig: "I do not believe the Bible."
Everything you TRY to invoke after that is irrelevant. You even deteriorated from intellectual honesty (fair-mindness) into blatant attack upon early Judaism:
Basically, you call Judaism a fraud and a big, big, fat lie. Maybe even an 'eternal' conspiracy racket, too? Moreover, you charge every Christian that has ever lived and alive today dupes, frauds, and well, worse.
[Deleted]
Your modus operandi throughout.
I think we are done. You have evaded the operative question at every turn and this most recent attempt at dramatic embellishment shows your rhetoric will simply grow uglier.
Defined as what? Actually, . . . you won't take anything common or otherwise biblically. You don't have a common interpretation of the OC or NC to display as a meaningful foundation, because you do not believe there are any covenants whatsoever. Admit it is true and move on.
Ditto. Your turn to 'grandstanding' was expected sooner or later. Of course, "team spirit" cleaned it up for you! Of course team spirit did!
I have not evaded anything with you, because I am not discussing homosexuality with you. You appear desperate to anchor my discussion to a 'talking point' of yours with homosexuality as its work-horse. Up to now, I simply have no interest in your need.
As a homosexual, who is a Christian I simply reserve my privilege to get around to your 'points' on my timetable and not 'at your demand.' Some issues need clearing up beforehand. And going forward, if I see you abuse yourself of biblical scriptural, I will consider that I have no choice but to call the 'abuse' out!
[Deleted] Or, is it that I state Tig rants like everybody else. Intellectual honesty demands a clarification!
Okay another day, let's try something different.
I am interested on your take regarding the OC to NC. As I noted, there is no clear agreement on what portion of the OC survives in the NC. Ceremonial laws are typically considered obsolete, but moral laws are a different story.
This is simply opinion at this point since nobody (obviously) knows. But I am curious to see the specificity of your beliefs. That is, when you speak of the NC replacing the OC, what do you actually believe that means? What of the OC no longer applies?
Well said. Thanks for All of your valuable comment.
Exactly. It’s alway like that.
I put him on ignore a few days ago. I wasn’t surprised by your post that he would try to use orientation to divide Christians from each other and some toward non belief.
You are the only individual, in this seed, who has deemed homosexuality to be an abomination in the eyes of God.
Hopefully most Christians disagree with you and do not consider homosexuals abominations. Most Christians likely view naive, bigoted views such as that to be swept under the rug via the OC⇨NC 'feature' of Christianity. It is an out that certainly makes sense to take. Similarly with slavery; God certainly could not be supportive of owning another human being as property so I suspect most Christians have found ways to make that go away.
But, then again, when it comes to specifics, religious beliefs vary considerably even per individual. Who knows what an individual considers OC and what is NC (and what parts of OC survive as part of the NC)?
If the Bible baffles you as a non-believer perhaps you should unstrap yourself of its burden to straightened out. Christianity has not survived two thousand years plus, because it can be gaslighted. That you don't "get" why a homosexual or group of homosexuals won't walk away from an 'organization' which spurns them, should give you great pause. As to what the heaven is really going on here.
World religion is clearly not your "problem." Hey, how about this: we can use some critical thinking in the politics arena here on NT right now where Trump has weaponized chaos.
Actually Heartland American, I feel like a 'ping-pong ball and a net' emotionally at this stage. And, it makes me angry as heaven! (Not good.) I am going to stedfast take on this 'pile' facing me. Slowly, it will come down with diligence. . .on all 'counts.' (Smile.)
The Bible does not baffle me in the slightest.
The evidence clearly shows it to be the work of many ancient men over long periods of time who adapted stories they have learned and created new stories based upon their times. If one reads the Bible with that in mind it makes perfect sense.
It is when one tries to read the Bible as the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. entity that the need to try to explain it with creative (albeit inconsistent) reasoning arises.
All the mentions of spiritual rebirthing and its needs do not bewilder you? That's new.
I see you "enhanced" your earlier paragraph with rhetoric. My paragraph above still stands.
Well if you read the 'rhetoric' then you would see why the Bible is no mystery to me. Seems to me that you have plenty of unanswered questions regarding the Bible. My questions regarding the Bible are more along the line of original intent by original authors - the domain of biblical scholarship. Basically more questions about history of how the Bible was produced. I have no questions about the religious significance because it is obvious that the religious content in the Bible is personal beliefs and fiction of ancient men. Given that, the Bible reads very much as one would expect. No wisdom beyond the capabilities of ordinary ancient men. No knowledge beyond what those men knew at the time. And, of course, plenty of errors and contradictions ... as one would naturally expect.
Now, that said, I think the Bible is a very well done collection of ancient literary works. The writers were often very skilled. But it is no more divine than The Iliad & The Odyssey.
And yet, it is a life-changing set of books with wisdom for the ages. As to knowledge, what use would it be for you or me if early biblical times were 'today'? It would seem we all have our various roles to play. Think about it.
It does have wisdom that applies today (because we are still human beings). Much in the same way that the wisdom of, say, the Greek philosophers applies today. So clearly ancient wisdom does not make a written work divine.
Does not really matter. My point is that if the Bible had knowledge in it that could not possibly be known to the ancient writers and that knowledge is later verified to be true, that would be evidence of something more than ordinary human beings providing the content. But ... nada.
As I stated before: Rhetoric.
All the mentions of spiritual rebirthing and its needs do not bewilder you? I repeat, that's new.
Well my comments have been written with simple language and I see no particularly complex concepts. But you claim that you can only comprehend 'rhetoric'.
The fact that you do not have a clear understanding of my mind should not surprise you. It does not surprise me.
What I do find fascinating is when Christians speak of the New Covenant — especially when denying uncomfortable passages in the OT — yet they clearly do not even know what, precisely, is included in the OC, what, precisely, is included in the NC and, thus, what portions of the OC survived as part of the NC.
I suspect the reason you refuse to touch this (even though you made a big deal about the NC) is that you do not have an answer; that you actually do not know. ( Apparently nobody knows so it is not a failing on your part. ) No doubt you will never admit this, but it is obvious that you do not know.
This makes HA's abomination position interesting. He clearly holds that this aspect of the OC has survived as part of the NC. I find that to be a real shame because many Christians (and Muslims) think the same way.
Now, if one views the Bible to be reflecting the mores & values of ancient men and not that of a perfect divinity, then these ancient passages make perfect sense. And, importantly, they can be freely discarded as ancient, naive views that we have grown beyond. Recognizing homosexuals as human beings (without qualification), recognizing slavery as immoral, etc. are all good things that societies have evolved to understand. But when members of those societies reach back thousands of years and try to apply ancient mores & values to modern times because they believe the Bible to be divine, we have a problem.
And you see the problem but (interestingly) refuse to acknowledge it.
@6.1.76 is simple language and the concept is rather 'regular' too for many people. But, no answer.
As for reading through the Bible books. Been there. Done that. Got my 't's."
A curious thing about evolution; it brought the Christians to a state known as "democracy." And democracy has interesting properties. Like different tribes striving to develop together, pushing and pulling against each other and achieving various outcomes. Ain't it grand? After all Christians concepts bumped into atheists concepts and well here we are with homosexuals unafraid to marry in America. Apparently, God didn't fear letting "the nations" grow together or what would become of us once we do.
But, of course, no answer; just a claim of knowledge. I would have been surprised if you had actually provided an answer. Not sure how you resolve the cognitive dissonance; that is the interesting part.
Answer @6.1.79 it's wide "open."
Jesus often condemned or commented where the Jewish religion of his day went wrong from what He the son of God intended. He said nothing about homosexuality because on that issue the religious leaders of His day did not deviate from Gods original intentions as in it being an abomination to Him.
So that means Jesus agrees with Mosaic law and would not object to someone killing homosexuals.
bigoted bullshit
LGBTQ didn't make the top 10 commandments. does a town named sodom ring any bells?
Yep !
Genesis 19:1-38
"The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed himself with his face to the earth and said, “My lords, please turn aside to your servant's house and spend the night and wash your feet. Then you may rise up early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the town square.” But he pressed them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house. And he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” ... "
"Thick Smoke" rose from that land.
Any sexual act outside of one man with one woman within their marriage is adultery regardless of the mix of genders involved in the act. Period. Nothing else needed to be said.
Exactly.
Now that's. . .convenient, Heartland American. Works for you, I'm guessing. So, why not leave the rest of the,. . ."contests". . .between God, Jesus, the Bible, and all individuals involved? People have to plead their own cases with God, yes or no?
Has anyone suggested rape as appropriate? I'd agree with you: Rape is "inhospitable' and a crime. Do you think rape was a crime in the times of Sodom?
Moreover, do YOU think this is a story about rape or simply about homosexuality? Both?
No. Jesus sacrifice on the cross covers all saved believes and no one else can bring a case they are “worthy” of eternal life. Every individual is saved or lost based on faith.
I don't know if you wrote in haste (as I something do), however, you have a lot of empty space in that comment to play around in. Can you tighten it up a bit for a comment?
This ...
... appears to be THE uber rule. The most horrible person on the planet will be saved if s/he believes in the Christian God. The most altruistic person on the planet will be lost if s/he does not believe in the Christian God.
Greeting of Thanksgiving to you, Tig!
Here is the beauty of having reference books of Judaism for the Christian to look back upon:
Tig, I wish you to know that I post this amount of verses for context, and not as a mere reading exercise for you. I want to share with you some deeper meaning f rom the Bible - across its many books.
We, you and I do not have to worry our minds about 'horrible' people being near or in the company of God for all eternity because:
Happy Thanksgiving CB. I am done hosting our Thanksgiving party and have time to return to NT.
The notion of God looking at the heart (i.e. at the true inner person and not being fooled by presentation) translates nicely into God knows the truth of the person. The question now is what truth does God consider of value?
HA (per the quote I provided) suggests that God looks to see if a person truly has faith in Him. If so, saved; if not, lost.
In your view God accepts diamonds in the rough and will polish them up to be worthy to be in the company of God. You agree with HA in that God does not care about achievements or failures. So you seem to also hold that the most horrible person on the planet will be saved if s/he believes in the Christian God. The most altruistic person on the planet will be lost if s/he does not believe in the Christian God. The most horrible person (diamond in the rough) will be cleaned up by God in your view (it seems). The most altruistic person (albeit without faith) will simply be lost.
So do you disagree with my post @6.2.10? If so, I do not see where.
Eureka! This is what some believers work so hard and all their life for - in an attempt to prove their value (worth) to God! Some others express their value to God by trusting (faith alone). Many other believers are taught to strive with God for a higher 'position' in the Kingdom; even others rely on having a proper faith that is "walked by" and not just a "Said faith."
All of these people do this while having received the sign (a seal or measure) of the indwelling Spirit from God.
&
I would consider answering you this way:
A horrible person can be saved and a kind person can not be as the cases may be. It is not for me to put myself in the place of God to say who 'suits' God's desires for 'service.'
A couple of verses to illustrate my point:
The value determination belongs to God who looks on the heart. Ultimately, it is God's kingdom to place whosoever God will into - according to God's prerogatives
&
So you disagree with HA? It is not the case that merely believing in God determines salvation or isolation?
That seems to be rather unfair and illogical too.
It is very logical if one views this from the perspective of those pushing a particular religion. What is the most important thing to the religion?: followers. What keeps followers in a religion?: faith. So it makes perfect sense to attach faith to the greatest promised reward to encourage followers. No wonder faith is deemed the ultimate virtue ... the stronger one's faith, the better.
I remember hearing something once, along the lines of: "zealots often have a logic all their own."
Makes sense to me. It sure looks that way.
How did you come to that particular conclusion? Did you talk to any religious leaders? To anyone who belongs to a religion?
Logically, a religion cannot exist without followers.
A church may be nothing more than 2 or 3 people gathering and worshipping a Higher Power.
The number of worshippers isn't the most important thing to those following a religion.
So, how many religious leaders or people who belong to a religion did you talk to before drawing your conclusion?
I don't actually understand why an eternity spent glorifying a god is such a wonderful reward. Or eternity at all, for that matter.
Many people just can't handle the thought that once you die, you're gone ... I don't understand why it's such a scary thought.
I suspect the big prize is the comforting belief that death is not the end; that loved ones and friends will be seen again. Everlasting life seems like a nightmare but that is what you get if death is not final.
I doubt many religious people would agree with that statement.
My conclusion is based on how religions operate. The original designers of the most popular religions are ancients who are long gone so no asking them about their design considerations.
But why is this not obvious to you? Every religion actively seeks followers. If it did not, the religion would atrophy and die.
And those 2 or 3 people are followers of this higher power, correct? You just made Gordy's point.
Obviously.
So you made your decision based on just what you have gleaned from a few books, and by not talking to anyone who might think differently than you do.
Telling.
Note that you have now fully twisted what I wrote. My comment was not about the motivations of the followers but rather the motivations of the religion itself (i.e. the organization).
This is what I wrote:
When you see religious 'agents' on the street ringing doorbells and passing out pamphlets what is their given goal (their instructions)? It is to get more members to join their religion (and, in particular, their church). You will always see contact information directly back to their organization and if you make contact do you really think they are not going to try to encourage you to join?
Now if the 'agents' operated entirely anonymously (no contact information, etc.) and strictly spoke of religious points then those individuals are not pushing a particular religion but are truly (in their minds) trying to save souls. An obvious example of this is the street 'preacher' warning of the end times.
Logically, humanity can not exist without people; governments can not exist without citizens; politicians can not exist without voters; causes can not exist without funders; organizations and clubs like NT can not exist without members. . . . So, I guess you're right!
As usual here you again make things up while ignoring what people write. Where do you see me talking about books and where do you find me stating that I never talk to those who think differently. Also, Texan, are you truly entirely unaware of the talking that has taken place right here on NT?
Presumption is bad enough. Presumption based on your own imagination is worse.
On top of that, it is a bit funny that you are trying to deny the obvious; pretending that organized religion is not focused on growing (and retaining) its membership.
You have got it all wrong, at least in my case. Death and rotting would be so much easier to do. What you REALLY don't seem to understand is: SPIRIT.
You can not fathom why believers accept their spirits lives on beyond death, because clearly all believers believe that the dead flesh is gone. Even Paul wrote about it:
1 Corinthians 15:42-44 English Standard Version (ESV)
42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
This is what Christians believe.
Why O why would everlasting life seem like a nightmare? Can we say that there is great work in billions of years of universe to steward? What is the business of other entities? Do you imagine we will 'graze' like the beast of the field on this world? Sit gazed upon like pets in a zoo?
Some people foolishly write and draw images of 'lazy' cloud-sitting beings. Why would anyone think that 'life' in the company of God can ever be boring? I can that life to be a great many things, I daresay not boring! Indeed, I imagine there is an incredible amount of 'work' to be done in eternity!
Because it is described as eternal worship of God (and the God in question is not entirely appealing). Also, because of the very distinct possible of being bored out of one's mind.
Now if we could opt for eternal exploration where we always have the opportunity to learn something interesting or engage in something pleasurable then that would be much better. But I personally have a hard time imagining that for eternity (never, ever ending).
If there were an afterlife, we'd be nothing but energy. And that would be incredibly boring.
I was religious for much of my life, so I absolutely can fathom why believers accept that their spirits live on under death. I just don't understand the appeal of eternal life.
Eternal learning would not be boring ... but at some point, there'd be nothing left to learn.
And many believers think that once we're dead we can watch (and possibly even guide) our loved ones who are still living - that would be horrible.
Agreed, it is the never-ending aspect that is unappealing.
We're not talking about following a religion. But rather, the religion itself. And a religion cannot exist if it has no followers.
I doubt many religious people actually contemplate what eternity or everlasting actually means, much less comprehend it's effect.
Ever notice with some how even the most basic ideas somehow get twisted and inflated from whole cloth and corrections to this mangling are never acknowledged? Is that believed by some to be persuasive?
Who would even attempt to argue that organized religion is not focused on increasing and retaining its membership?
I suppose there are those who would attempt such an argument.
The operative question becomes: In YOUR opinion, God is bored with existing for an eternity already?
' Eternal worship " is an idiom similar to some others in the Bible (not all inclusive):
There is no eternal 'church meeting'; no prayer that does not end; no kiss in the Bible is self-styled as "holy."
These are an expressions of states of mind .
Exploration! Yes! I often imagine eternal beings as creation as a whole ("worlds without end) that are in states of existence without end. (of course, I can only go from "the Book" and personal creativity.) The book of Hebrews does describe angelic beings as "ministering spirits" of one design or another, nevertheless.
To each her own, I guess. However, such a statement considers the natural state wholly alone in coming to its conclusions - as God is not some amorphous, non-intelligent 'force' for believers!
1. "There will be nothing left to learn." Sounds a lot like circa 191— when the U.S. Patent Office announced, 'Every thing that can be invented has been.' It did not turn out to be so. It would be like stating, "The universe has gone through 13 billion years of existence and there is nothing left for it to put forth." Well , we are told by our scientists that is not so!
2. Many people can think a number of things, real or imagined. What can spirits do about 'matters of the flesh'? Anyway, wouldn't there be 'rules' governing such issues?
Well Gordy, what does 13 billion years look like in the class of a universe - Infancy? Young adulthood? Middle age? Old age? Religious people and anybody else can try (and it will only be an attempt) to contemplate all the systems and elements known to man; and add to them all the systems not known. Religious people and anybody else can try (and it can only be an attempt) to calculate the 'age' of God!
That's how old eternity can possibly be!
And I was expressing my personal opinion.
You would be much better served to just go with personal creativity from a foundation of modern knowledge. That is my opinion too.
Well?
That is like asking me if Santa Claus is tired of passing out presents.
I suspect that if Santa were real that he would be growing bored.
An omnipotent, omniscient, eternal entity probably would be utterly bored.
Actually it is not. You tried to make a funny. But it is more of a 'dark' turn to comparing a spiritual being (God) to fleshly ones (Parents).
Whether or not human parents get tired of giving gifts to their children is not comparable to if God is 'sick and tired' of wholly existing during in eternity! That's a category mistake.
I suppose you think that God has in the past and/or will in some future run out of creativity? That would engender concepts of limits in realms we can not know about!
It doesn't matter how old the universe is. When it comes to religious claims, the afterlife lasts an eternity. In other words, infinite time.
Then you missed the point of the comparison. I was pointing out that you are asking me what a fictional entity might feel. Fictional because you implicitly are talking about the Christian God (rather than an unknowable, eternal sentient creator that might indeed exist) and you know I hold that the Christian God is fiction because its definition is self-contradictory and thus cannot be true.
I think that any omniscient entity would be bored by definition.
It was a indirect (side) point. No matter. You deigned to take that as literally the point and let the larger meaning go by. Of course! God is older than our universe. Why wouldn't I know this without your telling me?
God is infinitely old already by our miserly short lived standards.
Why would I assume you would waste 'quality' time on any fictional character. Sure, I know you do not believe in the God of the Bible. For that matter, you do not have any evidence for any spiritual being either. It was an 'exercise' we were working through. Until you got 'bored' with it and threw Santa in to break the linkage. I got you, Tig.
I saw what you did when you did.
Well, there you go again: If the unknowable, eternal sentient creator is as stated, then it is futile for you to even consider characterizing its current state of being. So if you ARE characterizing it, what are you really saying? Huh?
Then why bother asking the question? But I'm not talking about god. I'm talking about living in an afterlife forever. People don't seem to contemplate or understand what "eternal life" actual entails.
Do you have a point to make?
Oh, you mean **THAT ** afterlife. Excuuuussssee mmeee, then. Carry on, Gordy.
It looks like you're not interested in any real discussion. Rather, only playing games. You can go play by yourself then. I'm not interested.
I'd say apparently not.
Thanks, 'Gordy-Spock,' I give you the high road to take all by yourself; I'll follow after you later. I simply can't keep up with you. /s
He and TiG literally know it all and have no problem sharing that with all. They are the source of intellect and logic for all humanity.🙇
Glad you realize that. But we do utilize logic, reasoning, critical thinking, and actual established demonstrable evidence/facts too. Unfortunately, certain individuals do not or simply avoid that in favor of mere belief
Talk about arrogance in a written post.
Wow, someone who thinks their religion/belief is the correct one and all others are wrong, Halloween is satanic, think they need to spread their "message" to others to "save" them, ect., wants to lecture me about arrogance? How hilarious. And my post is just simple fact. You have only proved me right with your own posts before. Even funnier that you probably don't even realize it.
... and proudly, stubbornly, repeatedly declares the foundation of modern biology -biochemical evolution- to be pseudoscience and part of a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.
Indeed. Then he wonders or complains that BS of his or other evangelicals are not given the same stage time or consideration for such absurd and profoundly ignorant views. Too funny.
... and ugly since those same beliefs lead to publicly stating that homosexuals are abominations per his belief system. Bigotry enabled and sustained by ancient, naïve mores & values.
It's the dream Trump voter - Trump automatically claims that any facts that don't show what he want them to show are fake news, denies truth no matter how much evidence there is, and constantly claims that bullshit is true. Trump loves his willfully ignorant voters.
Excellent point. I am still shaking my head over his campaign declaration that he loves the poorly educated.
And how the poorly educated ate it up and didn't realize he was insulting them.
It's not bigotry. It's "religious liberty," remember? Lol
Talk about the "dumbing down" of America.
And what do we see? True Trumpian logic at work...
"If you can be proud of a good education, then we can be proud of our lack of one!"
"Yeah! Screw those college educated elitists, knowing stuff and all, being proud of their degrees and the expertise they have gained in the fields they studied! Screw those guys!"
"Yeah, we don't need those uppity climate scientists, or those engineers, or biologists, heck, why do we even need well educated doctors? Me and my cousin didn't need no engineer to build that deck out back. And when Jim Bob had that bum leg that got all infected he didn't need no doctor, he just threw it up on the table saw and zip zip, all better!..."
"Exactly! We don't need them high educated people thinking they're better than us! Stumpy proves that! And sure, your deck ain't safe for adults let alone kids, but it still works!"...
It might be funny if it weren't actually happening in some circles.
It's as if certain people value or applaud ignorance and want to remain willfully so. Go figure.
I hope that all Americans had a blessed day today giving God thanks 🙏 for all the abundant blessings we as individuals and as an exceptional nation have received from Him. Truly we have much to be thankful for as we commemorate this day with our friends and families. God bless.
Thank you for your well-wishes, Heartland American! (Smile.)
You’re welcome 😇
I didn't spend the day thanking any gods, but I had a great time cooking for my mom and two of her long-time aides. I hope your Thanksgiving was good as well.
And tonight ... I dress up as a Who for our small town Christmas tree lighting ceremony and participate in the reading of the Night before Christmas and How The Grinch Stole Christmas.