Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Iris Robinson compares homosexuality to child abuse

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert, ex-pat Brit 21 Jul 2008, 12:59pm

    This portrait of ugliness thinks that her religion belongs in the political area? She just doesn’t get it. Hers is a chosen lifestyle, a personal one at that. She should leave it at home or find a job that will accommodate her narrow, bigoted views based on a book that is contradictory, infallible and written by men, NOT by an imaginary deity that cannot be seen, touched, felt, or heard. This woman is in dire need of psychiatric help and so do others of her ilk. Further, she equates paedophilia with a gay orientation, a classic right wing tactic to cause derision, division and discrimination. What does she say I wonder about the preponderance of straight paedophiles or is that ok with her? She’s a very sick woman to put it mildly and in need of a “cure” for her religious addiction.

  2. Edward in Los Angeles 21 Jul 2008, 1:04pm

    This woman Robinson is the Anita Bryant of the EU. I say don’t worry about her, she’ll disappear. One thing I realize as I grow older that I can always count on: hatred always goes out of style. She’s having her 15 minutes in the spotlight of intolerance, she’ll be forgotten in no time. I don’t think Irish Robinson has a soul.

  3. Dear Mrs Robinson,

    As you follow the scriptures so closely, you will know that in Leviticus 20:13; the bible says; If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.

    So please Mrs Robinson, can you outside the legal protection from prosecution you have in Parliament state quite clearly that according to your caring religion, homosexuals must be killed. Come on, you big mouthed vile bigot. say it loudly and publicly, tell us what your ‘good book’ actually says; gay people must be killed.

    Or is that one of the many verses in the bible you selectively ignore.

    You, Iris are a disgrace to humanity, and preach the doctrine of none less than one Mr.Adolf Hitler.

  4. While Iris Robinson is quoting scripture, namely the very Levitcus which may contain two verses hostile to homosexuality, she should read on further. Though I doubt she has read Leviticas at all.

    He also recommends and one can only assume Ms Robinson follows to the letter that :

    o One keeps kosher (ch. 11) — as part of keeping kosher, you may eat no fat and no blood (3:16-17, 7:22, 17:10-16), meaning no potato chips, no French fries, no rare steak, etc.; you may eat no lobsters, clams, oysters, octopus, shrimp, or crawfish (11:12), no tuna casserole (mixes “meat” and milk), and no ostrich (11:16) or crocodile meat (11:30).
    o You may wear no cotton-polyester blends, or any other kind of blend of fabrics (19:19).
    o You shall not “defer to the great,” making President Bush’s pandering to the wealthy explicitly sinful (19:15).
    o You must observe Rosh Hoshanah, Yom Kippur, and the festival of Booths (23:23-43).
    o If an insect or lizard crawls across your cook pot, you must break your cook pot into pieces and throw it away. (11:30) When this rule was written, cook pots were molded out of clay by the lady of the house. Today most cook pots are stainless steel or aluminum — but if you’re going to insist on 18:22 and 20:13, you must also insist on 11:30.
    o You may not cross-breed animals (19:19). There’s nothing in the Bible against cloning, however.
    o You must stone Lance Burton and all other “wizards” to death; ditto for all astrologers and all mediums (19:26-27, 19:31, 20:6, 20:27).
    o You may not have a tattoo (19:28).
    o You must put Jenna Bush and her sister Barbara to death for the sin of sex outside of wedlock (20:10-16). Also most other citizens of the U.S. over the age of about 16 — there’s no statute of limitations in the Bible.
    o A God-fearing man may not marry a divorcée or a rape victim (21:7). (Most of the rules in Leviticus pertain only to men, since women are considered subhuman by many of the authors the Bible.)
    o If the daughter of a priest becomes a prostitute, she must be burned to death (21:9). How compassionate the priestly authors of Leviticus were!
    o You will be exiled if you see a close relative naked, even accidentally (20:17-22).
    o No priest may have acne or any other kind of blemish or physical imperfection (21:16-23).
    o Anyone who blasphemes — Marilyn Manson for example — must be stoned to death (24:13-23).
    o When a prisoner is executed in a capital punishment case, the executioner must also be put to death. Ditto for whoever puts the executioner to death. And so on, ad infinitum. (24:17, 21)
    o It’s perfectly all right with “the gods” (elohim) if you want to own slaves, but they may not be of the same nationality as yourself. Leviticus recommends that the U.S. obtain its slaves from Mexico, Russia, Cuba, and Greenland. (25:44-46; not Canada, because Canada is a dominion rather than a nation.)
    • If she does not also follow these rules, and many others, as scrupulously as you insist on applying these two verses of Leviticus, then she an dangerous, ignorant hypocrite, and may safely be ignored.

  5. PS – I wonder how old that photograph is – necks looking a bit on the scrawney side, don’t you think?

  6. NI Expat living in Netherlands 21 Jul 2008, 2:31pm

    I grew up and lived in NI and can tell you that this is not the typical view of the majority who live in the more metropolitan areas of NI, the educated and the intelligent and suprisingly christians who follow the real meaning of christianity – love peace and tolerance. Her views should not be taken seriously for one major reason…as a politian, I would expect her to understand the difference, legally, or at least with some form of intellect, between consenting sex, unconsenting sex between adults and child abuse…these are not the same! they are incomparable, how can having consenting and quite often loving relationships be compared with removing the innocence of a child or even rape. I mean Iris, dear, catch a grip of reality before people like you put NI back to where it was 15 years ago – ignorant, backward, unimportant, poor…If NI wants to retain peace, wealth and happiness for it’s citizens, and not waste all the money pumped into advertising to the world that NI is an incredibly special place (which it is..but it’s not applicable in this comment) and ready to do business, then get your politians to concentrate on making sure they keep that image alive and well and not let one niave, smalltown politian represent the entire province.

    My suggestion to Iris :- Spend more time with your shrink – I think you need it more than anyone else. And one last thing – SHUT UP – Some of us are proud to be from NI and don’t want to have you making us all out to be stupid, uneducated and/or backward. Do your job right Iris and just apologise for saying that homosexulality is worse than child abuse…you are wrong…accept that, even if you can’t accept us gays/lesbos/trannies/and all others that are not governed by your small extremist morals.

    I would also like to apologise to all PinkNews readers for my long… ;-) … rant

  7. I think she’s getting more offensive and extreme so that she can scream religious persecution whne she gets shot down.

    The fundie Xians think they have the high ground, and that ridiculous ET verdict has enthused them

  8. And society continues to compare Ms. Robinson to the homophobic, anti-Christian, anti-family buffoon that she portrays.

  9. And society contiues to compare Ms. Robinson to the homophobic, anti-Christian, anti-family buffoon that she portrays.

  10. I think it is clear that she is the one who needs counselling. I can’t think of anything more beautiful, exciting, or nicer than the delightful, fun, pleasurable and invigorating acts conducted between myself and other men or two consenting women. How these can be compared to the abuse of children is obscene, bigoted, narrow minded and ridiculous. But wait religion and religious belief is not rational is it, which must fit nicely into her world view.

  11. PLEASE!!!PLEASE!!!SHUT_UP_AND_STOP_YOUR_HOMOPHOBIC_AND_ANTI_CHRISTIAN_OPINION!!YOU_CREATED_A_DIVISION_AMONG_HUMANITY!!!

  12. This dreadful woman is an offense to humanity itself, She stands by her views as a point of religion?? i will happily go to hell if it means i can live my life the way i choose to, With offensive and perverse views like this is it any wonder churches are empty.
    I hope her god forgives her sins and welcomes her to heaven, if not, see you in hell Iris!

  13. Erroll Clements 21 Jul 2008, 3:46pm

    Was does little Ms ‘Perfect’ with the scrawny scraggy neck(in DESPERATE need of a total makeover)think the pope was apologising for last week! Because of all the child abuse within the church! Gay people generally do not go in for child abuse, they are not sick, demented or desperate people! I think this cow needs to be put out to permanent pasture or locked away with her ‘lovely’ phycho boy!

  14. Pure evil incarnate, her soul (if she has one) must be as dark as night. The bile that she spews on a regular basis is the reason that there are so many teenagers out there that would rather take their own lives then be compared with child molesters, this shuld would of course say is going against God as it is a sin to take your own life. It is a sin to hate and yet she has selective sight on that one. Her life is so sad, she is hated by so many and when her fifteen minutes of fame are over she will be nothing but a sad old dinosaur with ideas that mean nothing. One day she will be judged and not by her fellow man but by ‘the man’ or woman, or ball of energy and then she will see the error. But in the mean time……………..fire the wench. She does nothing for the world but waste oxygen and pollute the minds of those most vunerable

  15. Do you know I support Iris Robinson’s right to say such things as a citizen. The issue comes with being a public servant. But, leaving that aside for one minute. I think outbursts like this actually help the cause of gay equality. I would suggest that most reasonably-minded people will be (justifiably) horrified by what she has said – and I include those of faith. Most people of faith are moderate in this area too….therefore all Iris does is weaken her own credibility, her theological credibility and homophobia’s credibility – good on her! (The ignorant….)

  16. Oh dear the dragon is at it again. Is her life that sad that she needs to judge others. It is no wonder that countless gay teenagers take their own lives especially when they are led to believe that being gay is comparable with child molestation. This of course she would counter with it being a sin to take your own life. It is a sin to hate as well Iris!!!! But would imagine she would have a case of selective sight on that one. Her life really is quite sad, her time in the limelight will end soon and then she will be nothing but a sad old dinosaur with outdated ideas, but in the meantime…………….fire the wench!!! Perhaps she could then use the services of her lovely friend to get to the root of her hatred, perhaps her unrequited love for a man that told her he was gay just to get her off of him. Sad oh so very sad. Makes me even more proud to be gay to be honest. To have someone hate you for something that you have no control over, this is some power. I’m not going to change, and if she doesn’t like it she can lump it

  17. Just remember how much money the Robinsons and their family members employed to run their Northern Ireland political machine cost the taxpayer – it runs to nearly a £million a year.Yes – this piece of Ulster Baptist bigot filth is raking it in.The paradox is that it is Sinn Fein who support gay rights in Ulster.Maybe that is a big part of the reason for this person’s venom against the gay community.She is fortunate that gay “liberation” has never resorted to the bomb or the bullet.

  18. “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”

    Oh, right. Because I’m a girl who loves a girl, I’m worse than a paedophile? That isn’t ‘religion’, that is vile hatred from someone who obviously has major issues in her life. I think the word ‘evil’ is totally appropriate for her. She makes me feel sick.

  19. Her website:www.dup.org.uk

    Her email address: info@dup.org.uk

    Tel: 028 9052 1323

    DUP HQ:

    91 Dundela Avenue
    Belfast
    BT4 3BU

  20. is that an Adam’s Apple?

  21. Is this the ‘church’ that taught us the Earth was ‘flat!’

  22. this woman is a working professional and i think she is a disgrace.someone in her position is shoving her homophobic views down peoples throats! i think this slag needs sacking i hope she rots in lesbian hell

  23. I honestly don’t belive how this woman is comparing child abuse to same sex relationships. I was abused when I was younger and over the past few years it has been my girlfriend who’s helped me get over it. Lets hope she doesn’t last any longer.
    xXx

  24. I can’t get my head round what this woman can even think of comparing same sex relationships to child abuse! I was abused when I was younger, and over the past few years it’s been my girlfriend who’s helped me get over it. Lets hope she doesn’t last any longer.
    xXx

  25. Sean O Rourke 21 Jul 2008, 6:48pm

    **IRIS ROBINSON DOES NOT REFLECT NORTHERN IRELAND’S VIEWS WHEN SHE SPEAKS :)

    When is she going to be stopped in her outbursts against all things different?
    Did you know she stands by the importance of religion in politics.
    She is one of those crazy fundamental Christian type you see in America, and she needs to be removed. I just can’t wait for the next elections, to see how well the DUP do, as they are clearly a homophobic party.
    No other political party in Northern Ireland believes in what she has said, and have all clearly condemned her aggressive outbursts.
    She shouldn’t even be given a platform to say these things, as it just encourages homophobia in a society where we need change to get away from our troubled past of violence in Northern Ireland.
    I would liked to have seen the difference had this happened in England, or even the USA?

    -Concerned reader from Belfast

  26. Iris is as ugly on the inside as she is on the outside.

  27. maggie jones 21 Jul 2008, 7:01pm

    This woman is mentally ill. I feel sorry for her. I feel more sorry for her children, (if she has any) imagine how awful it must be to have such a monster for a mother.

  28. PAUL MARSHALL 21 Jul 2008, 7:49pm

    AN UTTER LUNATIC, WHO SPEAKS ONLY FOR HERSELF, WHEN SHE’S SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE, PLEASE GET HER OUT OF OFFICE, WHO THE HELL VOTED HER IN?

  29. “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than sexually abusing innocent children.”

    If you construe her statement grammatically what she is saying (viz. “apart from….etc”) is that homosexuality is viler. Did she really mean to say that or was it clumsy expression? I’d like to see her husband confronted with that statement and see what he does then.

  30. HOMOSEXUAL LEGITIMIZATION BASED ON BOGUS DECISION:

    There’s much more research that needs to be done on homosexual
    behavior.

    Much of this shift in the general perception of
    homosexuality has been done under the influence of medical and psychiatric “experts.” After all isn’t it better to let the “experts” guide our views
    rather than religion and prejudice?
    In his book Homosexuality and the Politics of
    Truth, Jeffrey Satinover, MD traces some
    significant developments to the early 1960s
    when “gay liberators” were seeking to push for
    new legislation and greater tolerance.

    Part of their stategy was to influence the Amer. Psychiatric Assoc. to redifine and
    destigmatize homosexuality.

    In 1963 the NY Academy of Medicine,concerned that
    there seemed to be an increasing acceptance
    of homosexuality, charged its Comm. on Public
    Health to investigate the issue.

    The committee researached the subject , consultled among themselves, and reported that
    “homosexuality is indeed an illness. The
    homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal
    capacity to develop satisfying herterosexual
    relations.” The homosexual group went beyond
    the plane of defensiveness in certain actions.

    However in just 10 years in 1973, the APA voted
    to remove homosexualtity from its official list
    of psychiatric illnesses. What happened?

    Santinover, a former Fellow in Psychiatry and
    Child Psychiatry at Yale U, comments, “Normally, a scientific consensus is
    reached ove the course of many years, resulting from the accumulated weight of many properly designated studies. But in the case
    of homosexualtity, scientific research has only now just begun, years AFTER the question was decided… The APA vote to normalize
    homosexuality was driven by politics, not
    science.

    When the APA voted on changing its classificatioin of homosexuality in 1973 a
    majority of its members who responded voted to
    change the classification of homosexuality.

    But, only one-third of the membership responded
    and had their views counted. The vote was
    not representative of the will of the body.
    Four years after the change in classification
    the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality
    reported the results of a survey it had
    conducted. The survey demonstrated that
    69% of the psychiatrists disagreed with the
    decision and still considered homosexuality
    a disorder.

    One researcher concluded that “the result was
    not a conclusion based upon an approximation
    of scientific truth as dictated by reason,
    but was instead an action demanded by the
    ideological temper of the times.”

    There’s a great deal more involved to
    explain what and why homosexuality exists and how
    broad based its behavior.

  31. She is the absolute epitome of “MEDIA WHORE”.

    She will say or do ANYTHING to get attention. It matters not if the attention is good or bad, positive or negative.

    She simply orgasms over being in the center of attention even if it’s at the center of controversy (I suspect ESPECIALLY if it’s at the center of controversy).

    Just look at the picture, she was having an orgasm the instant the flash went off.

    Ignore the hateful bitch and she’ll die the natural painful, lonely death that all trolls die once deprived of attention.

  32. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/peter_robinson/belfast_east
    Let Mr Peter Robinson her husband know how offensive Iris Robinsons latest comments about homosexuality are and how they encite hatred towards the gay community in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

  33. You can email Iris Robinson herself to let her know how unacceptable her attitude towards the gay community in general is;
    robinsoni@parliament.uk or irisrobinson@castlereagh.gov.uk

  34. The ideas of this ‘politician’ are clearly baloney. Ignore her!
    Pete

  35. HER HUSBAND MUST DO SOMETHING TO STOP HER OR RESIGN FROM BEING FIRST MINISTER.

  36. theres nothing vile about bein gay the only vileness comes in the form of you and people like you. coparing homo wit child abuse theres nowt to compare its totally different. people like you make me feel sick. MP dont know how you got the job with views like that and hope you are soon dissmissed! your nooooo one and dont ave the rightto ave a opinion! ps i hate you! cow homophob! its people like you are the reason!

  37. she epitomises why the religious fundies fought so hard to exclude hateful comments on religious grounds from the legislation. Were one to substitute “christian” for “homosexual” in her diatribe one would be cherged with language leading to religious hatred: we have no such protection from the “religious”

  38. Would “Hank” please refer to a peer reviewed paper by Jeffrey Satinover? Any book which refers to biblical texts is by definition unscientific, though the fact that Satinover published his opinions in a book counts for nothing. Anyone can do that. The Discovery institute and Answers in Genesis do exactly the same, and come out with lots of nice textbooks arguing that the age of the earth is 6000 years (which is Iris Robinsons view by the way).

    The point is the APA had no reason to label gay people as psychologically imbalanced in the first place. They were asked to back their statement with evidence, and they could not. Hence it was delisted as a disorder. Isn’t it funny that all the people who object to homosexuality being de-listed are religious (eg NARTH)? In other words, they think it’s alright to hold opinions without evidence. Their premise always boils down to “god created man and a woman” – which they cannot know. And furthermore, they often distort all the data. They break the rules of the scientific method at every stage of theory building.

    Explain also, how you know for sure that ‘there is a great deal more to explain why homosexuality exists’? It implies you are expecting to find sometihing.

  39. Thanks William…

    mind you, in general – should nonsense like this be ignored? I have a real issue here, with the argument: “we should not give them the benefit of an argument, as it gives them credibility”.

    I agree that, they should not be given the honour of a scientific debate – but I would welcome the scientific community denouncing such pseudoscientific claims a little more vocally, being silent sometimes gets confused with acceptance. In the US especially there is so much religious propaganda about (go anywhere in the USA and go along the Fm dial!!), pushing this stuff – the ex-gay movement is a massive business, leeching gullible gay people indoctrinated with this kind of nonsense.

  40. Seriously, what the hell is going on with the media in the UK!! Where is the Guardian newspaper when you need them? If stuff like this was being spouted by some small town local councillor in England, Scotland or Wales, the press would be all over it. And here we have the fucking wife of the First Minister for Northern Ireland and who also just happens to be chair of that regions Health committee, seemingly not remotely worried she should lose her job or be charged for blatant incitement to hatred!
    It does look as if she’ll get away with all this though, as there doesn’t seem to be anything or one to stop her.

  41. Yo Adrian:

    You state: “The point is the APA had no reason to label gay people as psychologically imbalanced in the first place. They were asked to back their statement with evidence, and they could not. Hence it was delisted as a disorder.

    “Explain also, how you know for sure that ‘there is a great deal more to explain why homosexuality exists’? It implies you are expecting to find sometihing.”

    The claim that homosexuality is biologically determined is a theory
    that, as of 1993, rested on 3 “scientific pillars.”
    These are the Simon LeVay study of brain structure, the Bailey-
    Pillard study of twins, and the National Cancer Institute
    “gay gene” study.
    After close scrutiny, none have come close to proving the
    biological theory, and are rapidly being dismissed as unreliable
    by all but gay acivists and uninformed jounnalists and
    educators (many whose sexuality can be held in question).

    So at this time everything that homosexuals offer as “proof”
    to a genetic/biological factor is anecdotical.and carry no
    weight as scientific proof.

    The books THE HOMOSEXUALITIES AND THERAPEUTIC PROCESS and
    FANTASY, REALITY AND THE CREATIVE PROCESS,
    are two books contianing the work of over 30 psychoanalysts –
    eminent teachers and psychoanalysts and medical men throughout
    the country — and they all attest to the fact that homosexualty
    is a psychopathological condition and can be altered if someone
    knows how to alter it.

    MALE HOMOSEXUALITY cites 13 independent studies from 1059 to
    1981 on the early family lives of homosexuals. Out of these
    13, all but one concluded that, in the parent-child interactions
    of adult homosexuals, the subject’s relationship with the
    parent of the same sex was unsatisfactory, ranging from a distant,
    nonintimate relationship to an outright hostile one.

    Leading psychologists stated that gender identity is a person’s
    basic sense of being masculine or feminine, which can be
    deeply influenced through bonding with an older figure of the
    same sex such as mother or father. When the mother/father
    figure is williing to bond with the child of the same sex,
    this invites the child to emulate and identify with the parents.

    Many researchers have noted that many homosexuals cite backgrounds
    of being sexually molested. Not all homosexuals are victims
    of sexual abuse, but there are too many to reasonably deny
    the connection.

    I have many more examples I can cite to show there’s much more
    work needed to understand the what,why and how of the
    creation of homosexuality, such as
    GIRLIE MEN : the feminization of males, a direct result of the
    increased amounts of exenoestrogen and estrogen-mimics in our
    environment.
    Looking at the soy in food, looking at the new fashion disease
    of “Man Orexia” where men are anorexic, looking at the denigratoin
    of the image of strong, intelligent, independent men in
    the popular media all this along with the whimplification of men
    by their teachers, boys on Ritalin to “control” their activity,
    pop culture and both the feminist and homosexual agenda are strong
    factors in causing some gay results.

    There’s much more I can give you if want to discuss it more.

  42. @ Hank

    Saying ‘Many researchers have noted that many homosexuals cite backgrounds of being sexually molested. Not all homosexuals are victims of sexual abuse, but there are too many to reasonably deny
    the connection.’ is a pointless thing to say. Because for every one man who is molested and becomes gay, there will be approximately 9 men who were abused and are now straight.

    Your statistic would only validate your view if the MAJORITY of men who are abused become gay, yet this is not the case. Also, using your same quote, this does not consider lesbians. Also, again same quote, is chicken vs egg. You essentially say that to create a gay you need to be abused by someone, and I’m betting your thinking that the abuser is a gay too. So where did the ‘first gay’ who started this long abuse chain come from?

    I’m not narrow-minded enough to state that there may be factors, such as relationships to father and mother, that MAY have a bearing. But there must be some factor that makes one susceptible to these situations in the first place. you say that, as a man myself, I may not have had a good realtionship with my father. Ok, so explain how my friend, raised by a single mum, because his father died just prior to birth, is STRAIGHT? Surely, without a father to bond to, he should be gay? Again, I’m not suggesting that one case blows your argument, but statistically you would expect a much larger correlation.

  43. Yo Matt: Glad to see your comment, because I would like to
    discuss the many factors involved in one’s sexuality.

    The one thing that “bugs me” about the homosexual position is
    “Once gay, always gay,” “born homosexual,” and those types of
    statements, which give NO HOPE to homosexuals who are unhappy with
    their sexual behavior or lifestyle.
    There are probably many thousands of homoosexuals who would
    like to be heterosexual in their living. That’s why many of them
    go to “ex-gay” organizations wamting to change. Whether or not
    you accept or reject that there are successful changes in
    homosexual behavior for many of theses individuals is another
    matter just now, but the idea that all these homosexuals are
    trying to find another way, shows that being homosexual causes
    many psychological, sociological, relationship problems for
    a large segment of that population (if you don’t agree, what
    is your response?) And I cannot accept the argument that they’re
    unhappy because they are afraid of society’s reaction to them
    as being the major factor.

    The factor of molestation being responsible for turning a child
    to homosexuality, is only one possible determining ingredient,
    it all depends on the child’s psyche make-up, some will not
    be negatively affected, and other’s will incorporate this
    terrible act into their make-up and have it become a problem
    throughout their life.

    The sexual make-up of individuals is far too complex to use
    only one or two factors to give an answer.

    And that’s why I don’t “buy” the homosexual’s quick statement
    “once gay, always gay. The brain, the mind, the biochemical/genetic
    plus societal, enviornmental, and peer group all have a mixed
    influence on the human being. And that’s why the entire
    issues demands much more serious investigation before we can
    formulate some sort of understaanding of homosexuality.

    There’s much more information that’s coming out in trying to
    understand this important issue.

  44. Hank, I agree with you, its much more complex than all these small ideas, it probably is a complicated mix of all sorts of things!
    To answer why a lot of homosexuals ‘want’ to change? Its very very simple – its easier to be straight. Period. There are a lot of weak people, LGBT included. Deep down, people want an easy life. And no-one can claim that being gay is easier!
    This is the same reason why some people don’t get jobs and rely on welfare, it’s easier. Same reason why a lot of people are fat (sorry that sounds insensitive). Its easier to be unhealthy! Weak people want the easy route, and that’s why some desperately want to change. They are not mentally strong enough for a gay life. But that does not mean they need psychiatry to change their life to a straight one, it means they need psychiatry to make them stronger.
    The real question is – why do they need to change? That’s what unhappy gays should think about.

  45. ” And I cannot accept the argument that they’re
    unhappy because they are afraid of society’s reaction to them
    as being the major factor.”

    You answered your own question, yet are unwilling to accept it. And why? Is it some ingrained bias against homosexuals, which is glaringly obvious in your posts – or just ignorance, which is present in much the same amount?

    The people who go to ex-gay organizations only do so due to social stigma. Not to mention that the arguments you presents are completely unrelated and not even tied together. Just to answer your question, how a gay person chooses to lead his lifestyle has no beariing on his homosexuality – though you seem to gather that a gay person choosing to live a straight lifestyle is evidence of a psychological problem. This is a ridiculous assertion and if you have any reliable evidence to back it up, please do show it. Though knowing your belief in a “homosexual agenda,” I’m sure I’m just wasting my time with this discussion.

  46. Thanks for your comments — they’re worth discusssin further.
    I have some worthwhile comments, and questions, but today has
    been hectic and I don’t have time to respond fully.
    I’ll do so later today, so please stay in touch — I think
    we have some important things to discuss.
    Will contact you both later today.

    Hank

  47. Lindy Irving 25 Jul 2008, 1:20am

    Iris Robinson states that her comments are not born out of anger. She may well believe that, but I would argue they are certainly born out of a mindset of ignorance, self-assertion, intolerance and egotism, all close bed partners of hatred and the real threats to human survival. Until we can all look at the person standing next to us and accept them for exactly who they are and recognise their right to exist BECAUSE they exist then we are wandering down a very dark and dangerous path. So lets not give Iris Robinson and those like her the satisfaction of just feeling angry at her comments. Instead let us make sure we do our own little bit to change things. A simple smile which says ‘I accept you because you’re you’ can make more difference than you know :)

  48. Hey Matt:

    Your statement:” To answer why a lot of homosexuals ‘want’ to change? Its very very simple – its easier to be straight. There are a lot of weak people, LGBT included. Deep down, people want an easy life. And no-one can claim that being gay is easier!
    Its easier to be unhealthy! Weak people want the easy route, and that’s why some desperately want to change. They are not mentally strong enough for a gay life. But that does not mean they need psychiatry to change their life to a straight one, it means they need psychiatry to make them stronger.
    The real question is – why do they need to change? That’s what unhappy gays should think about.”

    You make some strong points that make sense. The problem that
    I see is that there is too much misunderstanding and erroneous
    approaches to understanding one’s sexuality. But there’s no
    well-accepted views about the various types of homosexuality -
    how they came around to feeling their homsexuality came to be
    in themselves.
    Each person develops a belief system that’s the sum of the
    assumptions, judgments and ideas that he/she holds true to
    be true. This belief system contains potent family messages
    about such matters as one’s value or worth, relationships,
    needs and sexuality. When one of these core beliefs become
    inaccurate or faulty, they have the potential to turn a
    person’s life to something that leads to deep unhappiness and
    a wasting one’s life.
    The clash between religion, psychiatry, medicine, education,
    etc. prevents a rational view of homosexuality. Only in recent
    times has homosexuality been looked at with a serious approach
    to get a better understanding of what truly is going on with
    it — by homoexuals who accept themselves as they are, and the
    need to “help” homosexuals who are unhappy with themselves and
    want to make major changes.

    The error that homosexual activists made in wanting to change
    the marriage institution — removing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, and making it available to man with a man or a woman with a woman.
    The strong and active opposition by many Christians comes from
    a basic reaction that combines basic Christian principles and also
    the view that abolition of Christian marriage is further wreaking
    our moral life that’s further brought out by such statements”
    “While the world still regards the USA as the leading economic
    and military power on earth, this same world no longer holds
    us in moral respect as it once did. They no long see us a “shining
    beacon”, instead they see a society in decline, with exploding
    rates of crime and social pathologies.”
    That we’re following the downward path of ancient Rome, with
    an easy attitude to the marriage tie, the increasing frequency
    of divorce and growing laxity in women’s morals, all of which
    ended in loosening of the old family unit, ending in moral
    decay, rising violence, lawlessness, and intellectual apathy,
    which will end in disintegration of the structures that make
    civilization possible — viewed from ancient times to the
    present and seeing that the pathology of decadence in
    unmistakable, and we must heed these warnings before it’s too
    late to turn things around.

  49. Yo Matt:

    Your statement:
    ” To answer why a lot of homosexuals ‘want’ to change? Its very very simple – its easier to be straight. There are a lot of weak people, LGBT included. Deep down, people want an easy life. And no-one can claim that being gay is easier!
    Its easier to be unhealthy! Weak people want the easy route, and that’s why some desperately want to change. They are not mentally strong enough for a gay life. But that does not mean they need psychiatry to change their life to a straight one, it means they need psychiatry to make them stronger.
    The real question is – why do they need to change? That’s what unhappy gays should think about.”

    You make some strong points that make sense. The problem that
    I see is that there is too much misunderstanding and erroneous
    approaches to understanding one’s sexuality. But there’s no
    well-accepted views about the various types of homosexuality -
    how they came around to feeling their homsexuality came to be
    in themselves.
    Each person develops a belief system that’s the sum of the
    assumptions, judgments and ideas that he/she holds true to
    be true. This belief system contains potent family messages
    about such matters as one’s value or worth, relationships,
    needs and sexuality. When one of these core beliefs become
    inaccurate or faulty, they have the potential to turn a
    person’s life to something that leads to deep unhappiness and
    a wasting one’s life.
    The clash between religion, psychiatry, medicine, education,
    etc. prevents a rational view of homosexuality. Only in recent
    times has homosexuality been looked at with a serious approach
    to get a better understanding of what truly is going on with
    it — by homoexuals who accept themselves as they are, and the
    need to “help” homosexuals who are unhappy with themselves and
    want to make major changes.

    The error that homosexual activists made in wanting to change
    the marriage institution — removing the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, and making it available to man with a man or a woman with a woman.
    The strong and active opposition by many Christians comes from
    a basic reaction that combines basic Christian principles and also
    the view that abolition of Christian marriage is further wreaking
    our moral life that’s further brought out by such statements”
    “While the world still regards the USA as the leading economic
    and military power on earth, this same world no longer holds
    us in moral respect as it once did. They no long see us a “shining
    beacon”, instead they see a society in decline, with exploding
    rates of crime and social pathologies.”
    That we’re following the downward path of ancient Rome, with
    an easy attitude to the marriage tie, the increasing frequency
    of divorce and growing laxity in women’s morals, all of which
    ended in loosening of the old family unit, ending in moral
    decay, rising violence, lawlessness, and intellectual apathy,
    which will end in disintegration of the structures that make
    civilization possible — viewed from ancient times to the
    present and seeing that the pathology of decadence in
    unmistakable, and we must heed these warnings before it’s too
    late to turn things around.

  50. Robert, ex-pat Brit 25 Jul 2008, 2:11pm

    How do you make a straight man or woman gay? Why are there no ex-straight ministries? Where is the scientific evidence that a gay person can be converted to an heterosexual, where are the data, statistics? What is the success rate…how many of them are now married with children, enjoying a regular sex life with their opposite sex partners? Ex-gay ministries claim they have a high success rate. Why aren’t these people coming forward in droves? Why aren’t these ever published in the scientific literature for all to read?

    Hank, are you married with children or have a girlfriend? Are you having an active, satisfying sex life? You’re straight I take it? If you are, when did you realize that, when did you get to chooose your orientation? Which of your parents were more dominant in your early formative years?

    I came from a loving family, I was close to both my parents, I idolized both of them and I wouldn’t say that one was more dominant than the other, both of mine were ever present in my upbringing. I lived like any other boy, and yes I played sport, loved it and still do, had girlfriends, had sex with them, enjoyed it even, did all the things that straight boys are supposed to do….but deep down I knew I was attracted to the opposite sex, but never acted on it until later on in my 20s and have never looked back. I can think of not one circumstance in my childhood that could have had any influence on my sexual orientation, not one because I never had to think about it and still can’t because there wasn’t any that I was aware of. Also, how do you explain why boys or girls raised by a single parent, same sex or otherwise, be they unmarried or widowed raise children who turn out to be overwhelmingly straight rather than gay? What of married couples where one is gay and often unknown to the other spouse but raise children who also turn out not to be gay? Why do straight men rape women while the incidence of gay rape is very rare? Also, paedophilia is often equated and wrongly so as being associated more with homosexuality. So how do you explain why paedophilia is high among heterosexuals? What of the paedophile who was NEVER molested since there is popular belief that paedophiles were at one time victims themselves?

  51. Hey Robert:

    Thanks for your input — very good points and I appreciate a
    chance to discuss this serious situation.
    First, let me express my background so you can better understand
    my views.
    I’m 70+ yrs. Divorced 20 years, 3 married children, 3 grandkids.
    I graduated from Purdue Univ and have a MA from Western Michigan U.
    I lived most of my life as either agnostic or athestic, until
    about 20 years ago, when I didn’t like how my life was going –
    unfulfilled, nothing to “brag about,” — did everything most
    divorced guys did and wasn’t satisfied or happy, so I started
    going to a fundamental church, and did much reading, studying,
    praying, etc. And one day, I had a Spiritual Epiphany — something
    like what the Apostle Paul had, as stated in the Holy Bible.
    I got a totally new outlook about myself, my life as it had been,
    and how it could be — all tied into knowing what Jesus Christ
    has given mankind with His life. I slowly grew as a “true”
    Christian — not some of the fanatics who cause more harm than
    good with their fringe beliefs and preaching. I am not associated
    with any specific church — my “church” is Jesus Christ, not
    any man-controlled organization. The more I read about Jesus
    Himself and get more knowledge what He said, I get stronger in
    my attitude towards this life and where I’ll be after I die. I
    know I’ll be there with Jesus Christ for all eternity in a perfect
    heaven. (That’s enough to give you an idea of who I am)

    Now about sexuality — heterosexual and homosexual people.
    This has become an issue to study for me for a couple of reasons.
    First, I believe most Christians get too emotional about the
    subject of homosexuality and say very stupid and erroneous
    things about homosexuality. Most of the time they talk from
    emotion, not clear-thinking — because the tradition of marriage
    is deeply ingrained in most forms of Christianity.
    We accept the belief that God showed marriage between Adam and
    Eve was the way marriage was intended — a man and a woman.
    If you don’t accept that as fact, please tell me where and how
    you got your historical definition of marriage.

    Secondly, human sexuality is a very complex matter. The sex
    drive is the second most basic drive in mankind, and in a
    society where food, shelter, etc. is no problem, sex becomes the
    dominant drive for pleasure. And that ties into the question of
    homosexuality getting more attention today than ever before in
    our societies.
    I don’t have first-hand information or facts, I take my information
    from the reading that I see where well-learned professionals
    all state that homosexuality probably resuslts from a dozen or
    more influencing factors — everything from society, molestatlion, abusive relationships, environment, biology plus many others.
    There is no proof that there’s anything like a “gay gene” that makes a person homosexual before birth.
    We need much more study to truly understand homosexualty and
    even heterosexuality (which has other problems attached to it)>

    My argument is that it’s not right to state “one gay, always gay,”
    or “born homosexual” — that sort of belief system offers no
    hope to homosexuals who truly don’t like that kind of life and
    would truly like to change. — That’s what I find most offensive
    by most activist homosexuals — it’s a hopeless thing to live
    with for many homosexuals.
    While the heterosexual life is filled with problems, that isn’t
    the topic for my response just now because it’s also a complex
    topic that would take much more writing at this time. But I
    will discuss it later if you like.
    I didn’t proof read this so excuse any errors.

    Hank

  52. Yo Bookybaka:

    My statement: “And I cannot accept the argument that they’re
    unhappy because they are afraid of society’s reaction to them
    as being the major factor.”

    Your statement: “You answered your own question, yet are unwilling to accept it. The people who go to ex-gay organizations only do so due to social stigma.”

    How do you know that “The people who go to ex-gay organizations only do so due to social stigma? Where do have that as a fact?
    While I don’t write from first-hand fact, I do much reading and
    most everything I’ve read is that people go to ex-gay organizations
    for many reasons — some of which are they are truly unhappy with
    themselves, and not feeling a pressure from family, society, etc.
    THEY WANT TO CHANGE AWAY FROM HOMOSEXUALITY.

    Looking at the homosexual from two different views, there is a
    huge question to be answered:
    First, from God’s viewpoint: since there’s an estimated 2%+
    of the population that is believed to be homosexual, I cannot
    accept the fact that God made a person homosexual and yet in the
    Holy Bible said that homosexuality is a sin. I can’t accept that
    God would create that sin into a person, without some sort of
    way out of it. Nobody is born with an indelible sin that cannot
    be removed so that person can find and accept God and forgiveness.

    Second, if you don’t believe in God and the answers He gives us
    in the Holy Bible, then you must believe in no god and that you
    were created through evolution — that you came out of a slimy
    swamp that had certain chemicals in it and it was hit by
    lighting and the electricity caused the first forms of lifeform
    that evolved into mankind. If that’s what happened, why did
    the “natural process” evolve into the fact that mankind was
    divided into male and female to continue its process of growth?
    Why and where did it “permit” 2%+ of its process to differ from
    male/female relationships and steer this minority into a totally
    different form of choice — that is man/man woman/woman? Where
    is the benefit for this “natural process” — it would seem to
    be a self-defeating arrangement to keep the human race to continue?

    My main contention is that there’s much too much involved in
    homosexuality/herterosexuality to make concerete statements about
    it without much deeper research and study — in medicine,
    society, psychology, environment, etc.

    At this stage of the research, nobody has the final answer and
    we should not make such statements as “once gay, always gay,
    or “born homosexual.”

  53. Hank – I don’t believe anyone ever gave a dogmatic “once gay always gay” proclamation. There are many shades of grey between gay and straight. Kinsey, who I believe was bisexual was the first to do an in-depth study of these things, and came up with a scale of 1-6. 1 would be “tried it once as an experiment at college and didn’t get into it, never did it again”, while 6 would be “can’t even think ‘straight’”.
    But that’s the point. Many people who go the “pray out the gay” route look fine at first glance, but the so-called “salvation” involved ends up messing them up down the line. That’s the story the religious right won’t shout from the rooftops, the mental breakdowns and neuroses that result from completely suppressing the natural gay tendency. Whether it changes through life is not in doubt. Willing that change to happen when it suits you by evoking a mythical being is completely unproven.
    I used to be Christian growing up, then when my hormones kicked in and I discovered I was also gay, it was the Christanity thing that did the most damage. I tried to hang onto the church for all it was worth, but once I realised how twisted and dogmatic that whole area was and words like “Dogma” and “paradigm” entered my lexicon, I couldn’t go on being Christian.
    God is an unproven hypothesis and to base your major decisions around a being that by his very nature is unknowable, and that’s if he exists at all… that way lies madness. Far better to use the golden rule and just treat people the way you would want them to treat you.

  54. Hank – I have something for you to ponder on.

    You say that since ~2% of the population is gay, you cannot accept that God would make them gay then say its a sin in the bible.

    I hate rehashing this old argument, but in the same place that you take this ‘gay is a sin’ line, you also take that eating shellfish is equally as bad an ‘abomination’ and more Leviticus-related teachings.

    I’m a physicist. Here’s a term you may have heard – Occam’s Razor. It states ‘All things being equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one.’

    I ask you to use it now. What is simpler here:?

    1) God created people who were gay, and this was the way it was intended, THEN the flawed, all-full-of-sin humans who wrote the books modified / miswrote things?

    OR

    2) Homosexuality is evil in the eyes of the Lord. We are condemned. Now, in this case, since you say yourself that it is a complex mix of any number of factors, you must admit that for SOME OF THESE COMBINATIONS, CHANGE IS NOT POSSIBLE. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate. If it’s possible for SOME to change, then it’s possible some CANNOT change, yes? So these ones that cannot change, God created them this way, thus they are condemned from the moment of conception?

    Which is more likely? I know my answer.

  55. Matt- to take occam’s razor one step further, Id say that both you and Hank appear to be starting from the totally unproven and unprovable hypothesis that there is a god, and furthermore this God cares whether or not i’m gay. This is called a paradigm – [mental framework by which you understand the world] and on slim evidence it’s colouring all your subsequent arguements. Sorry to bring Dawkins into the fray, but if there’s a creator who can account for all the complexity of existance, who created the creator? “He created himself” is utterly illogical and leaves you with the same problem you started with, i.e. “why is there something, not nothing?” It’s ultimate regress in action. And then there’s still Bertrand Russell’s teapot arguement to contend with. A teapot is orbiting the sun at 10,000 miles, it’s too small to be viewed by any telescope, you can’t disprove my teapot’s existance, therefore the teapot exists. Trouble is the burden of proof is still on the guy that said there was a teapot in the first place. See also “the Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

  56. Hank, good to see you back again, poster boy for he dangers of religious brainwashing that you are.

    Current scientific thought is looking in the direction of homosexuality being caused by inherited genes from the mother and/or levels of testosterone present in the womb having an effect, in the same way as it is believed this can cause a child to be left or right handed.

    Either way, we are all as God made us, by your logic at least, and therefore it would seem wrong for us to try to be something we are not.

    If Jesus did in fact want me to be straight, I’m afraid he should have been alot less cryptic in his message. Also, as the son of God and all that, I would have thought he would have known that.

  57. Robert, ex-pat Brit 26 Jul 2008, 1:57pm

    Flapjack, your question…”who created the creator”. The fundamentalists and other christians, among others, would respond by saying that the creator always was, is, no beginning, no end. The Catholic church also teaches that. I’m an atheist so I don’t subscribe to any of it.

    Hank, thank you for your response. Though I disagree with you on a lot of points….I am still waiting to read the published evidence in the mainstream medical and scientific literature by ex-gay ministries of their methods, techniques, high success rates that they often state. I’ve looked at some of the journals including those of the American Psychiatric Association but have not found one published article or study supporting the ex-gay claims.

    Similarly, where is the evidence for ex-straight ministries, assuming they exist and how would one convert by prayer a heterosexual to a homosexual? Using the same ex-gay methods? If that can be proved and backed up by scientific evidence, then maybe I could subscribe to some of your positions. Until that happens, I and millions of others around the globe will remain what we’ve always been, happy, well adjusted, loving gay people. If your God created us, why did he create gay people, what would be the purpose, why subject them to ridicule, stigma, torture, execution? It makes absolutely no sense.

    As for Adam and Eve…..where in Genesis does is say that they were “married”? Who fathered their grandchildren if Adam and Eve were the first parents? Seems to me, if they were, then there children would have had to have idulged in incest to populate the earth making you and I by-products of such a relationship.

  58. Robert, ex-pat Brit 26 Jul 2008, 5:51pm

    Hank, I’ve yet discovered that Adam & Eve are said to have had at least 50, yes 50 children….a physical impossibility, sons and daughters. In any event, all of their children would have had to engage in incest to populate….which backs up my contention that you and others who believe in scripture must be the descendants of an incestuous relationship. It would also imply that this happened with God’s blessing…, otherwise he would have had to have created more than one Adam & Eve, and where is the evidence for that? If incest is now illegal, then why aren’t the major religions using the creationist story to support incest since it would appear to be the genesis (excuse the pun) of their belief system? After all, it IS in scripture and therefore must be believed!

  59. Hey Robert ex-pat Brit, Steve(2) flapjack, Matt.

    Thank you all for your comments — they’re great comments,
    questions, arguments, etc. But I need more time to look into
    all of that to give you rational and cogent answers.

    I am a everyday kind of guy, have more than average intelligence,
    but I’m not an expert in Scripture, psychology, anthropology,
    linguistics, etc — everything that is truly necessary to
    look and reach satisfactory answers to these complex and
    argumentative topics. But I will give you my views and beliefs
    on as much as I can, so bear with me. I truly enjoy your responses
    and want to continue this discussion as there are many important
    things that need to be brought out for enlightenment.
    Birth, life, death and the hereafter should be important to
    every active mind. I’ll be back shortly with some of my
    responses, and thanks again, I really enjoy discussing the
    important parts of being a human being.

    Hank

  60. @ flapjack, I agree with you, I do not believe in a God, but I was merely trying to take that side to make a point.

    I also agree that the Bible suggests incest! Kind of worrying, that.

  61. Robert, ex-pat Brit 27 Jul 2008, 3:23pm

    Fundamentalist and to some extent mainstream christian believers MUST believe in Adam & Eve. If they truly believe in the quotes in Leviticus, then they MUST also believe in ALL of scripture. They can’t have it both ways, all or nothing, no cherry-picking to suit their own agenda, plain and simple.

  62. This woman is not a Christian. Jesus had a vision of tolerance and reached out to vulnerable people in society, he was non judgemental and cared about people. This woman is full of hatred and lacks any understanding of what being a Christian really is. This is like racism, she should be fined and lose her job for this.

  63. Folks,

    You’re wasting your time with Hank. He’s been here before. He is not the “everyday kind of guy” he claims to be, he’s a front for some gay “conversion” organisation who believe in the literacy of the “scriptures (including such unfounded nonsense as 6000 year old earth, etc). He burnt out his welcome a while back, so clearly now he is back after a time of absence to do his “encourage debate” crap…. he doesn’t want debate. He associates gay with paedophile, he has said so himself previously.

    Ask yourself this, if he’s not gay, when why is he so feverish to “understand” us and put forward so called “science” (i.e. NARTH’s propaganda rubbish) in our faces?

    He’s a sad lonely man, supposedly “dying” of lung cancer (slowest acting lung cancer in the history of cancers) with a inexplicable and insipid hatred towards gay men… Ignore him. He’s not as intelligent as he likes to claim to be.

  64. Hey flapjack– I’ll answer your comment from July 25 – in order of your questions.

    While I can’t find the comment “once gay, always gay,” I’m positive I saw it somewhere
    probably said by an extreme activist or fanatic, which is understandable – just as some
    fanatic religious have said some hard-to-believe statements – when people get involved
    in some topics they do make extremist statements.

    About Kinsey, I can’t accept anything he studied and published – for a number of reasons,
    1. A book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences shows that he did unconscionable things to
    get his findings: On pg.225, “In neither of his massive volumes did Kinsey offer FACTS on
    the deviant men and persistent sex offenders who committed rape/murder, incest, rape
    statutory rape: no statistics, no case histories, no background information on the
    predators who committed the most feared crimes in any civilized society, Nor did Kinsey
    identify the consequences of these sex offenses for their victims. But writing of Kinsey’s
    smallest subjects who were systematically molested by “TRAINED OBSERVERS” , Kinsey
    claimed that the babies and children who were molested, ‘DERIVED DEFINITE PLEASURE
    FROM THE SITUATION.”
    On pg. 284, “Where did the children in Kinsey’s Male & Female volumes come from… and where are those children today? And just how did Kinsey’s ‘TECHNICALLY TRAINED OBSERVERS” gain access to 1,888 boys and girls for illegal genital experiments in
    the 1930-40s?

    Judith Reisman spent 2 decades exposing what she calls scientific fraud committed by pioneer sex researcher Alfred Kinsey.who shocked the country by claiming that “95% of American men were engaged in some form of illegal sexual conduct…that most married people had had
    premarital sex, that the majority of men went to prostitutes, that homosexuality was common, that adultery was common,” as quoted in her other book, “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, The Indoctrination of a People.”

    There’s so much more that shows that Kinsey was a sexual psychopath and that his statistics
    and methodology was unreliable and his books have very little value.

    Regarding your “I used to be a Christian growing up, then when my hormones kicked in I also discovered I was gay…..”

    I offer the following; Most people don’t know what being a True Christian actually means.In fact, most people have never really heard the Gospel that Jesus brought to us during His life’s ministry. Many people have just accepted without question the doctrine of the church they were born into because it was the religion of their parents. Most of the time a person never examines to determine if in fact their practices have a sound foundation in Biblical teaching.
    So my question to you have you really studied the Holy Bible to find its message to understanding yourself and to see what it says about one’s worldly behavior and what it offers for spiritual behavior? I could go on but this is getting too long as it is.
    I’ll discuss “God is an unproven hypotheis” later also will
    respond to Matt…Steve (2) and Robert ex-pat Brit. soon.

  65. Hey Matt:

    You say, “I cannot accept that God would make them gay and then say, it’s a sin in the Bible.”

    Well, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 it states “Do you not know tht the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God” Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, not swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    And such were some of you; but you were washed, but were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God. Do you think God “created” all
    those other types of sinners and then condemed them to punishment?

    The Bible mentions in John 8:44 that the devil is “the father of all lies and that there is no truth in him.” You see, Satan uses deception and darkness to confuse the believer. Jesus, on the other hand, uses truth and light to direct us and guide us. Jesus is “the Word” (John 1:1) and He is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:6). By reading and meditating on the Word of God, the clouds of deception are removed, and we see the light!

    First, all badness and sadness come because of Satan and not of God. Although God has what you might call “veto power,” Satan is the prince of this earth and he hates mankind because we are God’s favored creations. God’s mercy and goodness is what keeps things from being even worse than what they are. For whatever His reason, God allows things we don’t understand to happens
    At one time Israel was under the law (old covenent) These laws were
    given by God to govern Israel. The laws were given to Israel as
    part of an agreement (covenent) between God and the Jewish people.
    As such, they were not regarded by Jews as being directly applicable to non-Jews, Jewish rabbis developed a smaller set of
    rules that they believed applied to all human beings, so we can
    eat shellfish and it’s not an abomination today.
    The Apostle Paul considered himself the greatest of all sinners.
    He disputed with the Apostle Stephen and joined in the decision
    to kill him as a blasphemer. Thereafter he became the chief agent
    in the fierce persecution of the young and fast -growing Church. He showed no mercy as he hunted them out of there homes and killed
    them. If God could change Paul into the leading Apostle,
    God can change anyone out of their behavior, if they truly desire
    it to happen .

    You mention Occam’s Razor. “All things being equal, the simplest
    answer is usually the right one.” I don’t argue with that
    generality. But let’s look at creation of life. As an evolutionist
    you have to say, life started with a few chemicals drifing around
    in some slimy water, which was hit be lightening and the electricity caused some unbelieble reaction and the first sign of
    life began, and through millions/billions of years it progressed
    ever so slowly into higher life forms through some mysterious
    natural force (where did that come from?) And it transformed
    one species into another, and another, etc. until we have mankind.
    Well looking at my belief of God, or Intelligent Design, if you
    like, everything was created intelligently, not some trial and error from you “natural force.”
    Well I think Occam’s Razor would apply to “all things being
    equal, the simplest answer is usually the right one.” I don’t see
    where the vastly complex proceedure of “natural force” is
    simpler that God, or Intelligent Design.

  66. Hank. You may not go to church for your answers, but your unwavering support for the self contradictory evidence of the bible speaks volumes. I gave the bible 15 years of my life, and in return it left me confused and unable to function as a social human being. To say “Aaaah, but have you REALLY read it” isn’t going to cut the mustard here. If you get all your answers from a contradictory, badly edited 2000 year old book written when people still thought the earth was flat, you’re going to end up with some pretty confused answers.
    The fact that right from the outset it offers being prepared to sacrifice your own kids to please god (Abraham), Ethnic cleansing (practically any book in the Old Testament), and deities torturing ordinary devout believers with every concievable infliction under the sun just to test their faith (Job) as “lessons”. That was what put me off the whole thing in the first place.
    And as Dawkins rightly points out, the New testament doesn’t get much better… following the notion of the trinity and accepting that jesus is his own dad (sounds flaky to me, but lets follow that line of reasoning for the sake of arguement), you’re still led to ask “If Jesus IS god, with all the authority that entails, why then did he have to get nailed to a cross to save mankind when he could’ve just as simply forgiven them?” It’s grandstanding sado-masochism at best and barking mad at worst. You can keep you madness thanks, I’m happier without it.

  67. Robert, ex-pat Brit 29 Jul 2008, 1:55pm

    Hank, what is taking you so long to answer a simple question. Do you or do you not believe in Adam & Eve as the first parents of the human race? Just say “yes” or “no”. Then we can take it to the next step if the answer is “no”, though as a christian, you MUST believe it because scripture says it is so.

  68. Hey Robert ex-pat Brit.
    Yes I believe in Adam & Eve, in God the Creator of all, in Genesis as it relates the beginning of the earth and mankind,in the Holy Bible, in Satan, the deceiver who did the first sinful act and now is the god of earth.
    The reason I haven’t got to your comment, is that I’ve been
    busy and want to respond to you when I have the proper information
    that I’m confortable with — will answer your earlier comment
    fully soon.

  69. “Yes I believe in Adam & Eve”

    which should read “yes, I’m a complete idiot who cannot separate superstition from reality”

    What a goose you are Hank

  70. Hank – Can you tell me why you believe in Yahweh, Adam Eve and Satan but presumably choose not to believe in Thor, Wotan, Anubis, Zeus, Apollo or any of the other gods that mankind once “knew” existed?
    Sorry but whenever this one comes up, it’s like hearing kids say “of course there’s no Easter Bunny, I know mum and dad plant chocolate eggs in the garden, but Santa exists, cause I saw him at the local Department store”.

  71. Hey flapjack:

    Just a brief answer to your last comment because I’ve got a lot
    more to say about your other topics.

    You state: I gave the Bible 15 years of my life, and in return
    it left me condused and unable to function as a social human
    beings.

    If you were able to handle all the comples issues of the Holy
    Bible “on your own” without contacting expets who have devoted
    50+ years of their lives, studied Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin,
    understood the Aprocryha, Quman Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, then you
    have not gone far enough to grasp the total truth of the Holy
    Bible.
    How many of these great books andmen have you studied to truly get the most understanding of the Holy Bible.?
    ————————-

    1. Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Newer translation that is excellent in many ways.

    2. The Precious Things of God, by Octavius Winslow. No book more relishes in the preciousness of the eternal things. I’ll give a fuller recommendation later in the week.

    3. The Everlasting Righteousness, by Horatius Bonar. Many great books have been written on justification (how sinners are made right with God). But this one, written over a century ago, is my favorite, the most passionate and the most quotable.

    4. The Knowledge of the Holy, by A.W. Tozer. “Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them.” Fabulous book for those who want a grand view of God. A tiny book with a heavy message.

    5. The Glory of Christ (Vol. 1 of Works), by John Owen. Few things are better than to look at the depth of Christ’s beauty. Though Owen is not easy to read he is very valuable.

    6. George Whitefield, 2 vols., by Arnold Dallimore. This is my favorite biography ever. Very readable. This set of books will inflame a desire to be extinguished for Christ.

    7. The New Park Street Pulpit (1855-1860), 6 vols., by C.H. Spurgeon. The early sermons of the greatest preacher in church history. All of his books and sermons are recommended but these volumes are especially precious. There is a youthful zeal to the early sermons.

    8. The Works of John Bunyan, 3 vols., by John Bunyan. Bunyan was an uneducated man who was imprisoned for his non-conformist preaching of the gospel. Few have plumbed the depths of the human heart deeper than him. He remains one of the greatest preachers and maybe the most famous writer (The Pilgrims Progress) in church history. These three volumes contain all of his works and require diligence and patience. To the patient these volumes contain a lifetime of treasures!

    9. The Letters of Samuel Rutherford, by Samuel Rutherford. Rutherford, in my opinion, is one of the most overlooked Puritan authors. He wrote so many beautiful books and preached so many Christ-exalting sermons yet few are in print. This collection of beautiful letters was written with great spiritual insight. The Banner of Truth just released an unabridged version unavailable for many years. It will be of great use for pastors wondering how to address the Cross to specific pastoral situations.

    10. Spurgeon by Arnold Dallimore. My favorite biographer (Dallimore) + my Christian “hero” (Spurgeon) = a classic! Spurgeon focused on preaching, caring for widows and orphans, training pastors for the future, etc. A man who extinguished himself for the gospel!

    11. Communion with God (Vol. 2 of Works), by John Owen. Deep scholarship with a burning affection for Christ. How do we relate and respond to God personally? This is the question that he answers thoroughly.

    12. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 2 vols., by Jonathan Edwards. The greatest American theologian. These two works contain many of his best sermons and books. A lifetime of eternal gems are here contained for the patient reader. Though I also recommend preachers purchase a few of the Yale edition volumes (Donald Whitney especially suggests vol. 14).

    13. Jonathan Edwards: A Life by George M. Marsden. A fabulous biography whose author shows tremendous spiritual sensitivity while looking at the life of America’s great theologian/preacher.

    14. God’s Passion for His Glory by John Piper and Jonathan Edwards. Not one of Edward’s easiest books to work through but a very powerful one. God does everything for Himself. Gets to the heart of the most important reality we can ever comprehend – that God loves nothing more than Himself. (A special thanks to my friend Rick Gamache for his editing of the book).

    15. The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul. A classic book that allows the heaviness of God to come down upon the reader.

    16. Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges. A transforming book.

    17. The Message of the Old Testament: Promises Made by Mark Dever. A new book of Dever’s sermon manuscripts covering a broad and sweeping overview of the Old Testament. This book has drawn the Old Testament together for me in great ways. I now see the cohesive big picture like never before!

    If you’ve exhausted all these great sources and still confusted,
    I don’t know what else to offer, except prayer that your mind
    will be cleared and you’ll do more study before giving up.

    I’ve got much more to offer in your earlier comment, but I want
    to be briedl in each of my offerings so pepole don’t get
    discouraged from reading my entire comment.
    \

    18. The Confessions by Augustine (Maria Boulding translation). Great classic and from what I am told this is the first true autobiography in history. In this book a sinner’s soul is honestly opened for all to see.

    19. Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. I like Reymond, Erickson and others, but this is my favorite systematic. I also really like what Jeff Purswell did in editing it into the book Bible Doctrine.

    20. Lectures to My Students by C.H. Spurgeon. No pastor should be allowed to lead a church who has not read it at least 10 times.

  72. Hey flapjacke:
    You stated: “If you get all your answers from a contradictory, badly edited 2000 year old book written when people still thought the earth was flat, you’re going to end up with some pretty confused answers”

    Evolutionists often falsely accuse creationists of believing in a
    flat earth. But neither history nor modern scholarship supports
    the claim that Christians every widely believed that the Earth
    was flat, And the Holy Bible doesn’t teach it.

    Christianity has often been held responsibe for promoting the
    flat earth theory. Yet is was only a handful of so-called intellectural scholars throughout the centuries , claiming to
    represent the Church, who helf to a flat Earth. Most of those
    were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it
    into early history books as being the official Christian viewpoint.

    The earlies of those flat earth promoters was the African Lactantiue (AD 245-325), professional rhetoricain who converted
    to Christianity in mid-life.
    He rejected allt he Greek philosophers and in doing so also
    rejecteda spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the
    Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at
    which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good
    Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view was also revived).

    Nex was the sixty century Eastern Greek Christian Cosmas Indicopleustes, who claimed the Earth was flat. His work was also
    soundly rejected by the Church Fathers, but liberal historians
    have usually claimed his view as typical of that of the
    Church Fathers.

    In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of
    the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to
    a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as “reputable”
    every since.
    There are many more people who falsely promoted the flath
    Earth statement to Church Fathers — all have been rejected when
    reliable follow-up was done..

    The idea that the earthis flat is a modern concotion that reached
    its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible.

    In fact, not only did the Church not promote the flat Earth, it’s
    clear from such passages as Isaish 40:22 that the Bible implies
    it is spherical.

  73. Hey flapjack:

    You state:”Can you tell me why you believe in Yahweh, Adam Eve and Satan but presumably choose not to believe in Thor, Wotan, Anubis, Zeus, Apollo or any of the other gods that mankind once “knew” existed?
    Sorry but whenever this one comes up, it’s like hearing kids say “of course there’s no Easter Bunny, I know mum and dad plant chocolate eggs in the garden, but Santa exists, cause I saw him at the local Department store”.
    What do “your gods” have to do with creation of the universe, the first man, good and evil, conscience, sin,
    punishment for evil deeds, rewards for good deeds, the future of the world, and many other important
    questions that mankind has?
    Jupiter (Greek Zeus) king of the gods and the god of thunder and lightening, was the son of Saturn
    (Greek Kronos) and Rhea (Ops to the Romans) Zeus lived and held court onf Mt. Olympus with the 12
    Olympians, Zeus, Hera (Juno), Poseidon (Neptune), Demeter (Ceres), Apollo, Artemis, Ares (Mars), Hephasetus, Aprodite (Venus) Hemes (Mercury), Athene and Hades (Pluto)

    So what do all these gods have to do what Yahweh says about Himself and His creations?

    If a person opposes even the possibilty of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It’s
    like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on
    the moon, then no amount of information is going to change
    their thinking. Photographs of astronauts waking on the moon,
    interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks, all the
    evidence would be worthless, because the person has already
    concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible
    says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence,
    but they have suppressed the truth about God.
    On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is
    there, He says, “You will seek me and find me; when you
    seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you. Before
    you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask
    yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?

    Do you have a desire to look at ideas that conflict with your
    viewpoint, or have you closed off any possibility to consider
    ideas that great thinkers have to offer, even if they are
    opposite of yours?

  74. Hey flapjack:

    You state:”Can you tell me why you believe in Yahweh, Adam Eve and Satan but presumably choose not to believe in Thor, Wotan, Anubis, Zeus, Apollo or any of the other gods that mankind once “knew” existed?
    Sorry but whenever this one comes up, it’s like hearing kids say “of course there’s no Easter Bunny, I know mum and dad plant chocolate eggs in the garden, but Santa exists, cause I saw him at the local Department store”.
    What do “your gods” have to do with creation of the universe, the first man, good and evil, conscience, sin,
    punishment for evil deeds, rewards for good deeds, the future of the world, and many other important
    questions that mankind has?
    Jupiter (Greek Zeus) king of the gods and the god of thunder and lightening, was the son of Saturn
    (Greek Kronos) and Rhea (Ops to the Romans) Zeus lived and held court onf Mt. Olympus with the 12
    Olympians, Zeus, Hera (Juno), Poseidon (Neptune), Demeter (Ceres), Apollo, Artemis, Ares (Mars), Hephasetus, Aprodite (Venus) Hemes (Mercury), Athene and Hades (Pluto)

    So what do all these gods have to do what Yahweh says about Himself and His creations?

    If a person opposes even the possibilty of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It’s
    like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on
    the moon, then no amount of information is going to change
    their thinking. Photographs of astronauts waking on the moon,
    interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks, all the
    evidence would be worthless, because the person has already
    concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible
    says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence,
    but they have suppressed the truth about God.
    On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is
    there, He says, “You will seek me and find me; when you
    seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you. Before
    you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask
    yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?

    I can give you some rational, logical reasons to consider if
    you want to open your mind to new ideas.

  75. Hey Matt: You say:”Flapjack, I agree with you, I do not believe in a God, but I was merely trying to take that side to make a point. I also agree that the Bible suggests incest! Kind of worrying, that.”
    Webster’s Dictionary says, Incest: sexual intercourse between person too closely related
    to marry legally; sexual molestation of a child or adolescent by a relative.

    The above definitions apply to “today’s world.”
    But regarding incest during ancient days, you have to look at the earliest and deepest meaning regarding incest..
    The Bible makes it clear that Adam was “the first man” God did not start by making a
    whole group of men. Eve was made from Adam’s rib – this was a unique event. Jesus
    (Matt: 19:4- 6) uses this historical and one-time event as the doctrinal foundation for
    marriage of one man to one woman.

    Even though only 3 sons (Cain, Abel and Seth) were part of the first generation of
    children ever born on this earth, Adam and Eve had other children . In Genesis 5:4, a
    statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve – “And the days of Adam after he had
    fathered Se th, were 800 years. And he fathered sons and daughters. Many could have
    been born in the 130 years before Seth was born. The number of Adam’s children, as
    says the old tradition, was 33 sons and 23 daughters. The Bible doesn’t tell us how
    many children were born to Adam and Eve, however, considering their long life
    spans (Adam lived for 930 years, Gen. 5:5) it would seem reasonable to suggest
    there WERE MANY! Remember, they were commanded to “BE fruitful , and
    multiply) Gen. 1:28

    Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters
    married ech other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say
    that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relations, you
    don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because
    ALL people are descendants of Adam and Eve – all ARE ONE BLOOD.
    The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time
    of Moses (Lev. 18:20) Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based
    on Gen. 1 & 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close
    relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Today, brothers and sisters are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed. There’s a very sound genetic reason for such laws. Adam and Even did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “Very good.” so their genes were PERFECT –no mistakes, so intermarriage was not an issue. But when sin entered the world, God cursed the world so
    that the perfect creation then began to degenerate – so over thousands of years, this
    degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things (humans and animals)

  76. Hey Tom:

    Your response to my saying, “ Yes, I believe in Adam & Eve.” and you say, “which should read “yes, I’m a complete idiot who cannot separate superstition from reality”“What a goose you are Hank.

    OK Tom, please give me your explanation to the following:
    The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer, who created our universe but
    sustains it.
    The earth…its size is perfect. The Earth’s size and corresponding gavity holds a thin layer
    of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth’s
    surface If Earth was smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury.
    If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter. Earth is
    the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to
    sustain plant, animal and human life (HOW DID YOUR ‘WORLD-CREATOR’ know
    these specific combinations would produce the results that exist?

    Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals,
    minerals, and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallerst
    blood vessels. Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the
    substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and
    used by the body. (HOW DID YOUR ‘WORD-CREATOR’ know this? Did it use
    trial and error until it “got it right?”

    Your brain holds and processes all our emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same
    time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing
    pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.
    (HOW DID YOUR ‘WORLD-CREATER’ figure this out since there is no other
    pattern that is known to exist to copy to make it all happen?

    Also, “YOUR NATURAL CAUSE CREATOR” is inadequate to explain all the precise
    information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the
    conclusion that ll of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely
    “good fortune.” It’s intellectually deficient to observe intricate design and attribute

    it to luck.

    What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting
    something that you don’t believe even exists? What causes you to do that”

    I have many more questions to you to answer about the existence of the world and about
    humans – their present living, and the hereafter.

    Jesus Christ existed, there’s all types of historical proof to show what life He lived, the
    miracles he performed, and the eternal message He gave to mankind. It’s all in
    many manuscripts that cannot be denied logically.

    I’d like to hear your response to the above.

    Atheism and evolution is an empty belief/theory that holds no hope for mankind. I have hundreds of facts that refutes evolution and will list them if you want.

  77. What is it about atheists that you would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting
    something that you don’t believe even exists? What causes you to do that”

    Maybe because religious lobbyists spend so much time hoisting their right wing political agendas on the rest of us, which we believe to be inherently false and furthermore damaging to our basic human rights. You may as well ask “why do religious types spend so much time debabting creationism if they know it’s true?” That’s a non-argument unless you take the view “never argue with a stupid person as onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
    When it comes to the possibility of God’s existence, the Bible
    says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence,
    but they have suppressed the truth about God.
    On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is
    there, He says, “You will seek me and find me; when you
    seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you. Before
    you look at the facts surrounding God’s existence, ask
    yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know Him?”

    I can give you some rational, logical reasons to consider if
    you want to open your mind to new ideas.”

    Thanks but as I already said, been there done that, got the T-shirt. Rejected on the grounds of supremely shaky evidence, even before we tackle the issue of god’s own dubius morals as described in lurid detail all across the Old Testament. As for what relevence Zeus and Co have to the debate, just remember, that it’s not simply “Christianity vv atheism”. There are hundreds of religions in the world past and present, so even in the unlikely event you can prove a creator, you still have to choose him from about 200 potential candidates past and present, each of whom have representatives claiming they are the “one true way”. That one religion might assert this louder than all the others doesn’t change the fact that Pascal’s wager is a long way from being a 50/50 “atheists vv Christianity” proposition.

  78. Hey flapjack:

    How do you account for the fact that our educational system
    (Universities and public schools) prevents the teaching of
    Creationism or Intelligent Design on the same level as
    evolution (Even they’re both considered as theories?)
    Our universities even fire professors if they write or discuss
    any form of Creationism, or Intelligent Design. It’s because
    evolutionists are afraid to accept the challenge of their
    beliefs when facts are offered, There are many scientific
    principles which are violated by the claims of that theory,
    in the areas of astronomy, biology, geology, physics,
    paleontology, and several other fields. The are not tolerant
    of anything that might disprove the evolution theory.

    The first thing different is the Bible’s historical evidence and accuracy compared with other religious books. All major religions except Christianity are a result of “one man’s one revelation at one time;” the Bible consists of works from 40 men over 1,500 years. Several revelations are recorded throughout the Bible, long before Jesus was born and even after he died by crucifixion.

    The second thing is the martyrdom of those who were the first followers of Jesus (also known as Apostles or The Twelve). Some may argue that all the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection were “made up” or “created” by these Apostles since a large portion of the evidence for the Resurrection comes from their testimony. Judas is the one who handed Jesus over to the Jewish leaders, but out of the other 11, at least 10 of them were martyred for their teachings about Jesus.

    It is said that people will die for what they believe to be true (even if it is not true), but they will never die for what they know to be a lie. It is not logical to say that all those men died for something they “made up” and knew to be a lie.

    The third thing different is the fact that Jesus fulfilled 61 prophecies all written at least 400 years earlier. A scientific study was conducted to estimate the probability of that happening. The probability of one person (any time from the beginning of time to the present) fulfilling just 8 of those prophecies is 1 in 10^17 (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000). The probability of fulfilling even 48 of them is 1 in 10^153 – I’m not even going to type out 153 zeros.

    Those three differences are the most convincing among the many. Below are a few more;

    These are distinctive to Christianity:
    The Bible claims to be inspired by God (compared to other books).
    Only Jesus claimed to be God (compared to other religious figures).
    Religion is man’s attempt to reach God; Jesus is God’s attempt to reach man (Jesus is not a religion, but a person).
    Salvation is assured through a relationship, love, and devotion to Jesus; there is no “maybe” or “probably” – it is guaranteed.
    The belief that God is part of everything all around us – the sense of closeness.

    The promise that God sends His Holy Spirit to dwell in us, giving us power to live as He asks, since we cannot do it on our own.
    Belief is based on documented truth rather than emotions.
    Not a “white man’s religion” (as accused by some Native Americans); Jesus wasn’t even white, as many people think. He was a dark-skinned Easterner and Christianity is rooted in the Eastern world.

    One last thought – where do other religions come from then? The Bible accounts for this – as people turned away from God (as early as the first chapters of Genesis), they made up and followed other beliefs (based on their own free will to do so). In Old Testament times, other religions formed were based on Baal or Asherah poles, as a couple examples. Today, the tradition of those who choose not to follow God continues with other religions and practices (such as Buddhism and Islam, to name a couple prevalent ones), and even the simple lack of religion or practice (which is what I’m led to believe atheism is).

    This is what makes God real to me and why I choose to put faith in Him. I don’t practice a religion called Christianity; rather, I experience a personal relationship with Jesus Christ
    who is also God.

    Most people who call themselves Christians have no real idea what “true Christianity”
    is about. They follow some religious principles, do some form of worshiping , say
    some meaningless prayers, and never study in depth what Jesus Christ preached and
    what His followers have given us in the Holy Bible. I consider myself to be of the most
    rewarded by being chosen by God to be one of His children and to eventually see Him
    as He truly is in heaven when I die.

  79. Hey flapjack:
    Just in case you didn’t believe my comment about evolutionists
    being afraid of Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates.
    Here is a small example of how evolutionists are afraid of anything that creationists might
    have to attack the dying evolution theory.

    Professors at the University of Kentucky in Lexington—only about 70 miles south of AiG’s headquarters near Cincinnati—have been increasingly vocal in their opposition to creationist beliefs.
    Three years ago, a U.K. anthropology professor appeared before a planning commission to urge that AiG not be granted rezoning on a piece of property for a Creation Museum and headquarters, even though the museum is to be built on private property with private funds (so much for academic freedom!) The professor—who lives and works a few counties away—was described as a “carpetbagger” for driving up and attempting to influence a local decision. Over the past three years, two other UK evolutionary professors have engaged in creation versus evolution debates on public television. (WHAT IS HE SO AFRAID OF?)

    It is now well documented that discrimination against creationists is serious and widespread. In the words of Hull:
    ‘Most scientists are only dimly aware of the various “anti-science” systems of belief now widespread [including] … politically dangerous movements such as creationism … . We protect ourselves by never letting these mutually exclusive beliefs surface at the same time. For example, the constellation of religious fundamentalism and creationism is often combined with a high regard for high tech. Many creationists’ tracts are tapped out on extremely expensive personal computers. Creationists are able to accept and reject the physics that makes these machines possible as the occasion demands. There is no God, and Mary is His mother.
    Braun summarised the problem as follows:
    ‘… hardy believers in creation … have been heaped with scorn and ridicule. Evolutionists dominated the field so securely that creationists were fired, denied tenure and denied advanced degrees with impunity in public schools and universities
    Scientific creationists are facing the most serious attack, especially in academia. Haney reports that:
    ‘It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].

    There’s no question in my mind that in less than 30 years people who believe in evolution will be viewed as non-scientific, non-intellectuals, just as they have been portraying Creationists and Intelligent Design belivers.

    You’re part of a dying belief system.

  80. Quote- You’re part of a dying belief system.

    Oh the irony it burns! The evidence for evolution by natural selection is spread all over the globe in the rock strata. If you don’t believe me read Richard Dawkins, and not the creationist b*ll*cks you’ve been reading exclusively. Chapter 4 of “The God Delusion” blows everything you’ve said up to this point clean out of the water. Just because we haven’t accounted for every single organism in existance, doesn’t mean to say that it doesn’t work where fossils have been found. Transitional fossils abound, but when each new fossil appears and plugs a gap in the fossil record, creationists don’t see a new clue to the origins of life, they see two holes where there was one before.
    The only reason creationism got a foothold in the States is that many people in the Bible belt are as badly informed as yourself. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is, i.e. all available evidence points to it, and until something better comes along it’s doing just fine thankyou.
    “Three years ago, a U.K. anthropology professor appeared before a planning commission to urge that AiG not be granted rezoning on a piece of property for a Creation Museum and headquarters, even though the museum is to be built on private property with private funds (so much for academic freedom!) The professor—who lives and works a few counties away—was described as a “carpetbagger” for driving up and attempting to influence a local decision. Over the past three years, two other UK evolutionary professors have engaged in creation versus evolution debates on public television. (WHAT IS HE SO AFRAID OF?)”

    He’s afraid of the lunatics taking over the asylum. As it happens I’m well aware of this creationist museum, where animatronic dinosaurs cavort with the animatronic humans that didn’t appear on the planet until billions of years after the former went extinct. As many in the scientific community pointed out, these people seem to be under the impression that “The Flintstones” was a historical documentary. So if you want that level of scientific rigour applied in science classes, just to even things out I suggest inviting atheists into all RE classes to “Teach the controversy” as Ben Stein and his assorted spin-doctors call it. Truth isn’t a democracy. It has to be tested against hard fact. Period.
    Just because I have to snuff it in order to prove you wrong beyond any doubt, it doesn’t make you right by default. See Bertrand Russell’s teapot for why. Anyhow, i’m bored debating this with you ad-nauseam, so please feel free to debate it with yourself. I’m off to do more constructive stuff with my time.

  81. Hey flapjack:

    Tell me, were and how did “natural selection, evolution, etc.”
    start. How was it created? You live by faith and prove nothing to prove the origination of your theory. Tell me how did first life
    begin? Where did the “ingredients” come from that were necessary
    for life to be created? You are just as big a phoney as you
    say creationints are — you have no proof of the origin of anything
    you belive! You accept by faith that it all makes sense.

    You cannot accept facts unless they conform to your belief system
    Math looks at DNA: What are the mathematical possibilities of
    just one DNA molecule having formed itself by chance?
    The number of possible code combinations for an average DNA
    molecule is a fabulously large number. That’s not 4000, but 4 times itself a thousand times — a little more than 100 X602 power. How could random action produce the right combination out
    of that many possibiities for error? Mathematically speaking,
    it could not happen even with your “powerful natural selection.”
    No flapjack, Mathematics has killed your theory and it’s only
    a matter of years before Creationism, Intelligent Design is
    the standard for understanding creation of the universe, life,
    and mankind. Evolution is dying fast.

    I know “you can’t handle the truth, ” as Jack Nicholson said,
    so don’t even answer my comment. because whatever you say won’t
    stand up the the growing truth that shows my God is creator of
    all things.

  82. I think people are too into the bible, and since we are in the XXI century it is a bit like saying : I love to use a notepad…
    society evolves and what ok 20000000 years is surely not good. Now you are all saying stuff about your understanding of a book no one really cares as it is took long, too complex and not even proven to be words of wisdom. More important matters than arguing to each other… unless you like to waste your time…. which leads to not act against a fucking twat like Iris.
    Now instead of being rude, please act. Time is precious if you want people to live happily.

  83. you who are all commenting on The Tramp Robinson have missed one very important point no-one chooses to be be gay they are born that way no choice cant choose or change where as Robinson who is dog ugly could use some of the money she scams pretending to be a politician to get herself a facelift well its obvious she fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch the whole way down maybe thats her problem cos she so looks like a man in drag,!!!!!!by the way Im the very proud mother of a wonderful gay son!

  84. Lord Dominic Sinclair 4 Aug 2008, 2:56pm

    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, its just some opinions shouldnt be made public… and as she follows the Bible so strongly… she will be judged… and more than likely burn in the fires of hell… for eternity… which, in my opinion, is not long enough… I believe it also says somewhere in the ‘Good Book’ that so will her offspring… and her offspring’s offspring! (although, who in their right mind would want to produce offspring with that is totally beyond me!)… well done lady lol… keep up the ‘good’ work!

  85. Consenting adults…erm if she can’t fathom that concept, hopefully for the good of us all she’ll have an accident!

  86. Daniel Williams 21 Mar 2009, 9:44pm

    Miss Iris Thompaosn, God has a place for you already. You earned your place and it’s reserved in HELL!

    Daniel 3.21.09

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all