Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Religious zealots find White House website’s entry on gay rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 23 Jan 2009, 12:46pm

    Further evidence of the evil, facist nature of organised religion. Their ‘god’ sounds like a right vengeful monster if he tells these christian nutters to promote facism against gay people.

  2. Thick as shit lol

  3. Methinks the editor of CovenantNews.com doth protest too much!

  4. Edward in Los Angeles 23 Jan 2009, 1:22pm

    The evangelicals are freaking because they lost their ally (Bush) in the White House, that’s all. For all the havoc they’ve tried to wreak on gay marriage and gay rights, they deserve their panic.

  5. We need to go to those vicious Christian websites and post our views there. They are most likely to accept posts from listen Christians who believe that it IS time to ditch primitive biblical attitudes to homosexuality.

  6. Har Davids 23 Jan 2009, 1:44pm

    Let’s hope theses morons find solace in the illusion that the end is really at hand now that the anti-Christ resides in the White House and they’ll soon be in a better place, together with their god.

  7. This is stupid. Christianity teaches of equality, always. Even for criminals. Jesus taught that the quantity and quality of LOVE was far more important than anything else – ‘love thy neighbour’ etc, therefore, surely, Christians should advocate non discrimination of homosexuality?? The majority do, the fundamentalist, right winged Christians are, to be frank, pathetic. I’m so glad to Obama’s policy towards homosexuality. Maybe now America can live up to it’s image of the land of the free, instead of the land of the oppressed.

  8. i love the way that when gay people want the same rights as heterosexuals, they are asking for “special rights”…what’s special about wanting to be treated equally???

  9. Steve Rider 23 Jan 2009, 3:20pm

    For those who find tolerance and equal rights under the law frightening, at least they can emigrate to places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Iran where there is none of that scary separation of Church and State.

  10. Simon Murphy 23 Jan 2009, 3:42pm

    Let’s not forget that the christian bible and the koran supports slavery. These works of fiction have been used to promote evil and hatred for thousands of years.

  11. I notice that the AFA website allows you to send an email directly to the White House, protesting about Obama’s plans on abortion and LGBT rights. I suggest we should all use that form, but alter the wording to show our support for his measures.

  12. In my head I know that not all Christians are hate-mongers, but seeing this kind of bare-faced homophobia just gives me negative feelings about Christians as a whole.

    I think it is up to moderate Christians to speak up and show that these people are extremists with minority views. I suppose that is what Obama is doing as a pro-gay Christian.

  13. Yeah because the world will end because gay people get the ability to live in the same country as their foreign loved one. Special treatment? I had to leave the US to be with MY loved one, how is allowing me to take her home anything SPECIAL?

  14. Let’s see. I remember a time that the “Christians” didn’t have any rights to even exist. They were being fed to the lions and burned at the stake for amusement. They were even stoned to death and crucified. But then all of a sudden they got their rights given to them pronto by the Roman Emperor Constantine. A few years later, people were threatened with death if they didn’t convert to Christianity. Centuries later, people of other non-christian faiths were tortured to death, burned at the stake, and beheaded because they weren’t converting to christianity. I’m sure that if the religious right had their way in the USA, the killings would resume. Perhaps even throwing their perceived offenders into concentration camps.

    The same can be said about the radical Muslims. They too put their proclaimed infidels to death. They did that then and do that still to this very day. Innocents being hung or decapitated under public display because of perceived sins of adultery, consensual sexual behavior, and even for being a female who demands social equality. Even the murder of countless innocent people by terrorist acts is justified by their beliefs.

    These so called “Christians” really make me mad. They give proof in their writing that many of them are narrow minded nutcases and discriminating bigots. That’s really sad. By their actions and voices, we’re supposed to believe they’re the light of the world? Right now, all I see is their darkness. But really, I understand that it’s not their fault. They’re just a simple misguided flock of sheep. The fault lies with all the so called reverends that force feed them all of this idiotic tripe. They are the real idiots. Are you sure that God is so prudish that he hates gays and transgendered people about sex related topics and nothing else? Because what I see here by their “loathing” statements, they’ve got a whole bunch of things to worry about regarding your own salvation. Yes, they should pray…. Pray to be delivered from their own ignorance, stupidity, and most of all prejudice.

  15. Terry Floyd Johnson 23 Jan 2009, 5:27pm

    These insane sites, and their editors, are now calling homosexuality criminal. These rejects of humanity, need to be put in a place where they can foam at the mouth, deface themselves with the crap they spew, and let these so called leaders in the Christian world, lead them off the cliff of theocratic insanity.

    I have simply this to say to these hate-filled freaks; you are not the way of the world, you are the disease that wants to destroy it.

    I am bisexual; and I consider each and every one of you fundemental freaks as an enemy.

    You want to use genocide against us; just make sure you don’t fall to your own posinous vile.

  16. Who cares what any of these freaks have to say? Really, PinkNews, all you are doing in re-publishing their bile is to further the reach of their message. These nutcases were never going to be positive about a liberal agenda.

    The moment Obama’s government give in and start to ease off on the policy is the moment a news story is born. Until then… Yawn.

  17. David Griff 23 Jan 2009, 6:11pm

    How can they call homosexuality criminal, its just not, and ‘malice aforethough’ is specifically related to Murder. Are they actually trying to suggest that supporting gay rights carries intention to cause death or serious injury.

  18. I have actually met Don Wildmon of AFA 20 years ago and that guy is definitely whacked in the head.

    He is arrogant, egotistical, homophobic, irrational and a racist.

    We need to find a way to put sanctions on his organization and force them out into the open as the domestic terrorist organization theya re!

  19. Haha- I love the quote about abominations vomiting out across the land. It’s really pathetic. “The US President supports gay rights? That’s, um, so gay. If the religious right tries to claim Obama is homosexual, that will really make my day- first LiLo, now Obama! Yay! Obama, welcome to the dark side- we have condoms.

  20. This is completely par for the course for christian wingnuts. It would be news if it were otherwise. Go and have a laugh at out own Crackpot Institute website, who lapped up Focus on the Family, ASD and FRC’s rabid reactions
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20090122/president-obamas-white-house-agenda/

    PS why is the screen and the comments so hard to read now??

  21. Unfortunately for those who have only experienced “Christianity-Lite” – and would prefer to believe otherwise – Christianity is not, and never has been, primarily about love and equality for all. It has been, for most of its history, primarily about escaping the wrath of a vengeful god…

    The paranoid, apocalyptic, exclusivist, scapegoating mentality that these right-wing Christian websites reflect comes right out of the pages of the apocalyptic New Testament.

    Those who believe otherwise either haven’t read through to the end of The Book, or have taken a highly selective, smorgasbord approach to its contents…

    There is a remedy for the disease – and that is facing the truth about the historical origins of Christianity, not pretending it’s benign and true, and “real Christians” are cuddly liberals at heart, when it isn’t and they aren’t…

  22. I’m sorry to read some of these rude, vicious comments made by
    “Christians” as they call themselves. But you have to understand
    there’s a huge difference between those Christians and “true
    followers of Jesus Christ” of which I am one.
    Too often these “Christians” who go off on a radial agenda don’t
    represent Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior who died for sins
    of mankind.
    He truly represents the pure menaing of Chnritianity — not all
    these man-directed actions of people who think they’re
    Chrisitans but are not. Following Jesus Christ in a relationship
    is not easy — it takes much soul-searching, giving up all the
    worldly sinful behavior and reading, studying, believing in
    and following the words of Jesus, who truly wants the best for
    all people who come to him for forgiveness and follow Him. So
    while I don’t condone homosexuality, I have to hold it in the
    same category as sins against the Ten Commandments, plus other
    sins revealed in the Holy Bible –fornicators, idolaters,
    adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers,
    swindlers (1 Cor.9,10) shall inherit the kingdom of God.
    One cannot pick and choose from the Bible — you take it all
    or reject it all — no other options.

  23. Job done, Plain Jane! :-)

  24. Christina Engela 23 Jan 2009, 9:20pm

    I’m amused by the claims these morons make as reported – its interesting to see that the idiots in South African organized religion are spouting the very same garbage against GLBTIQ and claiming that equal rights for us are “special rights”. They sicken me, as their supporters in the USA sicken you – and I’m glad for once that you (and all others around the world) can see the same thing I have been seeing for years.

    Im glad Obama is in the White House – and Im glad he has the conscience and the integrity to forge ahead with putting his money where his mouth is. He is already a far better president – and a far better leader than any my country has seen yet.

    Now they are whining and protesting – panicked because the nice cosy little nest they have been cocooned in the past 8 years is being dismantled by forces of light and goodness and they retreat from it like the cliche’d forces of darkness they truly are.

    Learn more about this common enemy and spread the news as far as it will go. Knowledge is indeed power.

  25. Hank – If the teachings of an eccentric but well-meaning preacher in Palestine makes you happy, that’s fine (though, I strongly recommend Hector Avalos’ excellent book ‘the end of biblical studies’ which examines the lack of any evidence for jesus, soloman, david, and of course all the characters in the first 5 OT books). So long as that doesn’t interfere with my affairs, and so long as laws from a bronze age manuscript become enshrined in the constitution that’s fine by me. I still need you to explain how you know what Jesus wants for us – where do you get this information from?

    I think you’re right – you cannot pick and choose: but really, what is more beautiful and elegant – a 3-billion year-old story of Evolution and the views of the beginning of the Cosmos from the Hubble telescope, versus a burning bush and a few party tricks at a wedding?

  26. Hank,

    “One cannot pick and choose from the Bible — you take it all
    or reject it all — no other options.”

    Funny, then, that Jesus of Nazareth seems to have done a great deal of “picking and choosing” from the Hebrew Bible.

    Paul of Tarsus was also highly selective in his use of Biblical texts for the purpose of bolstering his own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the meaning of Jesus as “Christ”.

    However, the Bible tells us they were both expecting as imminent, 1st century Apocalypse.

    And they were both wrong.

    So how can a believer know WHICH texts to pick or choose?

  27. Yo Adrian:
    Thanks for your comment — always good to discuss important points.

    I looked over Hector Avalos’s bio and his position on religion, ancient studies and intelligent design, as well has his pentecostal preacher background (I have my doubts about how deep his relationship was with Jesus Christ, or did he call himself a Christian because of his knowledge and studies with the Holy Bible – Many “Christians” don’t know the true understanding of what the blood of Jesus means to a real follower of Jesus)

    Your statement “Hank – If the teachings of an eccentric but well-meaning preacher in Palestine makes you happy, that’s fine (though, I strongly recommend Hector Avalos’ excellent book ‘the end of biblical studies’ which examines the lack of any evidence for jesus, soloman, david, and of course all the characters in the first 5 OT books)”

    I’ve heard your “argument” many times, and there’s an abundance of highly academic research to prove the reality of all these people and events in ancient times. They’ve been studied by
    scholars who know” arabic, egyptian, greek, hebrew, aramaic, coptic, cuneiform, Latin, hieroglphs, sumerian, ugaritic, akkadain and other ancient writings – how many does Avalos know or did he simply read recent versions of Christian works? His research and books don’t carry much weight when compared with the today’s Biblical researchers and writers.

    My proof for accepting the Holy Bible and its information comes from below findings.

    About Translations
    To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: “A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition” – and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today’s Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).

    Origin of the Bible – The Reliability of Ancient Manuscripts
    Another challenge against the origin of the Bible is the reliability of the manuscripts from which today’s Bibles are translated. Remarkably, there is widespread evidence for absolute reliability. There are more than 14,000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other. In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) before the arrival of Jesus Christ. The Hebrew scribes who copied the Jewish Scriptures dedicated their lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. These scribes went to phenomenal lengths to insure manuscript reliability. They were highly trained and meticulously observed, counting every letter, word and paragraph against master scrolls. A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text.

    The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is also dramatic, with over 5,300 known copies and fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1000 AD. Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing copies being a remarkably short 60 years. Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar’s “The Gallic Wars” (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s “History” (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ “History” (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ “History” (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts; 1,400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts; 1,500 years); and Aristotle (49 manuscripts; 1,400 years).

    Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span. Bible manuscripts (remember, there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ nothing’s been lost. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the second and third
    centuries.

    People are afraid to delve deeply into Christian writings to either
    discover answers to their questions, or to dispute Christian
    answers — it’s all in there for pro or con arguments if someone
    truly has an open mind.

    Please excuse any typos or poor sentences, but I didn’t have a
    good way to preview this beforehand

  28. Suggest PinkNews you drop all references to these religious idiots with their homophobic bullshit. They are a small minority who were championed by Bush and his crooks who in public made out they were so pure and Christ like, yet privately were drunken murderers. Dont let stories of Bush giving up booze fool anyone, those who know were well served by that corrupt administration. The truth willcome out. Meantime let the religious fanatics scream their rubbish, doubt Obama is interested.

  29. Hey Rob Fox:

    You said, “Funny, then, that Jesus of Nazareth seems to have done a great deal of “picking and choosing” from the Hebrew Bible”

    Jesus did not pick and choose – he followed the Holy Scripture without changing anything, but sometimes he had to select a certain saying to make His point but that doesn’t mean he ignored all the rest and He used it all when appropriate.

    Jesus on His famous Sermon on the Mount said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets: I have come not to abolish but to fulfill it all…for truly I tell you, heaven and earth shall pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished (Matt: 5:17-18)

    You said, “Paul of Tarsus was also highly selective in his use of Biblical texts for the purpose of bolstering his own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the meaning of Jesus as “Christ”.

    Jesus Christ and all of His apostles, including Paul, taught the same. They all regarded the Old Testament Scriptures as the foundation of the Christian way of life. But Paul’s writings have been greatly misinterpreted from the first century until this day.
    For that reason Peter warns us to beware of distorted applications of Paul’s writings. Here is Peter’s warning: “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16, NIV).

    Those who have accepted the distortions of Paul’s letters have derailed themselves from the truth. That is partly why modern Christianity is so divided and typically becoming more and more like the world rather than coming out of it.

    You said,”: However, the Bible tells us they were both expecting as imminent, 1st century Apocalypse” I say, “shortly come to pass,” doesn’t mean imminent when you read the phrase in its context, which MUST ALWAYS BE DONE– as explained in detail below:

    While interest in biblical prophecy and the apocalypse has renewed itself over the past few years, misinformation exists in society and in the religious world concerning the prophecies found in the Bible. Studying scholars of prophecies of the Bible they explain each prophecy in simple, clear language. The primary focus to give valid information apocalyptic prophecies is found in: Revelation, Daniel, Zechariah, and Matthew 24. Other studies are going into the other prophecies of the scriptures, from Isaiah through Malachi.

    Anyone trying to give a date for this event to happen has been going on for three hundred years and all have failed in their calculation for two reasons: One, they reject the biblical teaching that the time of Jesus’ return is unknown to anyone, except God himself (see 2 Peter 3:10). Two, they misunderstand the nature and message of the book of Revelation-a revelation that pertained to brethren and circumstances of the first century.

    What then is the message of Revelation? To understand what John wrote demands an understanding of the nature, time, recipients, contents, and point of the book. When readers of the book have that information, they are prepared to determine its message.

    First, the nature of the book is clear. It is a book of “signs” and symbols. To take the images of the book and press them into literal or actual fulfillments is to misjudge the book from the outset. Beasts, a dragon, blood up to the horses’ bridles, a harlot riding on a scarlet-covered beast, stars falling from the heavens, red/white/black horses, jaspers walls, pearly gates, etc. are largely visions from Old Testament prophets who used these figures in prophecies of earlier times to depict the downfall of ancient nations.

    Second, the time of the book and the events it foresaw are not a mystery. John told his readers at the outset that these signs and symbols portray events that are “shortly to come to pass.” He repeats this at the end of the book (see Rev 1:1; 22:6). He also states plainly at the beginning and end of the book that the “time is at hand” for these visions to be fulfilled (see Rev 1:3; 22:10). All of this, the writer says is about to happen. The visions do not pertain to events of the twenty-first century.

    Third, the recipients of the book, as of 1 Corinthians or 1 Thessalonians, were churches in the first century. John unequivocally directed the message of Revelation “to the seven churches that are in Asia” and the problems they faced in life under the rule of the Roman Empire. He was told to deliver this message “to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea” (Rev 1:4, 11). As the contents of the epistles of Corinthians and Thessalonians concerned issues within those churches, so Revelation related to difficulties that churches in Asia encountered.

    Fourth, the contents details the tribulations and persecutions these churches endured. Suffering, imprisonment, and death supply the material for the ongoing theme of the visions and image John beheld. John himself, who was exiled to the isle of Patmos, shared with these saints in tribulations (Rev 1:9). He warned the church at Smyrna that many of them would be cast into prison to be tried; that they would suffer tribulation for a time (2:10). The fifth seal was opened and showed the blood of the saints under the altar on which they had been slaughtered. Their blood cried out for God to avenge the death of the saints (6:9-11). On and on, the book highlights the painful life of the saints under the beastly power of Rome, who received its authority from Satan, the dragon (7:14; 11:7; 12:17; 13:7,15).

    Fifth, the point of the book is reached when the bowls of wrath are poured out against the persecuting power of Rome-who is drunk on the blood of the saints. God avenges the death of his servants in the downfall of the beast and the false prophet (16:5-6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2,11-21). The book concludes with a vision of beheaded souls, who overcame and received not the mark of the beast. They live and reign in victory with Christ.

    What I don’t understand about bright, thoughtful people, is why they don’t read the Holy
    Bible – it’s a book with stories about adventure, mystery, crime, sex, fantastic events, history, battles between good evil men – everything that seems to be popular with modern stories. Even if you don’t believe in the Holy Bible, the stories are intriguing with surprise endings. Tell me any other books that all these actions involved – they’re read one day and forgotten a few days later – not the Holy Bible, which continues to be read for a thousand years.

  30. Hey David, you said, “They are a small minority who were championed by Bush and his crooks who in public made out they were so pure and Christ like:

    You may be partly correct in saying “Christ like.” I have my doubts about his depth in believing in Jesus Christ — he might
    actually be a worldly-Christian — knowing parts of the Bible but
    not believing in all of it. And that’s why I make comments here —
    to let you know there are those who have a true relationship with
    Jesus Christ and follow His teachings and principles — which may
    clash with other so-called Christians.

    Remember, nobody escapes God’s judgement, regardless of what they say or do in this life. It’s all in the Holy Bible.

    Mat 7:20-23: “Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”

    So there are “real” Christians and there are “false” Christians.

  31. Christina Engela 24 Jan 2009, 7:03am

    I was once a “born again” xtian, who believed in a loving god. Until i saw the hateful acts committed against those like me in the name of the same “loving” god by those who claim to support him. This same God (if he exists) has done nothing to set the record straight, or to correct these false texts and books written in his name which claim how “evil” we are, nor to prevent atrocities against us which have been committed in his name.

    I turned my back on religion when i realized how false and speculatory it all is, how useful belief systems are in order to control the masses and in order for a few to play “Big Brother”.

    Sure, there are good xtians, just as there are good muslims and hindus and so on – but these good people are the ones who show respect to others and share the world peacefully – not the fanatical fundamentalists who seek to wave their little fingers in the air and appoint themselves to decide for everybody else how they should live. These vicious bigots claim to serve a loving god – but they hate us to the point where they do not even see our humanity nor even see past their own bigotry.

    Religion is of questionable value. All it has ever done is cause trouble and misery for all mankind. And the brainwashed bigots and their megalomaniac religions (especially xtianity and islam) should be put back in their little places – as far away as possible.

  32. Hank,
    According to your quote about upholding “the law”, this would then mean Jewish law? In which case, why do your “true” Christians not follow the Torah? Jesus was, after all, a good Jewish boy.

    And I assume that all of your pontificating means that you follow the word of the Bible exactly. How then do you account for the mass murder committed against non-believers, “sinners”, etc over the thousands of years of Christian history, all in the name of your God? I thought one of the 10 Commandments was “thou shalt not kill”. The Bible is riddled with such inconsistencies – even mere moments after receiving these Commandments, there’s a wholesale slaughter of idolators! Such instructions have been used to justify too much killing and hatred.

    As my Methodist preacher uncle one said to me: “I love you, but not your sin”. To which my reply was: “I love you but not your definition of sin and the intolerance that implies”

  33. Hey Christina — thanks for your comment.

    Unfortunately, you’re facing a serious problem along with the
    majority of people in this world. Here’s a deep, hard to accept
    belief from the Bible.

    Matthew 10:34-35 – “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

    The majority of professing Christians believe that Jesus came to bring peace. Many feel it is their Christian duty to spread “love” and “peace,” because “that’s what Jesus did.” Yet, in these verses, Jesus Christ states something entirely different: He reveals He came to bring “a sword” and set “at variance” (Greek: make apart, sunder, alienate) family members. In verse 36, Jesus adds, “A man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”

    In other words, Christ divides families! How is this possible?
    To come to a proper understanding of this statement, we must first recognize that God is calling only a SMALL number of people into His Church at this time. Yet most believe that God is trying to save everyone now, in this age; the thinking is that God and the devil are at war over the fate of mankind. There is supposedly a desperate struggle between good and evil—God and Satan.

    IF God were calling everyone now, then He is failing miserably in His battle with the devil for control over the fate of all men. Of the estimated 6.7 billion people on earth today, only about one-third believe, to one degree or another, in the name of Jesus Christ. This represents a total that includes every conceivable brand of the over 2,000 different forms of professing Christianity. If the war to “win souls” is as most professing Christian ministers depict it, then the devil is much stronger and much more effective in his effort than is God.

    Of course, God is stronger than Satan, and He is not in a war to “save souls.” He simply is not calling a large number of people in this age. Rather, He is calling a tiny few to qualify to rule in the kingdom of God during the Millennium, when He will begin to call all human beings (Jer. 31:31-34; Dan. 7:14)!

    In the book of John, Jesus stated, “No man can come to Me, except the Father which has sent Me draw him” (6:44). However, billions believe they can come to Jesus on their own volition. They assume the choice is theirs to make. But Jesus says it is not!

    “True Christianity” doesn’t come to everyone — one must search to
    see where one stands in the Will of God to rise above this world
    and its problems. But once you find it, life takes on a new
    and satisfying meaning. I thank God I have a new life.

  34. Hank

    You’re a victim of Evangelical Mind control and your own verbal diarrhoea!

    Try reading the Bible for yourself, and using your own reason instead of just parrotting Evangelical propaganda.

    Thomas Paine, who was brought up Quaker, and knew the Christian Bible well said, rightly:

    “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon that the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

    — Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason (1794)

  35. All you have done is present thousands of examples of meticulous copying of manuscripts in the last 1000 years.(thought the earliest full Hebrew Bible is dated 1008CE – again, why is this such an important document) But still that doesn’t present evidence for the supernatural events described. How do you know the copying standards were high in the first centuries after Jesus’ supposed existence? You say the oldest translations of Jesus’ words are in Greek. Yet these are most unlikely to be original quotes, since the supposed Jesus would have spoken Galilean Aramaic.

    You ultimately depend on privileging the 10th century Masoretic Texts, on which most modern Bibles are based, as authoritative. On what criteria do you make that assumption, given the major inconsistencies between these documents and those of the Dead Sea Scrolls a thousand years before? The DSS were produced at least 1600 years(!) after Abraham is said to have lived.

    Even if there were a line of accurate translations through the centuries, how do you know the claims in the book (based on oral traditions to start with), especially the supernatural ones, are true? Most New Testaments are based on, ‘Textus Receptus’ – which is based on Erasmus’ work. He used a mish-mash of mediaeval sources. Papyrus-66 itself – the fragments of the gospel of St John, from the 2nd century, has over 440 alterations. Scribes were making changes from the very beginning.

    The number of well copied Bible books do not make it true. There are millions of copies of the Book of Mormon – I assume you do not believe an angel appeared to an illiterate, convicted fraudster in Missouri, 200 years ago? Why aren’t Mohammed’s revelations just as credible, with all the versions of the Qur’an in existence?

    Historical documents that we trust are backed up by other contemporary works. We trust them even more if they corroborate with archaeological or scientific evidence. There is no independent line of inquiry to follow outside the gospels themselves. None of the New Testament gospels – written 40 to 70 years after Jesus reportedly lived – agrees with each other on the most basic facts of Jesus’ birth, life and death. Paul never met Jesus and didn’t even know of Mary’s existence.

    The Bible was a first attempt at morality, medicine, astronomy, meteorology, philosophy, and first attempts are usually the worst ones. We have better, natural, scientific explanations now – we know why diseases, floods, hurricanes happen. We know there is no such thing as witches. We know our true insignificant place in the cosmos. We know the universe was not designed for us in mind. We have better teachers on morality, from Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, Epicurus, among others. Although, we have evolved to be good, it comes natural to us, as explained by science. In fact, it can be said, the story of man’s emancipation is of the walking away from religion. Wherever there’s theocracy, there’s death, ignorance, disease, oppression, violence. It shows that Reason, not revelation is the only way to find out the truth. Still, if it makes you happy to believe it, that’s fine by me.

  36. Hey Mark, you say, “According to your quote about upholding “the law”, this would then mean Jewish law? In which case, why do your “true” Christians not follow the Torah? Jesus was, after all, a good Jewish boy”

    While the Torah has much good Christ-like principles in it, the
    Jews dom’t accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — the Christian’s
    Lord and Savior — so we cannot accept an incomplete Torah and must
    accept Jesus’ teachings as written in the Holy Bible.

    You also say,”And I assume that all of your pontificating means that you follow the word of the Bible exactly. How then do you account for the mass murder committed against non-believers, “sinners”, etc over the thousands of years of Christian history, all in the name of your God?”

    If you accept “my God,” do you also accept the reality of Satan?
    Both are real and working in this world and you can find the
    responsibility of the deaths of sinful mankind described in the
    Bible — God does not protect sinners from eternal death. If the
    innocent should die in an earthquake, tsunami, etc., God has the
    answer, not me. But God is perfection and there is justice in
    his actions, even if it’s not known to humans. God is the creator,
    man is His creation, and the creator is in control. If you
    want something to satisfy your “rational mind,” you’ll have to
    read the Bible and find the answer for yourself.

    Can Satan kill people? If someone dies in an accident, is it God calling them home, or is it Satan killing them?

    Yes, Satan can kill people. He does so by smiting people with diseases, and through the action of people controlled by evil spirits. Also, the person may cause his own death because of some area of disobedience to God’s laws and principles.

    I believe, however, that someone may accidentally kill someone, when there was no intention in the heart to kill or injure. I would not say that Satan would be responsible in such an event.
    However, God, who knows all and sees all, may for His own reasons, overrule the action and save the person from death, or He may, for reasons of His own, permit the death to take place.

    Above all, however, God rules and overrules. If God chooses to save a person, neither man nor devil can do him harm. Remember that God permitted Satan to smite Job in his body, but did not allow his life to be taken. (Job 2:6, see also Luke 10:19).

    There also comes a time in everyone’s life that God wants to take that person home. The One who gave life can also take that person’s life. He may do this directly, as in Deuteronomy 34:5-6, or may permit the person to die of an accident, or of some ill

    The world could be converted and brought back to God; but she won’t be, because our churches are spiritually dead, dried up and dysfunctional.

    Every pastor worldwide should be crying aloud against the evils outlined in the Holy Bible by rallying their congregations to spread-the-word. Psalm 94:16, “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” If our churches aren’t proclaiming the truth, then who will?

    Sadly, there are more heathens rising up against the evildoers nowadays than Christians! The average pastor is simply making a living, trying not to offend his big-tithers and playing church. The world is going to Hell and few Christians seem to care.

    Man’s heart is desperately wicked and extremely deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9). This is why sin is so deadly. Sin is so deceitful that the Israelites were committing adultery, murdering, stealing and worshipping idols, while claiming it was God’s will… “Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?” (Jeremiah 7:9,10). This is the world today! We claim to trust in God; but we spit on His Holy Word by legalizing murderous abortion, adulterous pornography, covetous gambling and the thieving financial systems

    The Word of God tells us in 2nd Corinthians 11:3-4, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Ironically, most religious people are woefully ignorant of this truth. All around the world today, people are falling prey to Satanic deceptions which appear to be of God; but they are not. This includes false religions, false prophets, false teachings, false christs and false bibles.

    The Word of God informs us in John 8:44 that Satan is not only a big liar, but also the father of all liars. We read in John 10:10… “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” Satan wants to destroy us—to kill, steal and destroy our life. The easiest way for Satan to accomplish this is by leading us into sin. James 1:15 says, “…sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” Sin brings death—physical, emotional and spiritual death. Sin causes sickness in all of these areas.

    Most people are afraid to search for the truth — instead they
    live in and for a materialistic world. But when they accept the
    evolutionary system that man came out of a “swamp filled with
    certain chemicals that was struck by lightening” what can you
    expect? Not much of a future to look forward to in my opinion.

  37. Christina Engela 24 Jan 2009, 1:24pm

    Dear Hank and others (too many for me to keep up).

    Don’t get me wrong – I respect others beliefs and the right of others to believe what they choose to believe – which is why I favor a secular state system over any form of religious government. Religion is and should be a private matter for the individual. Trouble is, xtianity doesn’t as a whole like to stay private – its supporters – particularly the fundamentalists – seek to “transform” the world around them into little xtian clones of themselves – and many would favor conquest as the means to satisfy that end. (Take the Spanish conquest of South America, or the Crusades as examples.)

    People should be able to live side by side without questioning (or judging) each others beliefs or ways of life – or other intrinsic factors which make every individual unique. How else could there ever be peace?

    My personal feelings may differ from all those around me, but i can still work with them or socialize with them – without openly judging or criticizing them or trying to tell them how to live their lives. I work with xtians, moslems and even those of traditional African beliefs, and nobody to my knowledge has ever attacked the beliefs of others there! Honestly, in SA in general it is like that – though some people tend to answer the fanatical drive to criticize, attack and make other people – who have done them no harm in any way – feel like lesser human beings, and even as monsters who “threaten” society, the so-called “family unit” and their conveniently “fragile” religion which seemingly will fall apart because gay people suddenly get treated as equals. This I cannot excuse, and as a former xtian, it shames and sickens me to bear witness to such things which they claim are the will of a God who has never been quoted directly as attacking GLBTIQ people, even in a book which is more corrupted, edited and manipulated than any other in history – let alone unprovable and which cannot be authenticated in any way.

    The fight for equal rights for GLBTIQ around the world has become mistakenly entangled with religious rhetoric – precisely because it is from the religious quarter where we find our most fanatical resistance to change and acceptance. It has become a religious issue because it is the religious fundamentalists who hate us, persecute us and who would wipe us from the face of the universe if they could. (Don’t think they haven’t been trying). Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our battle for equality is actually a human rights issue, not truly a matter of religion. In a secular state, no one religion should be allowed to dictate policy to the government – nor to the populace. If the state shows favor to any one religion then it devalues the very principle upon which a secular state is founded. Religion should stay out of politics. And if it keeps sticking its finger in the door, it shouldn’t complain when the door gets slammed shut.

    60 years ago it was the Jews, 40 years ago black civil rights around the world – but along with all that, it’s always been us GLBTIQ as well. We went to the gas chambers too. The hate of some people runs deep, and as long as religious hate speech by bigoted pulpit-pilots is allowed freely in whatever public spaces, we will be the scapegoats and targets for the mad, the vicious and the vile.

    It should be made clear that religious freedom DOES NOT include the right to persecute others, nor the right to take away their humanity equal treatment before the law.

    Anything less is not equal!

  38. Hey Rob, you say, “Thomas Paine, who was brought up Quaker, and knew the Christian Bible well said, rightly ….”

    Judas Iscariot actually knew and walked with Jesus for 3 years
    and he still did not understand who and what Jesus Christ really
    was…so Paine is simply a man commenting on his opinion about
    the Bible — doesn’t carry much weight as the world is full of
    atheists, pagans, unbelievers who have free will to say what they
    like.

    I can cite you hundred’s of others — many strong people in their
    own professions, who give evidence and believe in the Holy Bible.
    Even if I gave you the long list of names of believers, it wouldn’t
    make any difference to you, so it’s a lost cause — you’ve make
    up your mind, as I have.

  39. Hank – Evolution happened, pure and simple. The evidence is overewhelming, and we don’t need even one fossil to back that up: the DNA record is conclusive. What you’re saying isyou don’t believe it because you don’t like it.

    You claim to know the existence of God, Satan, Hell; you claim to know the mind of god. Quote as many Bible verses as you like, but until you can prove these points – which are beyond the capabilities of human inquiry, our critical faculties are not able to determine this information – I cannot take your arguments seriously.

  40. Hank,
    I do not accept your concepts of “God” OR “Satan”, therefore anything you say is of your own opinion. The point made my several of us here is that everyone has the right to choose their own beliefs but it is wrong to force others into sharing those beliefs through harrassment, threats, violence or worse. Fundamentalist ideals from various religions (Christianity, Islam, etc) all support this climate of oppression and fear.

    You obviously believe that you are one of the chosen few detailed in your posts that will inherit you idea of the “kingdom of heaven” – good on you! I hope that it brings you the reward you are after as much as my beliefs will bring me mine. Live and let live, not persecute and destroy. If only these hate-filled Christians felt the same way!

  41. Hey Christina. Thanks for your comments. You say, “Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our battle for equality is actually a human rights issue, not truly a matter of religion.”

    If that’s your explanation for your actions, then in my opinion, GLBT made a big mistake in their fight for equality.
    You “took on” one of the strongest, basic foundations of Christianity — you want to overthrow God’s reason for marriage.
    That’s incurring huge negative reaction from Christianity — as
    it should in its defense.

    What Does God Say about Marriage?
    Marriage is not an invention of man. God instituted marriage. According to God’s plan, man and woman together form the unit of humanity. A man or a woman alone is only part of an entirety.
    “And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'” (Gen. 2:18).
    “Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said:
    ‘This is now bone of my bone
    And flesh of my flesh;
    She shall be called Woman,
    Because she was taken out of Man.’
    Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen. 2:22-24)
    This text contains several beautiful statements.
    Adam received his wife as a gift from God. In a sense it is still true that a man receives his wife from God. Solomon says:
    “Houses and riches are an inheritance from fathers,
    But a prudent wife is from the Lord” (Proverbs 19:14).

    We also see that marriage is good. Solomon says in another place:
    “He who finds a wife finds a good thing,
    And obtains favour from the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22).
    We also see how strong the marriage bond is, so strong that they are no longer two but are melted together as one flesh.
    .

    Marriage is an institution of God and is a continuation of His work of creation. Sexual desires are God-given. We should view our manliness or womanliness as a gift from God which we receive with thankfulness and strive to keep holy and pure in accordance with His instructions.

    To preserve the sanctity of marriage and the well-being of man, God has established certain laws regarding sexual activities. Before we discuss these we must be sure we understand how a marriage comes into being.

    First we will discuss some wrong definitions of marriage. Then we will give the definition we find in the Bible.

    Marriage is not a sacrament, as is taught in some churches. In the Scriptures, marriage is an institution in society that is of divine origin. It is governed by the laws of God and by the regulations of the society in which one lives to the extent that they do not conflict with the laws of God. A marriage may take place in a church building, and it is certainly in order for Christians to pray and ask God’s blessing on a marriage. But a marriage is not in and of itself a religious ceremony.

    Nor is marriage a private agreement between a man and a women. This idea is often used as an excuse for unchastity before marriage. The argument is made: “Although we have not been officially married, we have agreed between ourselves to be married, so actually we are already married.” This idea is contrary to the Scriptures. In the Bible a marriage always takes place according to certain norms of society and always involves other people who serve as witnesses. A marriage is an occurrence before God and before man.

    God’s regulations relative to marriage are strict. This is because He values marriage highly for the well-being of man. God’s laws and regulations have no other purpose than the ultimate happiness of man.

    If you want GLBT equality in our country (and even throughout the world), you should be using a different approach than fighting a Christian belief – you should concentrate on getting the secular organizations to give you all the benefits that marriage gives to a man and wife relationship as Christians accept.

    What is it about the word “marriage” that the GLBT desires so greatly, as you don’t view its definition as has been accepted for 5,000 years. I certainly have no desire to “fight” if people want to live in a homosexual relationship, rather than in an established man/woman marriage. What is so inherent in the word marriage that GLBT can’t get along without it. Eventually, this secular government will grant GLBT whatever they want to be considered equal with the established marriage concept – but fighting the Christian marriage issue is going about it in a wrong fashion

  42. Hank,
    You fail to mention that there are marriages in various cultures throughout the world that are not defined by your God. Try telling a Hindu, for example, that their marriage is not as valid as a Christian’s.
    The struggle to obtain legal and moral recognition of LGBT partnerships is NOT religious and therefore all of your arguments about is being so are invalid. All we want is the same rights as heterosexual couples. In the UK we have civil partnerships which, although not labelled as “marriage” are nevertheless a big step towards equality.

  43. Hank

    Yo missed my point completely, which was the CONTENT of Paine’s quote, NOT any assumption of authority on Paine’s part.

    Quite honestly, the Bible DOES often sound more like “the word of a demon that the Word of God” – not least where its god commits, commands, condones and otherwise colludes with the most atrocious violence.

    The Bible started life as Davidic court propaganda, and it remained ultimately propagandist in nature.

    I realise that it’s almost as pointless trying to reason with a religious addict ‘high’ on the drug of doctrine as it is talking to an alcoholic while they’re canned…

    But I as you this, Hank, have you NO respect at all for the God above all Bible-babble and god-talk?

    Do you not care that the Bible slanders God over and over again by putting lies and violent words into God’s mouth?

    You don’t go along with slander of a person you truly like and respect, do you, so why collude with slander of God?

  44. Hank, you said: “What is it about the word “marriage” that the GLBT desires so greatly, as you don’t view its definition as has been accepted for 5,000 years. I certainly have no desire to “fight” if people want to live in a homosexual relationship, rather than in an established man/woman marriage. What is so inherent in the word marriage that GLBT can’t get along without it. Eventually, this secular government will grant GLBT whatever they want to be considered equal with the established marriage concept – but fighting the Christian marriage issue is going about it in a wrong fashion”

    You’re presuming that LGBT people are trying to ‘hijack’ marriage and tread on the toes of Christians. Here in the UK, in order to not offend Christians, we have Civil Partnerships NOT marriage. I didn’t agree with that compromise, but accepted it if it kept the religious people happy – after all, a word’s just a word, right?

    BUT even though Christians were allowed to have this concession and keep the word ‘marriage’ protected, that wasn’t enough. Some Christians will not stop persecuting the LGBT community and trying to limit their freedoms. They just went right on and looked for something else to make a fuss about in order, in my opinion, to justify their vicious prejudices. The recent cases of the Christian registrar and the Christian counsellor show that even when there’s no issue, some Christians have to make one and constantly interfere and judge other people who are doing no harm to them at all. I don’t want to pick a fight with anyone. I believe in ‘live and let live’ as long as no-one is hurt, but gradually I’m becoming less patient. I’m all for considering other people’s opinions, but when a term (Civil Partnerships) is chosen to not offend Christians who then go right ahead and get offended about such relationships anyway, then what’s the point in pandering to such views?

    Much as I admire your thoroughness in posting all these detailed comments, I don’t believe for one second that God – if he exists – judges me on my sexuality or considers me a ‘sinner’ or any less worthy than you or anybody else.

  45. Hey Mark.
    You said, “You fail to mention that there are marriages in various cultures throughout the world that are not defined by your God. Try telling a Hindu, for example, that their marriage is not as valid as a Christian’s.”

    As posted earlier, a Christian definition of marriage most certaiinly doesn’t exclude non-Christians from marrying —
    atheists, heathens, pagans, etc. — anybody can “get married.”
    But it depends on what you do in your marriage — is there
    adultery, abuse, other harmful action against your spouse?

    If there is, God doesn’t condone it and you’d be “pushing” God
    regarding punishment, judgement, etc. for wrong behavior.

    Regarding cultures where marriage may include multiple wives,
    etc. I would see it that if those people were ignorant of God’s
    teachings about “their marriage,” they couldn’t be held
    accouotable because they “don’t know better.”

    There’s some other thinking that has to do with something like “God created a conscience-like quality” in each of us that makes us have a reaction toward right or wrong behavior deep within our soul/heart/spirit/nature, etc.

    I’m not a Bible scholar and since God didn’t create a Q&A book,
    I certainly don’t have answers for many questions — but will
    have after I die and go to heaven, which will be a fantastic
    adventure for eternity.

    Also, since you have civil partnerships now, what is so essential
    that you have it called marriage? As I see it, marriage was
    a God-creation 5,000+ years ago and had nothing to do with civil
    equality — until various kings, rulers, etc. changed the
    definition and the practice of marriage. That doesn’t repeal
    God’s original creation of marriage.

    The Bible teaches that there is no respecter of persons with God, “For there is no respect of persons with God,” Paul declared (Rom. 2: 11). However, such is hard for man to realize, especially since man is often given to respect of persons. Nonetheless, the scriptures are emphatic and replete with teaching that presents God as not judging or treating man, any man, with respect of persons. In other words, God is just and equitable in his dealings with man but when man changes God’s rulings to suit himself, God
    will not let that go without His reaction in due time.

  46. Religion IS the real evil, it’s the devil in disguise….!!!!
    All of you out there who follow literally what the bible says, havn’t you yet realized that the bible is just elaboreted fantasy?…wake up people, stop your selfish, hypocritical sad life to rule your existence, live life as nature intended.

  47. “People should be able to live side by side without questioning (or judging) each others beliefs or ways of life – or other intrinsic factors which make every individual unique. How else could there ever be peace?”

    Oh Christina my dear, humanity has only made progress because people have dared to question, to probe, to express doubt, to ridicule beliefs – Servetus, Galileo, the Sufragettes, Sir Salman Rushdie… sometimes paying with their lives for it. Long may that continue.

    Rob Fox: ‘don’t let the buggers get you down’. The man has presented no evidence at all that any Bible verses are true. He can’t because there isn’t a scrap of evidence, apart from lots of ‘meticulously copied books’. Thought: 1.4 billion muslims are equally convinced Hank will go to hell, because he is an infidel!! Let them fight it out in the Middle east, or get ‘raptured’ off so we can get on with life!

    I would like to add another quote from the great Tom Paine. It is especially relevant to anyone who claims that the Bible should be taken seriously (from ‘Age of Reason’). “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

  48. Christina Engela 24 Jan 2009, 9:32pm

    Hank,

    “Marriage is an institution of God and is a continuation of His work of creation” That sounds just like James Dobsons rhetorical nonsense. It ties in with the primitive puritanical concept that sex – and also being alive – exists solely there for pro creative purposes. This is one of the main arguments i have seen these bigots use against GLBTIQ – because they see us as not reproductive and therefore “reject” gods so called purpose. They hate us for that??? Who died and made them god?

    Marriage has been around since pre-Hebrew times and same gender marriage for that matter as well. And yes, the ancient Egyptians didn’t call it a “civil-union” either – they called it what it is – marriage.

    It is also no use quoting scriptures at me – or us – because a) i am not a xtian anymore and couldn’t give a hoot, b) i am not inclined to suffer the arrogance of people who claim to know what some hypothetical god said 4000 years ago (and who weren’t there to witness it either) and c) NO religion – nor any religious scripture can be proven as genuine, factual or even remotely accurate – especially not the xtian bible, which has been edited, mistranslated, embellished and modified for ancient propaganda purposes (with a dozen books left out) over 3 thousand years of history. Furthermore, it was written by mere mortal men (no matter what claims are made about so called “inerrancy” and “divine inspiration”) who lived in the desert probably smoking camel dung (saying this is good Camel, man) and who apparently knew squat about science, the universe, evolution, human rights, the future, the past or even equality or fair play. A mere book – paper and ink – is being held as ultimate authority over living people in defiance of their basic human needs – by people who are so blinded by their own bigotry and fanaticism they can’t see past the bullshit.

    Xtians today cant even agree on which god to worship, which savior to praise or which bible to bash innocent people over the heads with. In fact it seems the ONLY thing they can agree on today is to hate US. And until bible-bashers can produce this god who they claim wrote their schizophrenic book (and set up their schizophrenic religion), they should just button up and think happy, happy thoughts about how lucky they are to be “saved”, instead of persecuting people who have done them nor their fanatical religion any harm.

    Pretty poetry and wonderful imagery may help a person face their own reality – but in the end as far as i am concerned it is no more than chicken soup for the souls of dying men. But it is still no more factual than the latest Harry Potter book, just a lot older, with more continuity errors, two dimensional characters, contradictions and lousy special effects.

    I do not require some dead guys from 2000 years ago who knew squat about me or my kind or our needs – and who obviously cared even less – to prescribe to me who i may or may not love, date, or marry. And i will think for myself and feel for myself and answer for myself, thank you very much James Dobson, R.J. Rushdooney, Ted Haggard, and Peter bloody Hammond, dominionists all.

  49. Hank, it is not “God” that created a “conscience-like quality in each of us that makes us have a reaction toward right or wrong”.

    You clearly have no idea about where human morality has come from – to repoeat, they evolved, through natural selection – and it seems you are even less interested. You make claims about what God wants, which you cannot back up with evidence.

    Give a reason why gay people should not marry other than the unprovable ‘what god wants’. Bible verses do not count, because they are not evidence.

  50. Hey Rob, you said,”Do you not care that the Bible slanders God over and over again by putting lies and violent words into God’s mouth”

    I don’t see that in the Bible. Everything proclaimed in
    the Bible was inspired by God when it was written by men so the only negative words that “you see” were created by sinful man’s misinterpretation.

    “Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy” (Rev. 15:4). He only is independently, infinitely, immutably holy. In Scripture He is frequently styled “The Holy One”: He is so because the sum of all moral excellency is found in Him. He is absolute Purity, unsullied even by the shadow of sin. “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Holiness is the very excellency of the Divine nature: the great God is “glorious in holiness” (Ex. 15:11). Therefore do we read, “Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity” (Hab. 1:13). As God’s power is the opposite of the native weakness of the creature, as His wisdom is in complete contrast from the least defect of understanding or folly, so His holiness is the very antithesis of all moral blemish or defilement. Of old God appointed singers in Israel “that they should praise for the beauty of holiness” (2 Chron. 20:21). “Power is God’s hand or arm, omniscience His eye, mercy His bowels, eternity His duration, but holiness is His beauty” . It is this, supremely, which renders Him lovely to those who are delivered from sin’s dominion.

    Only those whose eyes have been opened to Jesus Christ can see the truth of the Holy Bible. All others will be deceived.

  51. Christina – couldn’t have said it better myself!

  52. Hank

    I can see that your religious addiction to scripture-quoting is having a dementing effect upon you, so I’ll limit this post to just one book recommendation; a book that explains with brilliant clarity exactly how the Evangelical System of Mind Control works.

    It’s called: “The Mind of the Bible-Believer” by Edmund Cohen

    It’s a great book, very witty in places… and it just might help set you free.

    Wishing you a speedy recovery.

    Rob

  53. Even Mother Theresa could not belive this nonsense, in the end. There’s nobody there – as seen in the video link below. If even a rabid fanatic like her can realise the Road to Damascus is a 2-way street, so can you, Hank. Just think, no one is listening to you, whether you are preaching on here, or praying in church, and for all your words, you have no idea what will happen when your body returns to the earth.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VMVVJrWYMzo

  54. “As posted earlier, a Christian definition of marriage most certaiinly doesn’t exclude non-Christians from marrying –
    atheists, heathens, pagans, etc. — anybody can “get married.”
    But it depends on what you do in your marriage — is there
    adultery, abuse, other harmful action against your spouse?

    “If there is, God doesn’t condone it and you’d be “pushing” God
    regarding punishment, judgement, etc. for wrong behavior.”

    Aren’t I correct in saying that all people who don’t accept Jesus as the Saviour are destined for the pits of hell? That means that Hindus, atheists etc are damned whatever they do. So why not accept gay marriage as much as any non-Christian marriage?

  55. Hey Mike, you say, “Aren’t I correct in saying that all people who don’t accept Jesus as the Saviour are destined for the pits of hell?”

    Here’s what the Bible says about that — take it or leave it, now
    you’ve heard the truth.

    There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
    Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’.

    “You must be born a second time.” Your first birth was of sinful parents, and you were born in their image. The second birth is of God, and we are born in his image. The first birth was of corruptible seed. The second birth is of incorruptible seed. Our first birth is in sin. Our second birth is in righteousness. By our first birth we were polluted and unclean. By our second birth we become holy. Our first birth was fleshly and carnal. Our second birth is spiritual and makes us spiritual.

    By the first birth all men are foolish and ignorant. By our second birth we become wise unto salvation. By our first birth we were slaves to sin and the lusts of the flesh. By our second birth we are made free from the dominion of sin. By our first birth we are all children of wrath. By our second birth we are children of promise. Our Lord says, “Ye must be born again,” because we were all born wrong the first time.

    You say, “That means that Hindus, atheists etc are damned whatever they do. So why not accept gay marriage as much as any non-Christian marriage?”

    Hindus, atheists, etc. are simply sinning, whereas you are not
    only sinning, but want to actually change God’s institution of
    marriage to include an act that He calls sinful. That’s not
    the way of justice or righteousness for God.

  56. Yo Adrian:

    I just found this and would like your response to the information.

    From Christian Courier.com
    .
    Evolutionary scientists date the earth at approximately 4.5 to 5 billion years old. Most folks are not aware that there is really no incontrovertible scientific proof to establish these fantastic dates..
    Evolutionists need vast amounts of time for the millions of evolutionary changes to occur which would produce the amoebae-to-man phenomenon.
    It’s been demonstrated many times, however, that the “evolutionary clocks” are terribly flawed.

    Here’s a recent example: Remember the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption? It occurred on May 18, 1980. That was less than twenty years ago. As a result of that catastrophe, a new lava dome was formed on the site. Not long ago, it was “dated” by the radiometric method. Guess how old it turns out to be? It yielded a date of 2.8 million years! If that does not demonstrate that the “clock” is broken, then what would?

    Here is another interesting item: Tens of millions of fossils have been found beneath the surface of the earth that provide us with a veritable library of what life was like upon the ancient earth. And the record contains some surprising mysteries.

    For instance, one of the foundation stones of the evolutionary theory is that of “natural selection.” This is the idea that in the struggle of life the stronger survive while the weaker are eliminated. This was Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” While there is some truth in the principle, it is taken much too far by the disciples of Darwin. If this has been the guiding factor in evolution, over vast periods of time one would expect to find in the fossil record evidence of the increasing hardiness of the species as time passes.

    Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are. For example, the January, 2000 issue of National Geographic magazine reports the discovery of a huge depository of fossils in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “Digression!”—not progression.

    It’s commonly believed that fossils take vast ages to form; this, supposedly, is another of those “proofs” employed by novices to suggest an earth millions of years old. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, of course, when you think about the fact that when animals die, they are usually consumed by other animals, or simply decay away. But here is a bizarre news item: According to an article published on January 5, 2000 by the Reuters News Service, doctors in Taiwan recently performed surgery on a seventy-six year-old woman. In her abdomen they discovered a fossilized fetus that had been conceived forty-six years ago. The report asserted that only three such cases have been recorded in history. The tiny fetus (0.7 ounce) had solidified into a rock-like substance, hardened by calcium buildup.

    The theory of evolution is so besieged with problems that it’s amazing it is so widely believed. But then, most people do not investigate. They simply believe what they are told—especially when it has the fumes of “science.” Many scientists have a vested interest in pushing evolution. Why is that? Because the only other alternative is creation. And that, of course, points to God—and a responsibility to him. For them, that is simply out of the question

  57. Isn’t it hysterically funny how these people spew their drivel into cyberspace but never allow anyone to leave commentary? I went on that site and there was no place to leave a comment. None.

    That’s just sheer cowardice. But given the earthquake, both political and social, that we’ve experienced in the U.S., they would WANT to be scared!

  58. Hank says: Hindus, atheists, etc. are simply sinning, whereas you are not only sinning, but want to actually change God’s institution of marriage to include an act that He calls sinful. That’s not the way of justice or righteousness for God.

    Hindus worship idols, so why not ban the sale of them in California

  59. Hank, evolution is an arms race, it’s about adaptation, not a beauty contest. Escaping predators, finding prey, fending off parasites and surviving in the environment. Those bodies that invest more resources into too hard shells and oversized heads have fewer resources to invest in reproduction. (see ‘the selfish gene’ by richard dawkins). Radiometric dating: in proclaiming this one misreading, and ignoring the thousands of experiments that give clear results, have you excluded the very plausible explanation, that contamination occurred?
    Suggested reading about dating:
    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471384372/thetalkorigin-20/

  60. Hank –
    “Actually, just the opposite is true. The fossil record bears mute testimony to the fact of degeneration. Earth’s creatures were much more robust in the past than they now are. For example, the January, 2000 issue of National Geographic magazine reports the discovery of a huge depository of fossils in a large cave in Brazil. It contained, for instance, the skull of a spider monkey that was twice the size of modern spider monkeys. The fossil of a twenty foot ground sloth was also discovered. These discoveries literally shout, “Digression!”—not progression.”
    By that rationale, computer systems created in the 1950s are superior to computer systems created in 2009 simply because they take up an entire room rather than the space of a laptop. Is that the hub of your argument?
    The conditions on earth evolve as well as the lifeforms that thrive on them. Your big spidermonkey may have been eating too much for the forest to sustain his appetite, or maybe he lacked agility or any number of factors. Bigger is not always better. That myth is only believed in Texas, along with some other myths I could mention.

  61. I see Hank’s prescription has run out again (or needs changing).

  62. Christina Engela 25 Jan 2009, 8:04pm

    This little chat now seems more about evolution vs creationism than the fact that religious bigot gay-bashers in the US are now running around like headless chickens because justice has finally arrived in the White House after so long an absence. (Obviously i am celebrating – because most of the support for the bigot orgs (church groups)in SA comes from their buddies in the USA.)

    I have often wondered why so many people who obviously oppose gay or trans equality (or even existence) show such an unusual interest in the affairs of those they persecute and frequent such places – could it be a) intelligence gathering; b) an opportunity to spread their wings as pulpit pilots and preach down to the lowly gay vermin; or c) a case of the “closet syndrome”?

    Gay and trans people have been shown by scientific methods and evidence as natural thru birth as any heterosexual. Looking at it from any religious perspective there is only one consequence – and it is one the religious right strive frantically to avoid because it strips them of their excuse to justify hating us:

    If they believe their god made all human beings – then he/she/it made US as well – and because we are as we are by birth then this god made us this way also.

    Trouble for me is this: If this is indeed so – then why have people constructed this elaborate little web of lies and deceit detailing how “God hates fags”; that the hate manual (bible)they use is “perfect” and “inerrant” – and that this god has sent these super-religious nut-jobs (with white phone lines to the almighty(red is for Satan, duh)) to persecute and rid the world of all those who differ from their perfect “Christian World View”.

    Somebody has their bibles or gods crossed – and considering that we are more natural than the bigots (being bigots – which IS a choice) – I’m sure as nuts it ain’t us.

    This xtian god claims to love all people – so isn’t it time these over-religious wankers decided to take a leaf out of their own book (like the millions of others who show their gods love instead of their own hate)rather than reading between the lines and making it all up as they go along?

  63. Doug Pollard 26 Jan 2009, 5:03am

    Of course you can ‘pick and choose’ from the Bible – in fact you can’t take it all as literal truth, because it repeatedly contradicts itself! Why? Because it isn’t one book, it’s many, written by hundreds of different hands over thousands of years. It’s a history of the evolution of the Judeo-Christian religion. Jesus himself pointed out how nonsensical and irrelevant much of the old stuff was, and offered new approaches instead. He said that everything was subordinate to the one great commandment: Love you neighbour as yourself. That trumps everything else. People who believe and act otherwise are not Christians.

  64. Doug Pollard 26 Jan 2009, 5:16am

    Jesus said the greatest of all commandments was to love your neighbour as yourself, and that overrides everything else. The rest of the bible is just the history of the evolution of judeo-christian thought. All that earlier bs about stoning adulteresses, not wearing mixed fabrics, giving up lobsters etc., is history only, something St Paul – who, by the way, never met Jesus – tragically failed to understand. These people aren’t Christians, they’re Paulines.

  65. Simon Murphy 26 Jan 2009, 1:49pm

    If people want to believe in the bible that’s their own business. However thr religions need to realise that their interpretation of life is merely their opinion. They should NEVER be allowed to impose their belief systems on others. The sad reality is that religions ALL try to pervert democracy by influencing the law in their own favour. I

  66. Hey Rain:

    You said, Isn’t it hysterically funny how these people spew their drivel into cyberspace but never allow anyone to leave commentary? I went on that site and there was no place to leave a comment. None”

    The site is strictly an information update — Just like many other
    sites — they aren’t set up for leaving comments — nothing to
    get upset about. If you don’t believe their information, studies,
    facts, just go to your sources to prove it all to be erroneous.

    I read posts that refute or oppose Christian sites dealing
    with evolution, creationism, intelligent design. That’s how
    progress happens — people show new information as it arrives
    from new research. What I do is refer to sites that show a
    Christian approach to these problems, issues, etc. to find new
    information.

    You also say, ” But given the earthquake, both political and social, that we’ve experienced in the U.S., they would WANT to be scared!”

    You are totally wrong when you say we are “scared.” Why should
    I be scared. I know how it all ends and I’ve accepted the
    Book of Revelation for my answers concerning the future.

    I have no doubt that homosexuality will become stronger as time
    goes. Also, overall human decadence and immorality, famine, disease, racism and competition among ethnic rivals, and crime and violence are exploding and will continue getting worse – just read your daily newspaper.

    The past century, man has tapped the power of the atom. Science and technology seems to be run uncontrolled , producing more unbelievable new inventions capable of mass killing. Today, more and more countries possess weapons of mass destruction. What’s even more dangerous is because of all the mistrust and strife between nations, and it continues to grow worse almost daily.

    A lot of people wonder, “where’s all this leading us? “ Many have opinions, but it seems that mankind never learns from past history – we continue to commit the same problems year after year and even make worse decisions. I wonder why man doesn’t get smarter as time goes.

    Too many people believe things will eventually “turn out alright,” many look the other way, choosing to pursue pleasure and accumulate material goods –“ living for today only.” But for the short term, things will not turn out alright. World conditions are—and will become—far more serious and evil than most realize.

    With one-third of the Bible being prophecy—the future written in advance – I’m certainly not worried or scared because I’ve read and understand how it all ends..

  67. Hey Doug:
    You said, “Of course you can ‘pick and choose’ from the Bible – in fact you can’t take it all as literal truth, because it repeatedly contradicts itself! Why? Because it isn’t one book, it’s many, written by hundreds of different hands over thousands of years. It’s a history of the evolution of the Judeo-Christian religion. Jesus himself pointed out how nonsensical and irrelevant much of the old stuff was, and offered new approaches instead. He said that everything was subordinate to the one great commandment.

    I don’t see where you can back up your statement. Here’s the opposite view.
    .
    It ‘s a historical book backed by archeology, and a prophetic book that has lived up to all of its claims thus far. In light of all these facts, asking, “who wrote the bible,” is a vital question that deserves serious investigation and a serious response. The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more.

    Even if you see the Biblical claims as dramatic or unrealistic you can’t overlook accepted facts by Bible scholars the world over.
    You have to honestly examine the biblical texts in light of the external evidences that supports its claims. 2 Timothy 3:16 states that “All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, You have to realize that “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book which is supported by compelling factual evidence.

    The design of the Bible itself is a miracle. Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing. No human beings could have planned such an intricate combination of books over a 1,500-year time span.

    Bible manuscripts (there were no printing presses until 1455) have survived despite weather, persecution and time. Most ancient writings written on weak materials like papyrus have vanished all together. Yet many copies of the Old Testament scriptures survived. For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ. (This gives support for accepting the Biblical writings, which have not been disproved as being factual.)

    The Bible also validates its divine authorship through fulfilled prophecies. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false (three are unconfirmed). An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Further, archeology confirms (or in some cases supports) accounts in the biblical record. No other holy book comes close to the Bible in the amount of evidence supporting its divine.

    You said, ” Jesus himself pointed out how nonsensical and irrelevant much of the old stuff was, and offered new approaches instead.

    (Boy, how can you say that after what Jesus himself said, as
    shown below)

    Jesus said “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 5:17-19, NAS].
    Jesus seems plain enough. He did not come to do away with Biblical law. In fact, He sternly warned His followers not to annul it. Such a warning would have been unnecessary if Biblical law was no longer in effect. According to Jesus Himself, Biblical law will last as long as heaven and earth last.

  68. You can’t argue with fundies: they keep coming back after text-mining their big book of fairytales. The only thing to do is to attack the EFFECTS of their insanity rather than its root. They can believe that gays are the bed partners of Lucifer for all I care; what I object to is when that attitude leaks into how they treat me, and how they try to influence secular law. Oh and how they use it as an excuse for queer bashing.

    We cannot do anything to accommodate their views because they are antipathetic to us. They may say “love the sinner, hate the sin” but separating the two isn’t easy.

  69. Well said aprYs – you can refute their claims, pull their arguments apart but all they do then, as we can see above, is just repeat their nonsense like spambots.

    (how nice to claim the 69th post :-))

  70. Hey Adrian… Flapjack, You can continue to try to promote your
    evolutionary theory for expalining mankind, but there’s a
    continual movement away from evolutionary theory as being valid.

    Here’s some strong statements that you can’t easily discount. This
    type of anti-evolution is gaining reguarlary, and I envision that
    in 20 years or so, only a very few scientists will continue to
    promote it.

    A 2005 poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research found that 60% of American medical doctors reject Darwinism, stating that they do not believe humans evolved through natural processes alone.

    Thirty-eight percent of the American medical doctors polled agreed with the statement that “Humans evolved naturally with no supernatural involvement.” The study also reported that 1/3 of all medical doctors favor the theory of intelligent design over evolution.

    In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the evolutionary position is gradually losing public support in the United States.
    The prestigious science journal Science reported the following in 2006 concerning the United States: “The percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005. Meanwhile the fraction of Americans unsure about evolution has soared from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent last year.”

    In January 2006, the BBC reported the following in respect to Britain:
    “ Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
    Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons..

    The theory of evolution posits a process of self-transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.

    Although not a creation scientist, Swedish geneticist Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: “My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint.”

    The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution.

    Even evolutionist Mark Ridley, who currently serves as a professor of zoology at Oxford, stated the following: “In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and actually the fossil record is counter evidence to the evolutionary position.

    In addition to the evolutionary position lacking evidential support and being counterevidence, the great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, most leading scientists were against the theory of evolution.

  71. Oh really Hank…

    First, the fact that people in the street do not accept evolution, is not a case against evolution. That actually shows how stupid people are. (In any case you should get your facts right about what the founders of your religion believed. The literal 6 day interpretation of creation only came about after galileo’s time; the position of St Augustine, St Thomas Acquinas leaned more towards the theistic evolution that the Roman church now believes in, than the fiction of creationism).

    Secondly, science is cumulative. Who cares what Newton thought? Newton believed in alchemy – should we also throw our chemistry books away?

    The fossil record is brimming, there are millions of examples – you’re just parroting creationist propaganda. Go to a museum. Talk to palaeontologists, who know what they are talking about. I explained this before, and yet repost the same debunked nonsense, arguably in a cynical attempt to drown out uncomfortable questions. And to repeat, the DNA record proved evolution happened – that’s the whole point, the fossil record is not needed. Quoting Matt Ridley is rather odd – you should read his book ‘the origins of virtue’ in which he explains the natural origins of morality!

  72. Yo Adrian, you said,
    “Gay and trans people have been shown by scientific methods and evidence as natural thru birth as any heterosexual.” (You’ll have to show me those sites with that information).

    You have a serious problem:
    It seems that if you believe in the evolutionary theory for your existence, (you must believe in it because the alternative is in the I.D. or creation theory)… your theory is working against you and all homosexuals.

    The big question: Why would evolution permit homosexual behavior to be a growing factor in mankind’s progress throughout time when in fact evolution’s main work is to produce the fittest species to get stronger and increase? Gays have no way to produce any strengthening of their “biological homosexual ingredient makeup” if there was such a thing, because they don’t have biological offspring to carry it. That would seem to be vital to improve this “homosexual ingredient,” so that they can continue to pass it on to new generations – otherwise homosexuality will “die out.”

    The only logical explanation that seems to answer this is that homosexuality does not have a biologically determining component that is “controlled by or follows” evolution’s principles,.

    The question of whether homosexuality is genetically inherited has been perplexing scientists for years. While many researchers now agree homosexuality is probably caused by a mixture of nature and nurture, they are still hard pressed to explain the particulars.

    “I think it’s almost beyond a doubt that genes have some influence,” said Ray Blanchard, a researcher at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, who studies the effect of birth order in predicting whether a male will be born homosexual. “My personal view is that there is probably more than one biological mechanism contributing toward homosexuality. I think it’s also safe to say that there is at least one non-genetic influence.”

    Blanchard found that with each older brother in a family, the odds increase by about a third that a boy born later will be gay. This effect is not thought to be caused by genetics, but rather by antibodies produced by the mother’s immune system during pregnancy.

    The research may shed light on a complicated and controversial topic: whether homosexuality is a choice, or whether it is caused by factors beyond a person’s control.

    Here’s some more scholarly beliefs that have to be considered:

    The Darwinian view explains the sexual drive and all behaviour as solely a product of survival of the fittest selection. That is, organisms with a strong heterosexually oriented drive produce more of their kind, and are more successful, and those lacking it produce fewer offspring and are, therefore, more likely to become extinct.

    Evolution teaches that the source of sex is ‘biological … written by natural selection’ Since nature would consistently select those organisms with stronger heterosexual drives, it would become stronger and stronger until it would eventually become the all-encompassing human drive, more important than food and other life preservation needs.

    Homosexuality would obviously usually not produce higher levels of reproduction than heterosexuality— but evolutionary selection would consistently work in the opposite direction, selecting for heterosexuality—and any biological factors positively influencing homosexual feelings would rapidly be selected out.

    Homosexuality is thus not as easy to explain as you seem to think Adrian, so I and many experts studying this condition can’t go along with your statement, “Gay and trans people have been shown by scientific methods and evidence as natural thru birth as any heterosexual.”

    Your belief causes many problems for homosexuals who would want to change out of their homosexuality. You don’t give them any hope, but there are many studies that have proof that gays have indeed changed and are living a happy, productive heterosexual lifestyle.

  73. Yo Adrian:
    You say, “First, the fact that people in the street do not accept evolution, is not a case against evolution. That actually shows how stupid people are”

    I’d like to know if your opinion of the people below would fall
    into the “stupid” category also?

    SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED
    BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS

    ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
    BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
    CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
    CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
    CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
    COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
    COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
    DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
    DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
    ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
    ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
    ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
    ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
    ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
    FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
    FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
    GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
    GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
    GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)

    I can name a hundred others of these “stupid” people who are
    responsible for some of the greatest advances in our civilized society.

  74. From a darwinian perspective, gay sex is no less productive than wearing a condom, choosing to have oral or anal sex, masturbation, choosing not to have sex (and post messages on websites about Jesus Christ instead) for instance: the kind of behaviour that everyone engages in about 99.99% of the time. There are Darwinian explanations for homosexuality, it appears in hundreds of animals, but that’s not the point.

    Humans have evolved to enjoy sex, even you. We have evolved bigger brains, which have the capacity for imagination. As evidence of that, here we are, lots of us doing exactly that, all around the world (statistically, there will never be a minute going by, when gay sex is not taking place, somewhere). Our genes would be horrified if they knew what we were up to.

    I don’t know or care whether my sexuality is nature or nurture. I don’t care less. It’s not remotely interesting to me, or any other gay person.

    It seems only interesting to religious busybodies, who want to interfere with other people’s affairs. The whole point about humans is that we have evolved brains big enough to defy our genes, and break away from the laws of nature. And most importantly of all, really fall in love and find real happiness with someone special. That’s the most important thing in life – and it disgusts me how others think they have the moral authority to intimidate and bully others into repression.

    PS Now, if you insist that only those who pass on their DNA are contributing to society – how darwinian, fascist, in the worst sense – then why single out gay people? Since there are 4 times as many people on the planet than can reasonably be sustained at present consumption levels, why is procreation so important? Have you not considered that, since the first cave paintings 40,000 years ago, we have survived and thrived through spreading ideas, more than genes?

  75. You clearly don’t read my posts properly.

    SCIENCE IS CUMULATIVE. To think in 1858 that there must have been a designer was plausible. Darwin changed all that. People now, 150 years later, who don’t accept evolution are indeed stupid, mad or liars. Know-nothings, know-alls, or no contests.

    Which are you?

  76. Yo Adrian,
    You say, “The fossil record is brimming, there are millions of examples”

    (Sure, but you have no evidence of “transition” which would give meaning to all these fossils). The below site is where I got
    my information. You can comment on it if you feel it’s erroneous,
    but please give me the site to back you up.

    Taken from January 2002
    Featured in: Creation Digest, Winter 2002

    “If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up “transitionals” because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.

    “Darwin wrote that in order for his theory to be true, the number of transitional links “must have been inconceivably great” A century and a half later, the tons of fossils we have since unearthed have not produced even the slightest of what MUST exist if evolution occurred on earth – when we examine the most intact and thorough position of the fossil record, a portion that represents more than 99.99% of the entire fossil record, we don’t find a single one of Darwin’s necessary links, not even one that evolutionists can agree on – none!”

    The evolution theory keeps getting weaker while creationists
    are getting stronger!

  77. Yo, Adrian,
    You say, ” People now, 150 years later, who don’t accept evolution are indeed stupid, mad or liars. Know-nothings, know-alls, or no contests.”

    Which are you? I FOLLOW THE BELIEFS OF THE FOLLOWING THINKERS.

    As Science Digest reported:
    “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.”
    One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

    “The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself – in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does.”
    Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: “Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy.

    Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started.”

    I won’t go into naming all these professionals but you can see them on:http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html

    600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master’s degree in a recognized area of science).
    150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

    Adrian, you’re riding a ‘dead horse,” and aren’t getting very far
    staying with your belief system.

  78. Rrrockhound 28 Jan 2009, 2:41am

    Hank, you’re a know-nothing turd. Why don’t you dispute germ theory, too, after all, everybody knows disease is caused by evil spirits. Screw your ignorance and superstition, screw your non-existent god, and screw you.

  79. Hank – The foremost expert in the field of evolution at Oxford is one Richard Dawkins. In his recent documentary “The Genious of Charles Darwin, he not only showed these ‘mythical’ transitional fossils your creationist websites conveniantly ignore, he also visited a lab in which they have studied evolution under the microscope. This documentary is available on Amazon.
    He is constantly frustrated that whenever a transitional fossil is discovered that links two prior examples in the evolutionary jigsaw, creationists don’t see a link, they see two gaps where one was before.
    If you only accept evidence from known religious sources, there really is no helping you with this. Appeals to the ignorance of the masses don’t work here.

  80. haha Rrockhound.

    Hank, yes, you’re right, you do ‘follow the beliefs’. You have to be told what to believe by the ridiculous Ray Comfort and his know-nothing evangelical fanatics. You’re taking beliefs from one source, by faith. Have you asked, what actual evidence these people have turned up? What qualifications they have? Where did they get these qualifications? Did they publish anything in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal?

    You yourself haven’t produced an independent thought of your own in any of the pointless comments above – you’ve just spammed this comment page with cut-and-pasted nonsense which reflects a total ignorance of what Evolution is about (spiders’ heads being the most hilarious, so far). You repeat comments that have alrteady been refuted, too – and that is childish.

    Clearly, if you have such an earth-shattering theory, why aren’t you presenting it to scientific journals, like Nature, Scientific American? Why are you wasting your time posting it on the comments page of a gay website? or even richarddawkins.net ? The people there really do know their stuff, and will be better at putting you right. To repeat, go to a museum, go and speak to palaeontonlogists. Go and find out about Watson, Crick, Mendel, Curie, Einstein, Venter.

    Anyway, you claim not only to know what happened, but who was responsible. Science never makes arrogant claims about things it doesn’t know. Rather than ‘gaps’, let’s hear some real evidence for your intelligent designer – the same one, I presume, that designed ebola, flightless birds, the human appendix, rover blindness and polio – instead of missing links in the evolution of some obscure species, which there always will be, since the vast majority of carcasses leave no trace.

    So far, I can sum up your theory as: We don’t know what happened, therefore god did it. The Theory of Personal Incredulity, and Evidence for Nothing.

    Believe what you like, it’s your loss.

  81. PS Hank, all your questions on transitional species, the fossil record (which, to repeat, we don’t even need for evidence of evolution thanks to the DNA record) are answered at:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

    I trust you will read and follow up these yourself.

    But once again, visit a real museum, like the natural history museum near kensington, london, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/ and see them for real.

  82. EVOLUTION IS FACT! GOD AND THE BIBLE IS A CENTURYS OLD THEORY AND NOTHING ELSE. FORGET AND REJECT THOSE WHO HATE AND DIVIDE ON THE BACK OF AN OLD TEXT…..AND GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE!

  83. Sister Mary Clarence 28 Jan 2009, 12:49pm

    “…. there’s a continual movement away from evolutionary theory as being valid ….”

    Hank my friend, something really has gone wrong with your education and development if you can quote scripture to the nth degree and yet hold the view stated above.

    I have said it before and I will say it again. Although you are an annoying idiot, I can’t hate you, I can only pity you. The richness and happiness that we enjoy in our lives seems to have escaped you and you fester in a world or fear and hatred.

    That you cannot enjoy the spirited, creative and free-thinking life that was intended for man is such a pity. If there is a God, I can say with absolute surety that you are a corrupt abomination of his will and one day you and those who made you that way will have to answer not to us, but to him. There is no arguing with you, as I think many are realising, your corruption is absolute.

    For everything that your have missed out on in life Hank and the misery that you endure, I have nothing but pity for you.

  84. Hey Flapjack, you said, “Hank – The foremost expert in the field of evolution at Oxford is one Richard Dawkins. In his recent documentary “The Genious of Charles Darwin,”

    While I haven’t read his book, I don’t have the time or expertise
    to argue in area of knowledge — I’m not a scholar in eithe
    evolution or biblical writings. I looked at the below site
    that opposes Dawkins, and that’s as far as I’m going with this
    topic — I leave the research and debating to the experts. if
    you want, you can check out this site to see opposition to
    Dawkins.

    http://replytodawkins.com

    I want to answer other sites that are more in my interest area.

  85. Hey Flapjack,
    You said, ”

    Hank – The foremost expert in the field of evolution at Oxford is one Richard Dawkins. In his recent documentary “The Genious of Charles Darwin,”

    I haven’t read his book, and to be honest I can’t compete with
    his “expertise” in evolution, so I’m letting other Creationists
    who are at his level of knowledge to do the research and arguments
    and see where it ends.
    If you want to see a site I found that opposes Dawkins, look at
    http://replytodawkins.com — but I’m not going further with this
    topic for now. There are other comments that I want to address
    now.

  86. Yo Adrian, You say, “Rather than ‘gaps’, let’s hear some real evidence for your intelligent designer – the same one, I presume, that designed ebola, flightless birds, the human appendix, rover blindness and polio.

    I don’t see the point of arguing about God, Jesus, the Holy Bible
    and a Christian worldview, and yes, I do believe nothing happens in our world that is beyond God’s jurisdiction and knowledge beforehand Since you don’t and won’t accept any of my
    belief system what mutual points do we have to discuss.

  87. Hey Flapjack, you said, “Hank – The foremost expert in the field of evolution at Oxford is one Richard Dawkins. In his recent documentary “The Genious of Charles Darwin,”

    No, I haven’t read his book and to be honest, it’s a subject
    I’ll leave to expert Creationists to do the research and let
    them argue with Dawkin’s position.

    I looked at the following site to see the opposition
    to Dawkins — and I’ll let it go at that.

    replytodawkins.com

  88. Hank –
    “No, I haven’t read his book and to be honest, it’s a subject
    I’ll leave to expert Creationists to do the research and let
    them argue with Dawkin’s position.

    I looked at the following site to see the opposition
    to Dawkins — and I’ll let it go at that.

    replytodawkins.com”

    How predictable was that. If you read further on richarddawkins.net you’ll find the replies to the replies. I’ll leave it at that.

  89. Hank: “I don’t see the point of arguing about God, Jesus, the Holy Bible
    and a Christian worldview, and yes, I do believe nothing happens in our world that is beyond God’s jurisdiction and knowledge beforehand Since you don’t and won’t accept any of my belief system what mutual points do we have to discuss.”
    Well, it appears that the only way to convince atheists and the scientific community is by using scientific evidence. No matter how loud you’re screaming you don’t need to argue about the existance of a God and it’s creations, there are a lot of people who don’t take it for granted as easy as you do ;-)

  90. No, you are determined, Hank, to argue Evolution didn’t happen (and failing completely, with one fallacious, debunked interjection after the next, ignoring arguments about the DNA record, and continuing with an irrelevant argument about fossils) – but you cannot put one piece of compelling evidence for any alternative explanation. I don’t accept your ‘belief system’ – because it’s based on thin air. I don’t base any opinions on other people’s beliefs.

    Evolution, like all scientific theories is testable, the evidence meets the predictions. Find one rabbit fossil in Devonian rock strata, for example, and the theory would be null and void.

    Why are these Creationists, you blindly follow, experts? Do you have a reason to believe they are right, or are they simply experts in telling you what you want to hear?

    700 out of about 10,000,000 – big deal.
    Statistically, that 700 scientists should publicly announce themselves to be creationists is no real surprise. earth is a big planet – it’s home to an estimated 10 million trained scietists. I wonder how many of those would label their religion as ‘protestant, evangelical’, and I wonder to what extent this has an impact on how they see the world?

    I imagine it is difficult for you: you have invested so many years, time, in believing this stuff. The good news is, Change Is Possible. You can walk away from this nonsense anytime you like. There are many cases of people who have given up the fundamentalist Christian lifestyle – evolutionary biologist Michael Schermer, author of the excellent ‘why Darwin matters’, and former evangelical preacher Dan Barker, head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (ffrf.org) for instance. Richard Dawkins has hundreds of examples, on his ‘converts corner’ section.

    As St Paul himself said, 1 Cor 13:11 : ‘When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.’ What wonderful advice.

  91. OMG Hank – I can’t believe you linked me to a site that uses “The Atlas of Creation” to debunk Darwin and Dawkins.
    Dawkins has already wiped the floor with that book, put out by Harun Yahya, a Muslim creationist. Dawkins does a better disection of all the bogus accounts of gaps in the fossil record featured in that tome that don’t match up to reality, but I’ll leave you with this thought…
    It may have escaped your attention that one of the flies included amongst the glossy photos of “animals which never evolved” is a fishing lure. This is so blatantly ridiculous it even has the hook threaded through the cotton bits. If that’s the standard of editoral rigour you use to back your position you have my condolances.

  92. Hey Flapjack,

    I found this interesting as described below;
    
    It is true that the forces of unreason are still very much in play today – as the widespread popularity of New Ageism, continuous environmental doomsday mongering and salience of scientific scare stories demonstrate.

    Yet The New Atheists on the one hand seem unable to explain just why religion continues to play an important role for many in the twenty-first century. (Dawkins for instance takes an ahistorical approach in explaining the salience of religion through evolutionary psychology.) And on the other hand, they do not recognise that the celebrities, commentators, politicians and others who warn daily of climate chaos being visited upon Mother Earth are simply preaching a secular version of Kingdom Come – and, paradoxically, many of them would not hesitate to dismiss religious people as backward Bible-bashers. Hitchens, in his book God is Not Great, talks about imminent ‘heat death’ as a result of global warming, while denouncing religious ‘visions of apocalypse’.

    It seems that the New Atheists, their fans at the British and American Humanist Associations, and others who fear the popularity of god, fall back on religion-bashing rather than trying to convince others that there is merit in their own secular values. Really, what irks them about the religious is that they have a grand vision and are committed to live by it – something that is sorely lacking in society at large.

    Nothing to do with evolution, but it seems to give a picture of
    your type of thinking.

  93. naxoriat

  94. Hey Geert.
    You said, “Well, it appears that the only way to convince atheists and the scientific community is by using scientific evidence. No matter how loud you’re screaming you don’t need to argue about the existance of a God and it’s creations, there are a lot of people who don’t take it for granted as easy as you do.

    No Geert, that’s where you’re totally wrong. God is a Spirt and there’s no way science will be able to research, contact, prove Spirit and God. But there are ancient writings to open your
    eyes just a little bit and perhaps lead you in the right direction.

    There’s only way for man to understand and come to God. Here are
    some of the reasons for my view.

    God seeks those that he calls brothers, and friends.

    The church is the body of Christ, which does not reside in a building but the people in which Christ inhabits.
    The gospel message of Jesus is that of repentance, plain and simple.

    Most men cannot handle this and so the road to destruction is broad, but for the few who hear His voice and in truth respond, they enter through the narrow gate.

    Yet many who find Him initially fall away, because they yet cannot handle the calling and commands of Christ and while in sight of the narrow gate, they veer off the wide road that leads to destruction.

    No “sinners prayer” will help you, you must repent from from your former self from the heart, you must have a real desire to follow Christ and do the works of the faith that He outlined in Matthew 25.

    Not all men have been called, this calling is only to those who have been chosen from before the creation of the world.
    Jer 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

    You see, if God chose you, you know it in your heart, no one has to tell you, you just have to stop the rebellion and come to Him who gave his life for your sins, even though you do not deserve it, he did it for you so you could have everlasting life, and life abundantly.

    This life we live is not life, we have not even experienced life yet, the true life God intendeds for those that are his cannot be imagined.

    God said that we would rule WITH HIM, and that we would have life.
    It is so easy to look at ‘things’ & possessions as the source of life, and the enjoyment of it, but things, and drugs and money just placates, it may give us some comfort, but when you pass away, what comfort will you have?

    Jesus said to give up this life, and by doing so you will gain life.

    If you are called, you will come to him, if you were not, then this is just gibberish to you and you will not understand nor accept anything that has been said here.

    Take it or leave it, it is your fate, me personally, I feel very sory if you choose wrongly. What you do, you have to live the consequences of your actions when you die, not me, I’ll live
    a joyful eternal life in heaven, knowing all the secrets that
    mankind wold seek througout their lives, and it all ended up
    in waste for them.

    If you accept these words of calling, then simply repent of your sins, give up your life, ask god to forgive you and do it from the heart, not from religion.

    Do not pray in repetition, talk to God like you would talk to your best friend.

    Be sincere. And then go, and do not sin anymore.

    You can do it. Do not be deceived by the tricks of the world, do not lean on your own understanding, just give up, that is all you have to do.

    Once you have done that, pray to God, find a strong Christian
    mentor, and read and work understand the bible, DO NOT GO INTO A CHURCH BUILDING that is not the house of God nor do they do the things of God.

    It’s a wonderful, peaceful life when you find the truth Geert.

  95. Yo Adrian, you say,
    “No, you are determined, Hank, to argue Evolution didn’t happen (and failing completely, with one fallacious, debunked interjection after the next, ignoring arguments about the DNA record, and continuing with an irrelevant argument about fossils)”

    Below are some interesting, helpful and intriguing statements in presenting and defending my position.

    Your emphasis on concentrating on DNA to prove your point is
    way too involved for us to get into. I’m leaving it to experts in
    fields way beyond my knowledge.

    If you can handle it, (You’re a far better man than I Gunga Din,” (Do you remember the movie?)

    Very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1)The lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of openmindedness on the part of both camps.

    I looked at some of the headings in”The Evolution Handbook,”by Vance Ferrell, with the chapter titled
    “DNA and Protein.”

    Here’s some of them just to show how complex and technical it would be to try to discuss DNA and Protein between you and me:

    DNA and its Code, Coiled Strips, Double-Stranded Helix, The Base Code, Utter Complexity, Designing Codes, Messenger RNA, The Living Computer, The Biological Compiler, Cell Switching, Five Chemical Changes in DNA and RNA, Math looks at DNA, Too Many Nucleotides, ( this comes from 14 pages and there over 12 more pages)

    Our limited understanding of the historical record and the workings of the universe makes it difficult for any side to get an advantage over the other.

    Evolutionists and creationists have many differences, but they share one common trait: they tend to oversimplify their explanations of the process by which life began.
    Evolutionists are always trying to find evidence that shows the evolutionary process is a natural rule of physics. Scientists have a bias toward believing that the atoms that make up DNA naturally fall into place if given the right environment.

    They often speculate on the probability of life forming on other planets. Every time a probe explores one of the planets or moons in our solar system, engineers are looking for evidence of life. Mars is often cited as possibly having the right conditions for the formation of life.

    Even if Mars were a mirror copy of Earth, with perfect conditions for supporting living organisms, it would still be highly unlikely that any type of life would form on that planet. The odds are stacked so heavily against the formation of the complex molecular structures, the discovery of living organisms in any other region of our own solar system would only serve to prove the existence of a divine Creator.

    It’s reckless for someone to think it is a simple feat? To have 3 billion amino acid molecules perfectly link up to form the basic genetic code of life. All scientists should find themselves forced to use the term “miracle” when assessing the odds for life forming on any planet.

    In the game of chance, evolutionists are way ahead of themselves. Not only are their missing links missing, but so are a thousand other steps that would require non-living matter to form into life.

    Creationists make their oversimplification error by claiming the world around us can easily be described by the information found in the Bible, which they frequently try to portray as an all-inclusive scientific document. Despite the claims by some Christians, God’s Holy Word is not a book of science.

    Creationists’ conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old is motivated largely by fears that the acceptance of an old Earth would be part of an evolutionary time scale.

    Junk DNA and Left-Handed Amino Acids (A bit technical, but is relative)

    The supporters of evolution and creationism cite an endless number of examples to support their view. Because we have such a limited understanding of how life operates, the validity of most of this evidence is subject to change at any moment.

    Molecular biologists believe that more than 95 percent of all DNA code has no ascribed function to it. The unused portion of the genetic chain is commonly called “junk DNA.”

    It has been proven that sections of DNA can be cut out or replaced with randomized sequences with no apparent effect on the organism. The fugu fish has a genome that is about one-third as large as its close relatives.

    Evolutionists argue that junk DNA is left over from a random evolutionary process. They claim if life had a designer, there would not be so much excess genetic code.

    The 20 amino acids that are used by life are all of the left-handed variety. Because the right side of the amino acids bonds with the double spirals of the DNA helices, the left side of two pairs of amino acid molecules are able to match up.

    Even the most committed evolutionists would have to admit that it would be odd for this chemical arrangement to occur by chance. They would also need to realize the luck involved in not having a right-handed amino that would interfere with the structure of DNA.
    Without knowing all the facts, it’s hard to determine the reason something is designed in a certain way. In the world of plumbing, nearly all sinks have an s-shaped pipe that holds a small amount of water. Because this joint is the most common cause of blocked drains, a straight drain pipe would seem to be a better design. However, the reason sinks come with water traps is to prevent smelly sewage gas from come up through the piping. Until you became aware of the need to block the sewage gas, the usage of the s-shaped pipe would seem to be a design flaw.

    God may have a vital reason for including so-called junk DNA, and there may be a logical chemical reason for those 20 amino acids to be left-handed.? The search for an answer to these two opposing dilemmas is endless.

    Both creationists and evolutionists frequently present arguments that deal with the odds of life forming by chance. While making their arguments, they often set boundaries that really should not be set.

    Time limits one of the most common of these boundaries. If time before is eternal, it not honest to establish time windows for the occurrence of certain events.

    Every time a feature is added to an organism, the odds against its existence by chance climb all the higher. Because life would have had to scale this mountain of impossibility to get where it is now, we would have wonder how many zeros are behind the number of improbability.

    We are truly dealing with numbers that go far beyond our ability to comprehend. Scientists say the universe might be a few billion years old. They have no way of knowing what was going on a trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, or decillion years ago.

    If 1 sexoctingentillion were written out, it would be the number 1 followed by 2421 zeros. Only God could tell us what the universe was like sexoctingentillion years ago.

    In the battle of odds between creationism and evolution there is no way for man to determine a mathematical likelihood for either side. The laws of chance concerning the formation of complex life and the existence of a divine Creator are so astronomically large, our limited knowledge makes us unqualified to judge this contest.

  96. this is cool. Pinknews will get 100 replies on a thread for the first time, thanks Hank for making this happen ;-) I am too drunkn to respond properly as you kan seee

  97. I did worn you, you can’t debate with fundies. They keep coming back for more with more self-generated drivel!

    They can’t even prove the existance of a god, any god, yet they claim to have the “special” truth. The Xian bunch can’t logically explain the contradictions in their own big book of fairy tales, but expect to be able to direct events.

    Just ignore them. Ignore Hank’s long-winded and self-serving diatribes. If you get sucked into them you will have to carry on or be perceived (by Hank at least) as having conceded defeat.

  98. Hank, a very plausible, simpler explanation for all the above, including the formation of the earliest proteins, is given in ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by your secret hero, Richard Dawkins. I am not going to copy the book out – you’ll have to read it yourself (pinknews would get sued, its readers bored, and i don’t have geological amounts of time to do it, and you won’t accept it anyway)! It’s his least anti-religious book; the least you could do is sneek into a bookshop and read pp 68-70.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/product/0140179186/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_5?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addFiveStar

    Actually I am encouraged to see you’re quoting an article that criticises literal interpretations of the Bible – evolution doen’t necessarily lead to atheism. You might find Francis Collins’ ‘Language of God’ of interest. Some of these arguments sound suspiciously like his (still… he presents no evidence **for** any designer!!). He’s a famous geneticist and was involved with the genome project.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

    or for that matter, Kenneth Miller –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin%27s_God

    Gotta go!

  99. Yo Adrin:
    Checked your suggestion, “”You might find Francis Collins’ ‘Language of God’ of interest. Some of these arguments sound suspiciously like his (still… he presents no evidence “for” any designer!!). He’s a famous geneticist and was involved with the genome project.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

    or for that matter, Kenneth Miller –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Darwin%27s_God

    I looked them over briefly and they both sound interesting and
    will do deeper reading on both.
    Also, will see if my library has, “‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by your secret hero, Richard Dawkins 68-70 pp.”

    I had a busy week and haven’t had time to post my latest question/comment here, but will do so shortly.
    Hope your day goes well.
    Hank

  100. Adrian…thanks for the sites for Collins and Miller, looked at
    them briefly and will do a deeper exam of the soon. About
    ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by your secret hero, Richard Dawkins, 67-80 pp will see if my library has the book.

    Been busy this week and haven’t had a chance to post anything
    new lately, but will do so soon.
    Hank
    Hope all is well with you,
    Hank

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all