Answers in Genesis Steals Money from Couple

Any word on whether or not the couple will be pressing charges or attempting litigation? I imagine that the wording of the advertisement for this activity will be a very important piece of evidence in such a case.

They explained to us that the Creation Museum Date Night was a “Christian environment”, therefore the presence of two men eating dinner together would not be allowed.

I wonder why a gay couple would want to hang out with those bigots anyway... Or maybe they just did not know about AiG's homophobic stance?

Could they legally deny employment to such a person who has qualifications?

Matt Young said: ... and yet were allowed to call themselves Equal Opportunity Employers.

I guess they saw the part about "inspiring message about love" but they didn't see that part right after it that said "and the biblical view of marriage". Just kidding. They knew they were gonna make some waves. :P

I wonder if they had shrimp on the menu, after all eating shrimp and lobster is also an abomination found only a few paragraphs up in Leviticus from where it says homosexuality is an abomination. Strange thing is the person who wouldn't let the couple in broke two of the ten commandments by bearing false witness (when stating that the ad page stated gay couples weren't allowed) and stealing. Funny how being gay somehow trumps those two even though homosexuality didn't even make into the top ten. Then again we always knew the Hammites were hypocrites.

The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”.

I don't think there was a dude named "Leviticus". (I think it was named after "Levon" by Elton John, if I'm not mistaken.)

So, Kentucky Christians, you can go to the Creation 'Museum' and soon its other new ministry, Ark Encounters, and you can rest assured that you won't see any gay couples -- however you can run into a guy who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting his ex's husband three times on his first out-of-state visit in 11 years. Does that make you feel better?

Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogsp...

Jesus wasn't too good to eat with the "sinners." AiG should probably read their bibles.

They even find ways to pervert their patriarch, did their "Jesus" ever turn anyone away?

So exactly when will the complaints be filed to end those government subsidies?

we always knew the Hammites were hypocrites.

Hammycrites?

@stevaroni: yes, there are other references. Paul has a go at them more than once. See the list at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Ken said: So exactly when will the complaints be filed to end those government subsidies?

stevaroni said: ... something like "If a man lies with another man as with a woman he has committed an abomination and must be put to death" ...

The Cult of Ham

(Really. It's not baloney.)

As I have said for almost as long as I have been commenting on creationists, creationism is about right wing authoritarian politics. Religious claims, although plausibly "believed" at a conscious level, serve mainly to provide sorely needed ethical justification.

I'm not talking about who or what is "sincere" or ascribing any conscious awareness of scheming or anything else, so please let's not get into a fruitless mind-reading contest here.

What I am talking about is easily objectively observable priorities.

When I very first became significantly aware of creationists back in 1999, I thought that some of them might be people who took spiritual meaning from a traditional religious interpretation, and were trying to resolve a discrepancy between that and science. I had this false expectation because I was raised in a rural Baptist church whose members were largely honest. Creationism never came up, and education was highly respected, but certainly some of the less educated members may have had "creationist" ideas.

It did not take me long to see that this was not the case, and that there is an almost one to one correspondence between being a creationist and being a standard issue authoritarian, homophobic, misogynistic, economically-ignorant-luxury-loving-austerity-preaching, cowardly-threat-making, send-some-other-guy-to-war-loving, climate-change-denying, pollution-loving, nihilistic, late-post-modern American "conservative movement" right winger.

There are plenty of people (or at least some people) who call themselves "conservatives" who are not creationist. Anyone who answers this in a way that implies that I said otherwise is lying.

Anyone who answers this by ascribing some sort of science denial to "the left" will be guilty of 1) making a morally bankrupt "it's okay if the other guy does it too" argument, 2) probably false equivalence, belief in "the healing power of crystals" or the like is not equivalent to trying to use tax money to teach science-denying religious dogma as "science" to a captive audience of students and 3) probably lying, as most superstitious beliefs are at best distributed in a politically neutral way.

The extent to which creationism overlaps with the post-modern right wing movement is remarkable http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/29/rand-paul-refuses-how-old-the-earth-is/

The "religious" claims creationists make will ALWAYS fit with the agenda.

Once you have their money, never give it back.

It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp.
Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

michaelshopkins said: Once you have their money, never give it back. It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp. Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

Wheels said: Now when it comes time for the ark park to get underway, they will have to keep from discriminating against prospective employees at least. It will probably chafe at them and there may be a few slip-ups, since they seem so prone to excluding people that don't already agree with them. You know, like Jesus did?

Poor poor poor homosexuals - I wud like to know if they're okay, do they have a recoveryblog or something?

J

michaelshopkins said: Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

W. H. Heydt said: There has already been a post on Pharyngula covering an employment ad for the "Ark Encounters" that requires one of the typical Ham "faith oaths" to work there. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

Stephen P said: @stevaroni: yes, there are other references. Paul has a go at them more than once. See the list at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

Poor poor poor homosexuals - I wud like to know if they're okay, do they have a recoveryblog or something?

Say, why don't you get right on that and make one?

oh, wait, your concern was fake and your point vapid.

move along.

But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Mary H said: Why is he so big in the Christian world?

SEF said: That's nowhere near as much of a fudge as most of the other examples of rule-wrangling.

Mary H said:

Stephen P said: @stevaroni: yes, there are other references. Paul has a go at them more than once. See the list at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm

I know this isn't really the right venue but since you mentioned it, what the h-ll maybe somebody out there can answer this one for me. I'd love to understand one thing about Christians. (I used to be one.) 12 years of christian schooling. I even taught in a Catholic H.S. As one of my students once said,"There's nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer." And she was right! But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

That is an odious blood libel to foist upon anybody.

Mary H asked: But why do Christians listen to Paul?

The wierder thing is that except for Jesus's death, Paul only ever quotes the OT and nothing from the Gospels. He seems to have no interest in Jesus's life.

Uh, because he lived before the Gospels were written?

Mary H said: But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Mary H said: I know this isn't really the right venue but since you mentioned it, what the h-ll maybe somebody out there can answer this one for me. I'd love to understand one thing about Christians. (I used to be one.) 12 years of christian schooling. I even taught in a Catholic H.S. As one of my students once said,"There's nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer." And she was right! But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

Stanton said:

michaelshopkins said: Once you have their money, never give it back. It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp. Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

That is an odious blood libel to foist upon anybody. What heinous thing did chimpanzees and Ferengi ever do to deserve such unforgivable slander?

Dale Husband said:

Stanton said:

michaelshopkins said: Once you have their money, never give it back. It has been widely remarked that Ken Ham looks like a chimp. Now we know that he acts like a Ferengi.

That is an odious blood libel to foist upon anybody. What heinous thing did chimpanzees and Ferengi ever do to deserve such unforgivable slander?

As a Star Trek fan since childhood, I recognize that michaelshopkins accurately quoted the Ferengi First Rule of Acquisition. There are dozens more, and all of them are about either money or the inferior status of "females" (Ferengi are extremely sexist as well as obsessively capitalist. I think they were meant to represent today's Arab Muslims.)

He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” --Acts 9:1-6

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with.then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born. --1 Cor. 15:3-8

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 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

"There’s nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer.” And she was right!

FL said:

"There’s nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer.” And she was right!

Okay, that's an honest, heartfelt statement. Clearly you're okay with intense, poignant statements like that one. So permit me to ask you directly and honestly: What happened? Specifically, how come you abandoned Christ and Christianity? Would you be able to share one or two of your main reasons? FL

I’m wondering, just where in the Bible is homosexuality outlawed?

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. --1 Cor. 6:9-11

http://www.covnetpres.org/resources/response-to-robert-gagnon/

FL will disagree. I post this only to indicate that FL, despite his tone, speaks neither authoritatively nor for all Christians.

LOL: They Got Ferengied.

SWT said: http://www.covnetpres.org/resources/response-to-robert-gagnon/ FL will disagree. I post this only to indicate that FL, despite his tone, speaks neither authoritatively nor for all Christians.

Tell us, FL, was it wrong of Answers In Genesis to take that gay couple's money in order to deny them service in a show of religiously inspired bigotry?

The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks.

It’s one thing to be refused admission to a simple earthly “Date Night” with salad and soda-pop; it’s quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself–FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell.

Stanton said: Tell us, FL, was it wrong of Answers In Genesis to take that gay couple's money in order to deny them service in a show of religiously inspired bigotry?

We obey God’s call to deliver the message of the gospel, individually and collectively.

jaycubed said: Christians "listen to Paul" because he invented their religion. It would be much more accurate to call it Paulism rather than Christianity. As Saul Paulus (Saul from Tarsus) was the classical "self-loathing Jew" he took the most hate-filled sections of the Torah as guidelines for his new sect, which he proclaimed as Christianity. He used his own status as a Roman citizen, which required his public acceptance of the State Pantheon of Gods, for protection from persecution and to travel freely through the Roman world. He didn't reject his Roman citizenship and concomitant State religion during his trial, and was quickly & relatively painlessly executed as a Roman citizen because he never rejected the Gods of Rome (unlike non-citizen Peter who was crucified upside down on a stake).

FL is attempting his mounting routine again. He's nothing more than a dungeon-dwelling con man trolling for a fragile personality to dominate using fear of hell fire and his imagined "insights" into the psyches of other humans.

"BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS."

FOUR LEGS GOOD. TWO PEENS BAD.

FL said: It's quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself--FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell.

FL said:

He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus

Well Mary, to start things off, those two claims are clearly incorrect. Let's check out the Scriptures:

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” --Acts 9:1-6

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with.then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born. --1 Cor. 15:3-8

So Jesus clearly appeared to Paul, and clearly spoke to him too. Furthermore, the Apostle Peter clearly points out that Paul's words are Scripture. This specific affirmation took place even BEFORE the final book of the NT was written.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 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

Finally, I don't see any NT evidence that any of the other apostles or disciples attempted to argue against Paul's words concerning homosexuality in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy. If you see some, please let me know. ***

"There’s nothing like a Catholic education to make you a non-believer.” And she was right!

Okay, that's an honest, heartfelt statement. Clearly you're okay with intense, poignant statements like that one. So permit me to ask you directly and honestly: What happened? Specifically, how come you abandoned Christ and Christianity? Would you be able to share one or two of your main reasons? FL

As Saul Paulus (Saul from Tarsus) was the classical “self-loathing Jew” he took the most hate-filled sections of the Torah as guidelines for his new sect

Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement.

Here is the registration form:
http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf

More information about the events:
http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage

Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

Thank you Dale Husband. FL must have missed the point (he so often does) that all we ever had from Paul was his word for it.

FL. The reason I lost my faith was...wait for it....I read the Bible and decided that the creature in there wasn't worth worshipping. Anyone who sets Adam & Eve up to fail and then punishes all humans forever for it is indistinguishable from a demon. Besides too much of the Bible is historically wrong not to mention scientifically. Mark Twain once said " The Bible is both good and new. Trouble is, what's new ain't good and what's good ain't new."

IBelieveInGod said: Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement. Here is the registration form: http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf More information about the events: http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

Mary H said: Thank you Dale Husband. FL must have missed the point (he so often does) that all we ever had from Paul was his word for it. FL. The reason I lost my faith was...wait for it....I read the Bible and decided that the creature in there wasn't worth worshipping. Anyone who sets Adam & Eve up to fail and then punishes all humans forever for it is indistinguishable from a demon. Besides too much of the Bible is historically wrong not to mention scientifically. Mark Twain once said " The Bible is both good and new. Trouble is, what's new ain't good and what's good ain't new."

IBelieveInGod said: Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement. Here is the registration form: http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf More information about the events: http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

Back by popular demand, the Creation Museum is holding another “Date Night” on Friday, February 11.

Oops, forgot the link to the Creation Museum's page about this (for as long as it remains up):
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2011/01/13/date-night/

Stanton said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement. Here is the registration form: http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf More information about the events: http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

So you're saying it's okay for Answers In Genesis to discriminate against people they don't like, even though they paid money to attend an event that Answers In Genesis is hosting and is profiting from, and that doing so without allowing the discriminated people a refund is illegal in the United States. Then again, IBelieve, do remember that we're aware that you're a Lying Bigot for Jesus.

SWT said:

IBelieveInGod said: Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement. Here is the registration form: http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf More information about the events: http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

Care to post some links that actually support your claim? On the other hand, the Creation Museum (an AIG project) clearly says

Back by popular demand, the Creation Museum is holding another “Date Night” on Friday, February 11.

No mention of FamilyLife.com.

Sorry, IBIG, but you are stupid and wrong as usual. The advertisement for "Date Night" doesn't mention FamilyLife.com and the number to call for reservations is, guess what? Yeah, Creation Museum Customer Service.

Crawl back in your hole, troll.

IBelieveInGod said: Here it is: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/creation-museum/2010/01/23/familylife-date-night/

I think IBelieveInGod is confused. The FamilyLife.com event is for the future, the one that happened this weekend was apparently not afffiliated with that organization. Here's their post for the February event, compared to the March event. There is no disclaimer of affiliation nor ascription to FamilyLife.com for the past Date Night, but there are such lines for the future event. Also, the numbers to arrange reservations are different for both Date Night events.

It doesn't take a lie to explain this, just a mistake.

Wheels said: I think IBelieveInGod is confused. The FamilyLife.com event is for the future, the one that happened this weekend was apparently not afffiliated with that organization. Here's their post for the February event, compared to the March event. There is no disclaimer of affiliation nor ascription to FamilyLife.com for the past Date Night, but there are such lines for the future event. Also, the numbers to arrange reservations are different for both Date Night events. It doesn't take a lie to explain this, just a mistake.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0099.html FL will disagree.

I am also troubled by Gagnon’s assertion that creation supports the idea of “gender complementarity.” I look at God’s creation and see people who are born with both male and female physical sexual characteristics and find myself forced to ask, “are these people God’s mistakes?”

(Even among the early rabbis it was recognized that humans cannot be exclusively divided into two gender groups: e.g., m. Arakhin 1:1 recognizes four “gender” groups: masculine, feminine, androgyne, and persons of indeterminate gender.) I visit the aquarium and learn about Sheephead fish, all of which begin life “female,” a few later becoming “male” for the sake of procreation, then most reverting to a “female” state. This amazing transformation reminds me of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 (there is “no longer male and female” ­ a text Gagnon does not consider in relation to the idea of “gender complementarity”).

I post this only to indicate that FL, despite his tone, speaks neither authoritatively nor for all Christians.

IBelieveInGod, the Lying Bigot said: Please reread the post, those requests for refunds must be made to Familylife.com. I am not and have not lied, to say I have is a lie on your part. And to say that Answers In Genesis stole is a lie, because they never received the registration fee. It is not their responsibility to refund a fee that they never received.

Now let me address the gay couple, this was a Christian event presented by Familylife.com who clearly believe that homosexuality is sinful lifestyle, so it is perfectly reasonable for this couple to have expected that they would be denied entrance to such an event. I contend that they did it for the sole purpose of publicity.

FL said: I do not claim to speak for all Christians. My one thing is, What does the Bible say about this issue? That's the question you and I have to get honest and deal with. Once again, nobody can serve and worship BOTH Jesus and Homosexulity. The first master will take you to heaven, the second one will take you to hell. Gotta choose. FL

FL said: That's the question you and I have to get honest and deal with. FL

Mike Elzinga said:

FL said: That's the question you and I have to get honest and deal with. FL

We have already established that it is you, FL, who is dishonest. There was that huge fiasco of yours over on AtBC; and then you repeatedly put on airs pretending to be able to speak about matters of science. Yet you repeatedly run away from demonstrating your knowledge of science, seeking instead to always change the subject onto your attempts to proselytize. It has been conclusively demonstrated that you know nothing of science or religion; but you never get it. You seem to think that the comments people have expressed here about your smarmy pretenses are just for fun. Get over it kid; people really mean it. You are a clueless jerk. Nobody cares about your sectarian opinions. You represent everything that people detest most about sectarianism.

Aside from the assertions in the New Testament, is there ANY evidence that Paul was indeed a legitimate apostle of Jesus, and not a usurper of the position of leadership Peter had?

a usurper of the position of leadership Peter had?

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (the Jews), the same was mighty in me [Paul] toward the Gentiles.... (Gal. 2:7)

Seriously, FL, your stupidity is bad enough when you spell things correctly. Putting on the "folksy" Palinspeak only further illustrates your incurable gomerism.

FL. The reason I lost my faith was…wait for it.…I read the Bible and decided that the creature in there wasn’t worth worshipping. Anyone who sets Adam & Eve up to fail and then punishes all humans forever for it is indistinguishable from a demon. Besides too much of the Bible is historically wrong not to mention scientifically. Mark Twain once said “ The Bible is both good and new. Trouble is, what’s new ain’t good and what’s good ain’t new.”

FL said:

Aside from the assertions in the New Testament, is there ANY evidence that Paul was indeed a legitimate apostle of Jesus, and not a usurper of the position of leadership Peter had?

Sorry Dale, but you're making things too easy for me. First, there ARE multiple assertions in the New Testament, and you gotta do sum]thin wid'dem, not just sit there at the keyboard and pretend they don't exist. Paul was absolutely a legitimate apostle. Not just Paul's own clear self-statements, but also Luke's history (the book of Acts) which clearly showed Paul doing the FUNCTIONS of an apostle (especially church-planting) from city to city to city. Lotta eyewitnesses there. So if you're going to claim that Paul wasn't a legit apostle, please start 'splainin. I'm listening.

a usurper of the position of leadership Peter had?

Not even close. You'll want to dump that claim in the trash-can pronto. That's a wide-open shot, easy to refute.

For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision (the Jews), the same was mighty in me [Paul] toward the Gentiles.... (Gal. 2:7)

Stated simply: Not only is there NO biblical evidence that Paul wanted to usurp Peter's apostolic leadership position, but the NT points out that Paul's apostolic position was ALREADY recognized as being just as high as Peter's anyway. Apostle Peter was called to minister to the Jews, Apostle Paul was called to minister to the Gentiles. Nothing to usurp, frankly, for each guy had his own clearly defined, equally high gig. Moreover, Paul had his hands full every day, just trying to redeem the time, and fulfill God's tasks assigned to him. It was a large territory and many strategic assignments given to him--and often a price to pay too. No chance of Paul even NEEDING to "usurp" Peter's position--Paul's hands were more than full already. FL

FL said: While getting ready for tomorrow, let me say thanks Mary, for taking time to answer my question. Just wanted you to know that I didn't miss your response. It's tempting to ask, for extra credit, exactly how God "set up Adam and Eve to fail" when in fact both humans were fully informed about the one tree in the entire Garden they were not to eat from, and even warned beforehand what unpleasant consequence would follow if they did. I think everybody here (even Stanton) would agree that Adam and Eve were adequately informed and warned, and only needed to make a freewill choice to NOT eat of the forbidden tree. Therefore they could not have been "set up to fail", right? FL

Stanton said: If FL could climb over his mountainous ego to realize this, Mike, do you honestly think that FL would continue trolling here, year after year, in the utterly futile hopes of making us his spiritual slaves?

FL said: It's one thing to be refused admission to a simple earthly "Date Night" with salad and soda-pop; it's quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself--FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell.

Just wanted you to know that I didn’t miss your response.

FL...

you need to know something.

You are stupid.

very, very stupid.

and

delusional.

very very delusional.

Anyone who says anything different to you, even your parents, is lying.

FL said: According to SWT,

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0099.html FL will disagree.

As I see it, Dr. Heaton's is by far the weaker position. First, by her own admission, she leaves many points of Dr. Gagnon's book "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" untouched.

Not trying to do a point-by-point here, (too lengthy), but now you can see that Heaton CAN in fact be refuted clearly, on a point-by-point basis.

People, especially lurkers, want to hear about this, especially those who may be struggling. They want to know more about what the Bible says regarding homosexuality.

I post this only to indicate that FL, despite his tone, speaks neither authoritatively nor for all Christians.

I do not claim to speak for all Christians. My one thing is, What does the Bible say about this issue? That's the question you and I have to get honest and deal with.

Once again, nobody can serve and worship BOTH Jesus and Homosexulity. The first master will take you to heaven, the second one will take you to hell. Gotta choose.

SWT said:

Once again, nobody can serve and worship BOTH Jesus and Homosexulity. The first master will take you to heaven, the second one will take you to hell. Gotta choose.

I don’t know anyone who serves or worships “Homosexuality”; I do know many homosexual people who are committed Christians who deeply love God and are active in spreading the Gospel.

Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event.

Now let me address the gay couple, this was a Christian event presented by Familylife.com who clearly believe that homosexuality is sinful lifestyle, so it is perfectly reasonable for this couple to have expected that they would be denied entrance to such an event.

I contend that they did it for the sole purpose of publicity.

harold said: IBIG said -

Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event.

I think the reason for IBIG's constant discomfort and obsessiveness is that somewhere in his or her brainwashed brain, one tiny neuron has one tiny voltage gated ion channel molecule that has a conscience. Bothering to make this lame excuse suggests that some part of his or her brain sees that the lack of refund was outrageously unethical.

Now let me address the gay couple, this was a Christian event presented by Familylife.com who clearly believe that homosexuality is sinful lifestyle, so it is perfectly reasonable for this couple to have expected that they would be denied entrance to such an event.

So let's just agree that this post-modern version of "Christianity" has nothing to do with the Biblical character "Jesus Christ", except that they happen to have similar sounding names. The Jesus character in the four gospels repeatedly reaches out to sinners, preaches about the value of lost sheep and prodigal sons, endures and even invites not mere criticism but actual mockery and ridicule in the goal of converting sinners. Your religion seems to worship Rush Limbaugh.

I contend that they did it for the sole purpose of publicity.

That's highly plausible and I strongly agree with the goal of legally and honestly creating plenty of bad publicity for the creation "museum", AIG, etc. However, there would have been no significant publicity if they had merely been allowed to attend the event they paid to attend.

Once again, nobody can serve and worship BOTH Jesus and Homosexulity. The first master will take you to heaven, the second one will take you to hell. Gotta choose. FL

FL quoted his cult's book of mythology:

I’m wondering, just where in the Bible is homosexuality outlawed?

Excellent question; let's look at that one. I will offer one brief (but specific) Bible passage for consideration. Then, for those who want to see a fuller answer to the question, let me offer a link from Dr. Robert Gagnon.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. --1 Cor. 6:9-11

The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks. It's one thing to be refused admission to a simple earthly "Date Night" with salad and soda-pop; it's quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself--FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell. FL

And I say Juno set up Helen 'cause she was jealous.

Yawn.

IBelieveInTheftAndCovetousness said: Mr. Cartwright.... you should have researched this story better before you posted. Creation Museum was only a host for this Date Night, Familylife.com were the ones presenting the event and in charge of the event. To make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole money clearly demonstrates a lack of research on your part. Familylife.com were responsible for the event, and received the proceeds from the event, and to make a claim that Answers In Genesis stole is a false statement. Here is the registration form: http://www.familylife.com/atf/cf/%7B8E975F2E-4C1C-4315-AAFF-34A97EB367B5%7D/wtr_regform.pdf More information about the events: http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.5846045/k.8C0A/Weekend_to_Remember__Marriage_Getaway.htm?fromeventhp=WTRimage Answers In Genesis could not refund money that they never received now could they?

FL said: I do not claim to speak for all Christians. My one thing is, What does the Bible say about this issue? That's the question you and I have to get honest and deal with.

Wheels said:

W. H. Heydt said: There has already been a post on Pharyngula covering an employment ad for the "Ark Encounters" that requires one of the typical Ham "faith oaths" to work there. --W. H. Heydt Old Used Programmer

I saw their job openings page but it didn't mention anything specific about Ark Encounters, which (according to this page) won't even be hiring until 2013. I think those are just posts for AiG and the Creation Museum.
Then again, now that I'm looking at PZ's post from a few days ago, his quoted list has an entry for Ark Encounters where there isn't one on their current hiring page.

But the Last Supper was just Jesus and 12 other guys. Pretty damn gay by AIG logic. So Jesus was gay, and you can't get more christian than THAT!

And bible colleges didn't used to be coed. The single sex students would eat together, and 'room mates' would sleep together in one bedroom. SNORT! Still do since mostly any coed dorms are segregated by floor.

A lawsuit would be fun here. Pass the popcorn!

FL said:

FL. The reason I lost my faith was…wait for it.…I read the Bible and decided that the creature in there wasn’t worth worshipping. Anyone who sets Adam & Eve up to fail and then punishes all humans forever for it is indistinguishable from a demon. Besides too much of the Bible is historically wrong not to mention scientifically. Mark Twain once said “ The Bible is both good and new. Trouble is, what’s new ain’t good and what’s good ain’t new.”

While getting ready for tomorrow, let me say thanks Mary, for taking time to answer my question. Just wanted you to know that I didn't miss your response. It's tempting to ask, for extra credit, exactly how God "set up Adam and Eve to fail" when in fact both humans were fully informed about the one tree in the entire Garden they were not to eat from, and even warned beforehand what unpleasant consequence would follow if they did. I think everybody here (even Stanton) would agree that Adam and Eve were adequately informed and warned, and only needed to make a freewill choice to NOT eat of the forbidden tree. Therefore they could not have been "set up to fail", right? FL

stevaroni said:

The very sight of this would “add an un-Christian element to the event” and “disrupt the evening for everyone”.

I'm wondering, just where in the Bible is homosexuality outlawed? I know about the one line in Leviticus, IIRC, something like "If a man lies with another man as with a woman he has committed an abomination and must be put to death", but is there anything else. Considering that Leviticus is basically a laundry list of dozens of things that deserve the death penalty, ranging from back-talking your grandfather to taking up two parking places, I'm wondering if there's any further justification outside Leviticus for the virulent antipathy conservative Christians seem to have for gays. An antipity which, one assumes Jesus probably didn't share. After all, he palled around with 12 men who seemed to take little interest in women. Granted, these guys probably weren't exactly the alpha male type, or they wouldn't be inclined to be "desciples", but given the societal pressures of the time to pair up and produce offspring, you've got to assume that at least some of them.... well, had the time to go off and be disciples because they... um... didn't have much going on in the gotta-get-my-gal-with-child department. I mean, if we took everything in Leviticus seriously, I suspect most of us would probably be flogged 3 times a week and be dead by the end of the month. I fact, now that I think of it, I'm beginning to suspect that Leviticus probably didn't get laid much, either.

Mary H said: But why do Christians listen to Paul? He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus, we only have his word for anything and half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with. Why is he so big in the Christian world?

It appears in situations like this that we are dealing, again, with the American Taliban who insist on their form of "Christian sharia" whereby they are right and everyone else is wrong. They have this desperate need to control everyone else's thoughts and actions in this country, and are frankly led by egotistical and money groping preachers who covet this power. It is one thing for them to believe as they wish, another to impose those beliefs on others who choose not to accept those fraudulent, in their minds, religious beliefs.

FL said:

He never saw Jesus, he never talked to Jesus

Well Mary, to start things off, those two claims are clarly incorrect.

Let's check out the Scriptures:

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” --Acts 9:1-6

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, half of what he did say the rest of the disciples disagreed with.then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me (Paul) also, as to one abnormally born. --1 Cor. 15:3-8

So Jesus clearly appeared to Paul, and clearly spoke to him too.

Furthermore, the Apostle Peter clearly points out that Paul's words are Scripture. This specific affirmation took place even BEFORE the final book of the NT was written.

Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 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

Finally, I don't see any NT evidence that any of the other apostles or disciples attempted to argue against Paul's words concerning homosexuality in Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy. If you see some, please let me know.

FL said:

FL. The reason I lost my faith was…wait for it.…I read the Bible and decided that the creature in there wasn’t worth worshipping. Anyone who sets Adam & Eve up to fail and then punishes all humans forever for it is indistinguishable from a demon. Besides too much of the Bible is historically wrong not to mention scientifically. Mark Twain once said “ The Bible is both good and new. Trouble is, what’s new ain’t good and what’s good ain’t new.”

While getting ready for tomorrow, let me say thanks Mary, for taking time to answer my question. Just wanted you to know that I didn't miss your response. It's tempting to ask, for extra credit, exactly how God "set up Adam and Eve to fail" when in fact both humans were fully informed about the one tree in the entire Garden they were not to eat from, and even warned beforehand what unpleasant consequence would follow if they did. I think everybody here (even Stanton) would agree that Adam and Eve were adequately informed and warned, and only needed to make a freewill choice to NOT eat of the forbidden tree. Therefore they could not have been "set up to fail", right? FL

FL said:

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Cor. 6:9-11

The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks.

Tulse said:

FL said:

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. --1 Cor. 6:9-11

The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks.

Wait...so alcoholics are going to hell? Man, that's harsh! Seriously, FL, people with drinking problems are condemned to an eternity of torture? You really believe that?

Tulse said: Seriously, FL, people with drinking problems are condemned to an eternity of torture?

Robin said:

FL said: It's tempting to ask, for extra credit, exactly how God "set up Adam and Eve to fail" when in fact both humans were fully informed about the one tree in the entire Garden they were not to eat from, and even warned beforehand what unpleasant consequence would follow if they did. I think everybody here (even Stanton) would agree that Adam and Eve were adequately informed and warned, and only needed to make a freewill choice to NOT eat of the forbidden tree. Therefore they could not have been "set up to fail", right? FL

Um...no, FL, you're wrong as usual. A & E were most definitely NOT "adequately informed". How could they be? There was no such thing as "sin" until they committed their actions. There was no such thing as "consequence" or "wrong" or "evil" or anything like that. On what then would they have any understanding of God's prohibition? What would it even mean to them? Nothing. No, your pathetic "god" set them up in that story. Plain and simple. Of course, read as the children's fable about obedience it actually is, it makes perfect sense. Pity you don't understand that.

SWT said:

Robin said:

FL said: It's tempting to ask, for extra credit, exactly how God "set up Adam and Eve to fail" when in fact both humans were fully informed about the one tree in the entire Garden they were not to eat from, and even warned beforehand what unpleasant consequence would follow if they did. I think everybody here (even Stanton) would agree that Adam and Eve were adequately informed and warned, and only needed to make a freewill choice to NOT eat of the forbidden tree. Therefore they could not have been "set up to fail", right? FL

Um...no, FL, you're wrong as usual. A & E were most definitely NOT "adequately informed". How could they be? There was no such thing as "sin" until they committed their actions. There was no such thing as "consequence" or "wrong" or "evil" or anything like that. On what then would they have any understanding of God's prohibition? What would it even mean to them? Nothing. No, your pathetic "god" set them up in that story. Plain and simple. Of course, read as the children's fable about obedience it actually is, it makes perfect sense. Pity you don't understand that.

It goes deeper than this, I think. The forbidden fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (not just "knowledge"). One of the implications I draw from the narrative is that Adam and Eve could not have known that they were doing something wrong because they had no concepts of right and wrong. This really is more than a children's fable; it's about coming to terms with the burden of moral accountability.

"Excellent question; let’s look at that one. I will offer one brief (but specific) Bible passage for consideration. Then, for those who want to see a fuller answer to the question, let me offer a link from Dr. Robert Gagnon. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. –1 Cor. 6:9-11 The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks. It’s one thing to be refused admission to a simple earthly “Date Night” with salad and soda-pop; it’s quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself–FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell. FL "

The reasons that the false religion of FL and IBIG condemns homosexuality, which is rarely and ambivalently mentioned in the Bible (as proven by the passages that FL himself brings up), while ignoring things like dishonesty and selfish greed that are repeatedly and unequivocally condemned in Bible, are obvious.

1) For those members of the faith who are not closeted, and there are some, it's pure convenience. The only "real" sin is the only one that they aren't constantly tempted by. Everything else can be casually indulged in as long as a cynical "repentance" follows.

2) In addition, a fair number of Americans are closeted gays, for reasons that are as much social as religious. A focus on condemning homosexuality actually attracts these people, and their money, to the faith.

In addition to the vast areas of knowledge of which FL is completely unaware, there are literally thousands of examples of “sinners” he condemns who have labored hard to put down some of the worst evils in the world.

Alan Turing comes immediately to mind, but there are far more unsung sinners heroes who protect and feed him every day of his bigoted and insignificant existence. He will never know who they are, nor will he ever care.

All he ever thinks about is his continual eroticism for his sectarian beliefs and his constant stalking for weak-minded and immature personalities he can dominate and be a “wise big daddy” to.

For those wondering about the apostle Paul, and why is so big, it is because he was a highly educated person, trained in the arts of oration, apologetics, philosophy, theology, and Judaism among other things. He was a student of the highly respected doctor and teacher of Jewish law, Gamaliel the Elder.

Paul's writings form the basis of much of Christian theology. Want to know why Christians don't view circumcision as a requirement (or why they don't follow the old law)? Paul explains why.

btw, in the early church, there was no Christian vs Jew. The early Jewish converts considered it as an extension of their Jewish faith--it was a fulfillment of prophecy. Just because the prophecy was fulfilled doesn't mean the people became any less Jewish.

There was great debate over whether or not Gentiles were welcome into this 'fulfilled' Judaism, and Paul was one of the writers who helped the early church see that it was inclusive, and showed, using Jewish writings, that after the fulfillment people were living by the new law, not the old law (although if you want to live by the old law, then you will be judged by the old law, rather than the new law).

Anyway, Paul's letters and theological interpretations of Jewish writings provided a lot of the basis for what eventually became known as Christianity. It highlighted many aspects of Jewish thinking.

Even today, aspects of his writings are still debated at the highest scholarly levels (incidentally, you don't have to be a Christian to be a Pauline scholar or appreciate the complexity of Paul's arguments or those of generations of subsequent scholars).

But, if you wanted, you could just dismiss all that and say Paul (or Peter, or the other disciples) didn't really exist anyway--certainly easier than spending several thousand classroom hours learning Koine Greek, Hebrew, history, and reading ancient documents so you can begin to have a start of a little understanding.

Sort of like what Ham does when it comes to any science that might contradict his views. Just belittles and dismisses it without making any effort to actually learn it. He's not big on actually doing any interpretation on what the Bible is actually saying either, unless it is the surface meaning written in plain English, just the way God intended. Certainly don't want the multilayered meanings of original mid-east "rabbah" writing contradicting a perfectly good modern-day simplistic and ignorant North American viewpoint. /snark

Re: Ham's et al focus on gay people. There are other sins, you know. I'd like to see some consistency and have people fighting against, oh say, gluttony, with equal vigor they apply to gay people. Or laziness. Or lying. Or greed.

heh, preach a sermon on gluttony and you'll make at least half your congregation uncomfortable. Guess it's safer to preach against homosexuality so you only make 3 to 5% feel uncomfortable, if that (most will have already left, I suspect).

Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. –1 Cor. 6:9-11 Wait…so alcoholics are going to hell? Man, that’s harsh!

Seriously, FL, people with drinking problems are condemned to an eternity of torture? You really believe that?

teach said: The wierder thing is that except for Jesus's death, Paul only ever quotes the OT and nothing from the Gospels. He seems to have no interest in Jesus's life. Uh, because he lived before the Gospels were written?

So, FL, alcoholism is merely a choice? You do realize that most of modern medicine and psychiatry would disagree with you, right?

SWT said:

jaycubed said: Christians "listen to Paul" because he invented their religion. It would be much more accurate to call it Paulism rather than Christianity. As Saul Paulus (Saul from Tarsus) was the classical "self-loathing Jew" he took the most hate-filled sections of the Torah as guidelines for his new sect, which he proclaimed as Christianity. He used his own status as a Roman citizen, which required his public acceptance of the State Pantheon of Gods, for protection from persecution and to travel freely through the Roman world. He didn't reject his Roman citizenship and concomitant State religion during his trial, and was quickly & relatively painlessly executed as a Roman citizen because he never rejected the Gods of Rome (unlike non-citizen Peter who was crucified upside down on a stake).

I think this is incorrect in several key respects. The Jews and Romans had an uneasy peace during most of Paul's life (although there was certainly no pretense about who was conqueror and who had been conquered), and Jews were exempted from participating in the rituals of the imperial cult (except, I think, during Caligula's brief reign from 37-41 CE) until Domitian became emperor in 81 CE. So, Paul would likely not have been required to participate in any Roman religion. His use of his Roman citizenship is completely consistent with a desire to spread his religious message, and I think would probably not have been considered a bad thing for most of Paul's ministry. I think the suggestion that Paul "took the most hate-filled sections of the Torah as guidelines for his new sect" is simply silly.

Gingerbaker said: Fl said:

"Excellent question; let’s look at that one. I will offer one brief (but specific) Bible passage for consideration. Then, for those who want to see a fuller answer to the question, let me offer a link from Dr. Robert Gagnon. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. –1 Cor. 6:9-11 The seriousness of this passage cannot be overstated, folks. It’s one thing to be refused admission to a simple earthly “Date Night” with salad and soda-pop; it’s quite another to find yourself shut out of Heaven itself–FOREVER-and falling straight down, propelled by your own sins, into a burning, eternal Hell. FL "

So, FL, do you therefore believe that people who have premarital sex, pagans, Muslims, adulterers, heterosexuals who practice anal sex, anyone who has stolen anything, anyone who wants to have the wealth or possessions of others, people who hate, or people who get drunk should not have the right to be married under State of Federal law? Or do you reserve that punishment just for homosexuals?

Daniel J. Andrews said: Re: Ham's et al focus on gay people. There are other sins, you know. I'd like to see some consistency and have people fighting against, oh say, gluttony, with equal vigor they apply to gay people. Or laziness. Or lying. Or greed. heh, preach a sermon on gluttony and you'll make at least half your congregation uncomfortable. Guess it's safer to preach against homosexuality so you only make 3 to 5% feel uncomfortable, if that (most will have already left, I suspect).

FL said: If you're like me, you've probably met a few people whose bottle is their god.

Well, considering that there were no “gospels” when Paul was writing his letters, this really isn’t that much of an oddity. The “bible” we have today is essentially a 4th century invention.

First, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles actual wrote anything, so why would they write anything about Paul? Second, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles were actual aware of Paul anyway, so why would they even care? And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

IBelieveInGod said: Now let me address the gay couple, this was a Christian event presented by Familylife.com who clearly believe that homosexuality is sinful lifestyle, so it is perfectly reasonable for this couple to have expected that they would be denied entrance to such an event. I contend that they did it for the sole purpose of publicity.

(Teach).... The wierder thing is that except for Jesus’s death, Paul only ever quotes the OT and nothing from the Gospels. He seems to have no interest in Jesus’s life. Uh, because he lived before the Gospels were written? (Michael J).... Yes, but the stories should have already been circulating and Paul had access to the original apostles.

In other words, FL is saying that a) it is perfectly legitimate to steal from and discriminate against people you hate because Jesus hates the exact same kind of people, too, and that b) all people FL dislikes are going to burn in Hell because FL dislikes them.

jaycubed said:

IBelieveInGod said: Now let me address the gay couple, this was a Christian event presented by Familylife.com who clearly believe that homosexuality is sinful lifestyle, so it is perfectly reasonable for this couple to have expected that they would be denied entrance to such an event. I contend that they did it for the sole purpose of publicity.

So you believe that bigotry is acceptable behavior for a so-called Christian organization. That because of your particular interpretation of ancient Fairy Tales that "By Gott!" you have been commanded to discriminate against others because they are different than you. I can't imagine the Jesus of the Bible doing anything but rebuking you.

So, FL, alcoholism is merely a choice? You do realize that most of modern medicine and psychiatry would disagree with you, right?

These 12-Steps were written for alcoholics. When you see alcohol, insert your drug of choice. Step One: We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol--that our lives had become unmanageable. Step Two: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity. Step Three: Make a DECISION to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understand Him. Step Four: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. Step Five: Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs. Step Six: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character. Step Seven: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings. Step Eight: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all. Step Nine: Made direct amends to such people whenever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others. Step Ten: Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it. Step Eleven: Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. Step Twelve: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to addicts and to practice these principles in our affairs. http://www.drug-addiction-support.org/12-step-recovery-1.html

FL, I asked if alcoholism were merely a choice, that is, if the person can be held completely and solely culpable for their addiction. I didn't ask if choice were necessary to overcome it, but whether the condition itself is purely a personal choice. In other words, do alcoholics intentionally sin? You seem to believe that it is right for your god to condemn someone who dies an alcoholic to eternal torture, so I presume you think that the addict has complete responsibility for their condition, right?

FL -

If homosexuality is a "choice", why don't I remember "choosing" to be heterosexual?

(FL) If you’re like me, you’ve probably met a few people whose bottle is their god.

(Science Avenger) No, I haven’t, and I doubt you have either. Oh, I’ve known quite a few who drink enough daily to kill an ass.

related to the issue of honesty, and AIG being a great example of an organization of liars, I often see Hugh Ross put up as an examplar of honesty from the creationist viewpoint here on PT.

I have just as often vehemently disagreed with that assessment, which only seems focused on the fact that he isn't a YEC.

he is, in fact, JUST as dishonest as Ken Ham is, if not even more so.

In case you need direct evidence in support to reference, I give you this gem:

God loves horses and whales. He knows because of their huge size and small populations that they will go extinct rapidly. When they do, he makes new ones.

how many lies are in this?

-his claim of the mathematics involved in mutations, evoltuion, and population sizes.
-that we only see evolution in species with immense population sizes
-that evolutionary biologists have never considered the mathematics involved (Fisher is rolling in his grave)
-there are no transitional fossils
-and, of course, the reason animals that have slow breeding rates don't go extinct, which is what I quoted above.

the man is a shyster.

PLEASE

do NOT present Ross as an exemplar of honest argumentation, EVER.

here ends this public service announcement.

FL said:

(FL) If you’re like me, you’ve probably met a few people whose bottle is their god.

(Science Avenger) No, I haven’t, and I doubt you have either. Oh, I’ve known quite a few who drink enough daily to kill an ass.

Oops, Mr. Avenger. Seems you done told the tale, yes? First you deny what I said, but in the very next breath, you go ahead and CONFIRM what I said. See, you and I have met the same people, and we've seen what their god does to them. We know all that drinkin' comes with multiple price tags, and I don't mean the kind you see on the window at the liquor store. You don't "drink enough daily to kill an ass", without some consequences. Salvation is needed when you see slow-motion tragedies like that. Deliverance is needed. Healing. Somebody somewhere has got to pray for God's help, God's intervention, instead of pretending that real tragedy ain't happening with their own neighbors and personal acquaintances. That's how I honestly feel about it. FL

harold said: FL - If homosexuality is a "choice", why don't I remember "choosing" to be heterosexual?

Yes, but the stories should have already been circulating and Paul had access to the original apostles.

have you considered the obvious?

that they didn't exist?

have you considered that Paul also might be a fabrication?

seriously, you might want to look into that, as there apparently is considerable evidence to support the idea that Paul, based on the writings attributed, was a construct.

why is there the apparent acceptance here that ANY of the tales are actually based on the lives of real individuals?

To me, and many historical anthropologists, the evidence suggests otherwise.

heddle said: Robin,

Well, considering that there were no “gospels” when Paul was writing his letters, this really isn’t that much of an oddity. The “bible” we have today is essentially a 4th century invention.

My goodness, why do people just parrot stupid things?

The canon as we know it today was pretty much in place around 200. (Mostly as a response to the anti-semite and heretic Marcion, who created his own canon, spurring the church to get its act together.) By that time lists and and letters identified the four gospels, Acts, Paul’s thirteen letters, Jude, two epistles of John (the second of which is possibly what we now consider the second and third.) Revelation, and a second Revelation due to Peter. (This book is known and was read in some churches –its lurid treatment of the state of the damned is believed to underlie much medieval writing on the subject including Dante’s Inferno. ) Some believe the epistles of Peter are omitted by error. Regardless, we have essentially a recognizable canon, with the notable absence of Hebrews and James.

Do you you even check things or just rinse and repeat? You do know that Dan Brown is a fiction writer, not a historian?

Furthermore in 1 Tim 5:8 Paul writes: Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,”and “The worker deserves his wages.” The are two quotes from Paul taken from "Scripture." The first is from Deuteronomy, and the second from Luke 10:7. Paul, in fact, does quote Luke.

First, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles actual wrote anything, so why would they write anything about Paul? Second, there’s no evidence that any of the apostles were actual aware of Paul anyway, so why would they even care? And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

There are so many things wrong with this pile o' b.s. it is hard to know where to start. For example, do you consider's an apostle's own writings about Paul to be an indication that he knew about Paul: Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. (2 Peter, 3:15.)

And further, since Paul’s letters make up the most recent pieces written (from a dating standpoint), how could there be anything commenting on them?

Again, very wrong. Paul's writings are not the most recent. They are considered the earliest of the NT.

It's interesting, isn't it? You hear all these homophobic nutcases claiming that sexual orientation is a choice, and yet not one of them will explain when, how, or why they chose to be straight

hmm. Considering that so, SO, many homophobes have eventually been outed as actually homosexual in the last decade or so, one has to wonder...

maybe they do indeed CHOOSE to be "heterosexual" (and constantly force themselves to be so), and thus, like all of their beliefs, they project that onto others.

Moreover, it would explain their irrational hatreds. I mean, if you had to constantly force yourself to be someone you're not, so you wouldn't "go to hell", you'd probably have a lot of resentment to project, too.

It would explain a lot.

Robin said: Um...no, FL, you're wrong as usual. A & E were most definitely NOT "adequately informed". How could they be? There was no such thing as "sin" until they committed their actions. There was no such thing as "consequence" or "wrong" or "evil" or anything like that. On what then would they have any understanding of God's prohibition? What would it even mean to them? Nothing.

FL said: Do you dispute this, Tulse? FL

Tulse said: FL, I asked if alcoholism were merely a choice, that is, if the person can be held completely and solely culpable for their addiction. I didn't ask if choice were necessary to overcome it, but whether the condition itself is purely a personal choice. In other words, do alcoholics intentionally sin? You seem to believe that it is right for your god to condemn someone who dies an alcoholic to eternal torture, so I presume you think that the addict has complete responsibility for their condition, right?

jaycubed said: evidence shows that no treatment is more effective in treating alcoholism than A.A.

SWT said:

jaycubed said: evidence shows that no treatment is more effective in treating alcoholism than A.A.

This is ambiguous -- I think based on context that your meaning is that a 12-step program is less effective than not treating an addiction (and not that there is no treatment superior to a 12-step program). Am I correct about this?

FL, I asked if alcoholism were merely a choice, that is, if the person can be held completely and solely culpable for their addiction. I didn’t ask if choice were necessary to overcome it, but whether the condition itself is purely a personal choice.

In other words, do alcoholics intentionally sin?

You seem to believe that it is right for your god to condemn someone who dies an alcoholic to eternal torture, so I presume you think that the addict has complete responsibility for their condition, right?

It was not a fully recognized collection until around the 4th century:

The “bible” we have today is essentially a 4th century invention.

It was not a fully recognized collection until around the 4th century

Yes, and unlike you I reference actual scholarly work and apply actual critical thinking as opposed to dogmatic belief to such.

Except that actual scholars agree that the author of Luke is unknown and that was not likely Luke the evangelist at all:

Was it part of actual scripture by the time Paul wrote about it? No.

By all evidence, 2 Peter was likely written by Paul.

However, this assertion was contradicted by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926, and has since been abandoned;

Oh…and that reminds me of something else to consider: if Luke was written after Paul’s letters, on what basis, nevermind authority, was Paul claiming Luke’s work was “scripture”?

If you have anything else to say, post it on the wall.