Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


“Enough With the Speech Police”

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, the examples you cited show precisely why the IRS gag rule should be repealed. When the IRS investigates pro-life churches who speak out in defense of the unborn during the election season, it has a chilling effect on other churches. The line between issue advocacy and electioneering is not clear cut, and the uncertainty often leads to self-censorship.

 

For example, the response by the Paterson, N.J. Diocese that you linked to states:

 

“The characterization that Bishop Serratelli’s column intervened in the election process is inaccurate. His October 9 column was not directed to the upcoming presidential election, but was rather totally focused on the Freedom of Choice Act and the harm it would do to the nation if it were to be signed into law. It’s absolutely, positively misleading to say that the bishop urged Catholics not to vote for Sen. Obama. All the bishop did was to point out that in a speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund last year, Sen. Obama made the promise that the first thing he would do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

 

It sounds like the Bishop was simply following a moral duty to speak out against the Freedom of Choice Act, an unprecedented pro-abortion bill that leading Democrats have vowed to pursue if a Democrat becomes President. Churches that hear about complaints being filed against the Paterson, N.J. Diocese may be more hesitant to address the evil of abortion from their pulpits.

 

In the New Mexico example you cited, the message conveyed by the similing baby photo and the aborted fetus photo above candidate names is ambiguous at best. The church was not telling people which candidates to vote for, and people who are strongly pro-life or pro-abortion are not going to change their mind after viewing the photos. If someone sees the photos and decides to vote for pro-life candidates as a result, it is because of their conscience, not the church.

 

Congress needs to repeal the IRS gag rule to restore complete freedom of speech to pastors. Pastors that do not wish to discuss moral or policy issues are not required to do so, but those that want to speak out should be free to do so without a cloud of possible IRS investigation hanging over them.

 

On the issue of preserving traditional marriage in California, I’m disappointed that you’ve resorted to labeling Pastor Rick Warren and the millions of Americans who support traditional marriage as “anti-gay,” “raising high the homophobia rooftop,” and holding a “bitter fear of others.” Not to get into theology, but since you mentioned what the Bible says about marriage, it certainly says nothing that would support anything other than marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

The reality is that religious leaders–both conservative and liberal–are speaking out on Proposition 8. Both sides consider this an important issue and there’s nothing wrong with a vibrant discussion that involves differing viewpoints. For every Rick Warren, there’s a liberal religious leader (or two) in California who claims that the Bible supports same sex “marriage.” The polls remain close, and “[l]eaders on both sides say they sense that the election will be close and that Proposition 8 could well pass.” 

 

At least California voters have a chance to decide this issue for themselves once and for all rather than having judges decide for them.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(45)
post a comment
Sandy in Calif

posted October 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm


We hear so much about the terrible judges that did their job. It’s been a justification from the Yes on 8 folks to take back the power that the “activist judges”
I ask you, would you change our justice system? Is it not working for you that judges sit over these cases and need to make decisions? I have also disagreed on decisions that judges make but I never thought to berate them or to nullify the very legal system that makes America strong and protects it’s citizens.
Maybe you just don’t like it that a gay man should be protected and shown the same respect that everyone else enjoys. It probably just doesn’t sit right with you.



report abuse
 

Jimbino

posted October 28, 2008 at 7:58 pm


Jay,
I agree with you that the IRS gag rule has a chilling effect. But how do you propose to square the rights of the religious, who enjoy a tax subsidy, with those of scientists and atheists, who don’t? How can we have a democracy enhanced by a marketplace of freely expressed ideas if we give tax breaks to creationists, for example, and not to Darwinists?
Instead of repealing the “IRS gag rule,” how about just taxing churches like we tax everybody else who wishes to compete in the marketplace of ideas? Then we might have a level playing field.
Regarding your “what the Bible says about marriage,” please enlighten me! Is it a text from Ruth or Song of Songs? Where is the “marriage”? And “On the issue of preserving traditional marriage in California,” what is, exactly, ‘traditional marriage?’ That of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Lot, Solomon, David, Jacob, Jesus or Paul? There is NO SUCH THING as ‘traditional marriage’!



report abuse
 

Lost Left Coaster

posted October 29, 2008 at 9:42 am


With all due respect, I do believe that speaking out against the civil rights of gay people does in fact make one “anti-gay.” I am very grateful that progressive religious leaders of California are speaking out in favor of civil rights and marriage equality. And when people like Rick Warren speak out against rights for gay people, well, that makes them anti-gay!
I do wish Mr. Sekulow would recognize that civil rights are not a matter of majority rule. Indeed, if we had waited for the people of the state of Alabama to decide by majority rule to grant civil rights to the African American citizens of that state, I trust it is obvious that it would have taken a very long time indeed. That is one reason we have a court system: to defend the rights of minorities against majority rule.
With separation of church and state, the Bible does not determine what the legal definition of marriage should be. With freedom of religion, each religious denomination can decide for itself how it defines marriage and how it will perform marriages. But the state confers the rights of marriage to couples based on civil law, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, state constitutions, and legal precedent, etc. The California Supreme Court (a conservative, mainly Republican-appointed court, I might add) determined that the constitution of the state of California gives equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, including marriage. I still fail to see why so many people are absolutely panicked about that.
I do hope that the voters of my home state stand up for equality and civil rights on November 4th. I wish I still lived there so that I could vote against Prop 8 myself.



report abuse
 

Scruffy

posted October 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm


I want to know why is it that we have to pass a law to defend what the Webster’s Dictionary says? A Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court has no legal right to change that definition.
We the people of California are voting on a definition, not a gay bashing law.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 29, 2008 at 10:55 pm


Scruffy,
Perhaps you should read the dictionary before you quote from it.
From Merriam-Webster:
(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
(2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
As we can see it is the people who are against gay marriage who are trying to redefine the definition of marriage. Rather than gays broadening the definition of marriage it is people like you who are trying to narrow the definition of marriage to fit your own views on it. What difference does it make to you if gay people want to get married? It’s really none of your business.
“‘Being Christian’ is no longer defined by doing good deeds [but] by an arrogant mission to tell others how they must live – who they can marry, who they can adopt, what they must teach in schools… Our national conversation on ethics, morality, and faith has become a kind of WWF [World Wrestling Federation] ‘Religious Smackdown.’… But [the Bushies have] done us an odd – if unintentional – service by showing us in practice exactly what the Founding Fathers feared and tried to prevent.” – Tom Gilroy, American actor/playwright/director.



report abuse
 

Ruth

posted October 30, 2008 at 1:21 am


Boris,
You brought up a good point. We should be aware that that many dictionaries have changed their defination of marriage because editors wanted to be “politically correct” not because their defination was true legally or the traditonal American view. Here are some links were show dictionaries redefining the word…unbeknowns to the general public….seems to have happened in 2003
The first one is the The Canadian Oxford Dictionary with the article being dated 2993 http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2003-09-30
The second link is to a blog which notes the dictionary you mentioned changed its defination of marriage in 2003 http://www.jimgilliam.com/2006/11/changing_the_definition_of_marriage.php
>>>
No Borris no one is trying to narrow the definition….of the word. The simple truth is…their was a defination change in around 2003 in an effort to ligitimize something that was never the true meaning of the word marriage.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 30, 2008 at 3:44 pm


“As we can see it is the people who are against gay marriage who are trying to redefine the definition of marriage.”
-Boris, try pulling the definition of marriage from your 1874 version (in which you’ve used as a reference on this site). Let’s compare that definition to the latest version you just listed and we’ll really see who’s redefining what…



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 30, 2008 at 8:32 pm


C.W. Nevius of SFGate.com has a really good article on the uproar over gay marriages and how they supposedly threaten to undermine the “traditional definition of marriage” in this country. President Bush is quoted as saying “Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society,” and yet if you take a good look at the history of marriage it’s clear that such serverances have been many and varied throughout history.
Nevius points out that back during the early history of America (1700-1800s) a married woman gave up many of the “rights” she enjoyed as a single person upon taking her vows. She could no longer own property or sign contracts and any money earned outside of the home had to be turned over to her husband. On the plus side, she didn’t have to pay taxes. In many ways a married woman was the property of her husband and this didn’t change until the latter-half of the 19th Century, but change it did. Mixed race marriages weren’t legal in any state until California changed their laws in 1948 and it was 19 years more before the Supreme Court made it nation-wide. In many states it was still illegal for mixed race couples to marry until 1967, but change it did.
More interesting still is what you get when you look closely at just what the Bible suggests about marriage:
The Old Testament suggests as a general model for marriage is polygamy. You look at someone like Solomon who had 200 wives and 600-and-some concubines. Or Abraham, who had his first child by his wife’s slave. It sounds as if it was quite normal.’’
Tolbert, who is also the executive director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry, points out that marriage didn’t even become a sacrament of the church “until the 12th century. For the first 1,200 years (A.D.) in Europe there were civil unions by town or village government.’’
Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell. This book “focuses on the Authors discovery of Catholic and Orthodox Liturgies for same-sex unions. These ceremonies, which were performed throughout Christendom into modern times are shown to bear striking resemblance to heterosexual nuptial services.”



report abuse
 

James

posted October 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm


All that is interesting information and all, but it’s avoiding the original purpose for the posts above in reference to your comment:
“As we can see it is the people who are against gay marriage who are trying to redefine the definition of marriage.”
I was just showing an example that the definition of marriage in the Merriam-Webster dictionary was ‘first’ changed from opposite sex to including same-sex in 2003. This truly shows ‘who’ is trying to redefine the definition of marriage. It’s the people ‘for’ gay marriage, not against.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 30, 2008 at 11:17 pm


James,
You are missing a several very important points, the main one being that it doesn’t matter how the dictionary defines marriage. As I pointed out in my last post above the legal definition of marriage has changed drastically over the years and that is the only definition that is important. Also you fundamentalists constantly attempt to distort our language by redefining words such as love, wisdom, truth, bondage and many others to fit your religious dogma. Here are some examples of some of the other disagreements fundamentalists have with Merriam-Webster:
Liberalism, From Merriam-Webster:
(1) A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Fundamentalist definition: A catch-all label which is applied to all social and political movements which are perceived to be “new”, such as feminism, secularism, gay rights, environmentalism, sexual liberation, and social welfare. Note: most fundies subscribe to the notion that the past was some kind of “golden age” of “traditional values”, so modernity itself is the enemy; this attitude is particularly widespread among fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East. Over time, fundies learn to dismiss ideas simply by calling them “liberal”, as if no further explanation is required.
Secular, From Merriam-Webster:
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal
b : not overtly or specifically religious
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
Fundamentalist definition: Anti-religious.
Note: since fundies view religious freedom in such a manner that it should inevitably result in special legal privileges for the pious, it should come as no surprise that they view secularism (an inherently religion-neutral approach to governance) as the enemy of religion. In reality, secularism actually benefits the freedom to choose one’s religion by preserving the essential divide between religion (which should never use force) and government (which is empowered to use force).
Atheism, From Merriam-Webster:
(1)disbelief in the existence of deities.
Fundamentalist definition: People who reject God. Note: fundies cannot comprehend the concept of not believing in God. They are utterly convinced that atheists secretly believe in God, but choose to reject him for some reason. Usually they believe that the atheist is angry or “bitter” about God, or that the atheist is guilty of some terrible sin and wishes to avoid “accountability” to God for his crimes. Their dirty little secret is that they assume these things because that is how the fundies themselves have felt at least once in their lives, usually at some low point.
Humanism, From Merriam-Webster:
(1) a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.
Fundamentalist definition: A synonym for “liberal”, “atheist”, and “secular”. Note: It is actually none of those things; it is in fact the foundation of the American Bill of Rights and all other human rights legislation, and it is possible to be both Christian and humanist.



report abuse
 

Ruth

posted October 30, 2008 at 11:18 pm


opps it seems I had some typing problems last night…that’s what I get for responding so late at night. Anyway the link I gave was dated 2003 not 2993.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted October 31, 2008 at 2:31 pm


I agree with Jay. I think many miss the point. When Christians talk about marriage and unions, they are not anti anything. Matter of fact, a true Christian will love the sinner, but hate the sin. That does not mean that the sin should not be identified. We can all quote and interpret the bible, as we may, but the fact is that God created MAN and WOMAN from the beginning. He (God) created the definition of human marriage relationships. This is nothing but the truth, so as Christians, we MUST not go against God’s creation and definitions. It is a fact that this country (USA) was established on Judaeo-Christian values. It is all through-out the laws and governing documents. So, why are we going against the very foundation of what we were founded on! Now, as for judges, if they are legislating from the bench, that is not right, and they should be held accountable for that. Opinions should be based on facts, and not a subjective opinion of a judge that has no accountability. And, after-all is not by them doing that very thing, an interference on the religious section of the population. Is not that a violation of the rights of the religious. So, why would the religious not have the right to speak out on their own behalf, and present the truth?



report abuse
 

Lost Left Coaster

posted October 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm


I’m not a Christian. Why should the Christian definition of marriage be the definition for everybody? Why should your definition of marriage determine whom I get to marry? If you don’t support gay marriage, than don’t have one! No one is going to make you marry someone of the same-sex. If I want to, how does that harm you, exactly? No one can explain to me how same-sex marriage actually harms families in the USA without resorting to abstractions.
I don’t care if you’re disgusted, and I don’t care if you think it is a sin. You are free to think those things; your church is free to teach those things; religious freedom protects that. Many people still believe that divorce is wrong and immoral, and many people (myself included!) believe that adultery is wrong and immoral. And yet you are not agitating to make these things illegal? Why not? Why shouldn’t you make divorce (which is forbidden in many religious traditions, is it not?) and adultery (which most definitely is forbidden by the 10 Commandments, of course) illegal? Don’t divorce and adultery both threaten, very concretely, the fabric of marriage?
Or maybe we don’t enforce Christian morality through legislation? And maybe that is why same-sex marriage should be legal.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 31, 2008 at 3:34 pm


“the essential goodness of the human race” – part of the Liberalism definition.
– What is considered ‘essential goodness’ to a Liberal? When we’re talking about people with morals that are always changing, then it’s always a moving target. What’s ‘good’ today may be ‘bad’ tomorrow. It’s a perfect setup for people that don’t take/want responsibility.
You may accuse Christians of “dismissing new ideas”, but Christians already have absolute morals to live by and believe they are accountable to God. For example: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These are supposed to be the ‘fruits’ of a Christian. Usually ‘new’ ideas from liberals are ways to get around the absolutes already established.
Check this out, there are Liberal groups that are fighting against child pornography laws (necessary to protect children) just so adults don’t loose their ‘freedoms’. They’d rather spend millions of dollars trying to shoot down the law (and possibly go years before a new one resurfaces) instead of allowing it to pass…all for the sake of ‘freedom’.
I’ve even talked with people (in discussion forums, of course) that think it’s OK for someone to have child pornography on their computer as long as ‘they’ weren’t the ones that actually took the pictures; all in the name of ‘freedom’.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 31, 2008 at 9:01 pm


AAL,
You said: I agree with Jay. I think many miss the point. When Christians talk about marriage and unions, they are not anti anything. Matter of fact, a true Christian will love the sinner, but hate the sin.
Boris says: The true atheist will love the Christian but hate the Christianity.
You said: That does not mean that the sin should not be identified. We can all quote and interpret the bible, as we may, but the fact is that God created MAN and WOMAN from the beginning. He (God) created the definition of human marriage relationships. This is nothing but the truth, so as Christians, we MUST not go against God’s creation and definitions.
Boris says: You can call religious superstitions “nothing but the truth” but that doesn’t make it so. Your dogmatic assertions about your God make you and those like you extremely dangerous. Science disagrees with the claims Christians make about their God and other assorted unbelievable boogy entities. So your views mean nothing to anyone outside your anti-science cult.
You said: It is a fact that this country (USA) was established on Judaeo-Christian values. It is all through-out the laws and governing documents. So, why are we going against the very foundation of what we were founded on!
Boris says: This country was in no way founded on Judeo-Christian values. Where in the Bible, may I ask, is anything that even resembles a democracy pictured? Monarchies and communism (Acts 5:1-11) are all that the Bible knows anything at all about. Our nation was founded on religious freedom and the Ten Commandments explicitly demand the worship of only one God. Half of the commandments are not even laws but are ritualistic demands and threats that have to do with the proper worship of the deity who supposedly gave the commandments – from a burning bush. Sure. You can’t seriously expect people of sense to believe that.
You said: Now, as for judges, if they are legislating from the bench, that is not right, and they should be held accountable for that. Opinions should be based on facts, and not a subjective opinion of a judge that has no accountability. And, after-all is not by them doing that very thing, an interference on the religious section of the population. Is not that a violation of the rights of the religious. So, why would the religious not have the right to speak out on their own behalf, and present the truth?
Boris says: Typical hypocrisy from the religious Wrong. They don’t want the bench to legislate – unless they legislate against abortion or anything else the far right fears and hates in this country. Many evangelicals are voting for McCain because they think he’s pro-life and will appoint judges who will legislate the things that they are in favor of. The hypocrisy from the religious Wrong is just off the charts. It’s a comedy act and McCain’s VP choice and whole campaign are proof of that, as if the Bushies weren’t enough.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted October 31, 2008 at 9:30 pm


James,
You said: – What is considered ‘essential goodness’ to a Liberal? When we’re talking about people with morals that are always changing, then it’s always a moving target. What’s ‘good’ today may be ‘bad’ tomorrow. It’s a perfect setup for people that don’t take/want responsibility.
Boris says: Are you kidding me? Buying into a bunch of religious dogma fed to you by other people is the truly perfect setup for people that don’t take/want responsibility. You don’t want to have to think about difficult subjects so you let others do it for you. There is no evidence that our morals and ethics are regressing and in fact I already proved just how far we have come as a race in this at area.
You said: You may accuse Christians of “dismissing new ideas”, but Christians already have absolute morals to live by and believe they are accountable to God. For example: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. These are supposed to be the ‘fruits’ of a Christian. Usually ‘new’ ideas from liberals are ways to get around the absolutes already established.
Boris says: No absolutes have been established. All societies have common laws that they must have in order to exist. This was true long before Christianity or the Jews ever existed. You can’t legislate morals and laws are all that matters. Fortunately we live in a democracy not a theocracy, the only kind of government the Bible knows.
You said: Check this out, there are Liberal groups that are fighting against child pornography laws (necessary to protect children) just so adults don’t loose their ‘freedoms’. They’d rather spend millions of dollars trying to shoot down the law (and possibly go years before a new one resurfaces) instead of allowing it to pass…all for the sake of ‘freedom’.
Boris says: If you bothered to look into the laws like these that get rejected you would see why. Conservative groups try to tack on legislation to these bills that would restrict other freedoms like closing adult theatres and other adult oriented businesses that happen to pay a lot of taxes and restricting other kinds of Internet porn. Our presidential candidates have discussed how this happens on a national level all the time and how much they are both supposedly against it.
You said: I’ve even talked with people (in discussion forums, of course) that think it’s OK for someone to have child pornography on their computer as long as ‘they’ weren’t the ones that actually took the pictures; all in the name of ‘freedom’.
Boris says: It really doesn’t matter what these people think about child porn. We have laws that protect children from child predators and they are very tough. This reflects society’s views in general about child porn and child predators.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 2, 2008 at 12:20 pm


Boris and whoever would like to listen,
You have a right to your opinions. However, people who have spiritual morals, have a right (or the right should not be lessened or taken away) to speak out against those things that are against their morals and believes based on the biblical truths. Others can speak out other-wise, also. For the basis of our country based on Judaeo-christian values, I would refer you to historical facts supporting this. Some among many are as follows:
James Madison, considered the father of our Constitution, wrote, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” Samuel Adams also spoke along these lines, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It is obvious that we are a society based on the word of God and the values and morals. Whether that is a democracy, republic, monarchy, or other-wise is not the point. It is the values and morals we hold.
For science vs. the biblical truths, it is being proven to an ever increasing extent that science itself is proving biblical statements, a matter of fact. I believe that people which take what is published by science, in opposition to the biblical truths, to be the defining truth, is extremely dangerous. This will only lead to moral decay, which historically have caused national decline. Again the right to speak out against these should not be policed. A more recent quote is from General Douglas Macarthur: “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”
The judges, are nothing but humans, and will make mistakes. We who have Christian values, the same values exhibited by many of our founding fathers, have a duty to speak up when they make decisions not based on the values this country was established. This should not be suppressed. If suppressed, then we are approaching a communist or socialist type of society. Not the type preached by Jesus in the bible, but a government dominated and suppressive society. Remember, the bible clearly said that the establishment of a king, other than God, is a rejection of God, and gives a warning (1 Samuel 8 (New International Version) – 6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”)
I do indeed believe that God gave the commandments and the moral laws. Anyone with wisdom and reverence to the Lord would know this to be the truth. It is always interesting to me how those who proclaim them as not believing in God use his very words and reference biblical passages. If anyone is an atheist, then there is hope and good news. You can always ask God for forgiveness and come to Jesus for salvation, (John 14:6 (New International Version) – 6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.). You have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 2, 2008 at 2:43 pm


Boris and whoever would like to listen,
You said: For the basis of our country based on Judaeo-christian values, I would refer you to historical facts supporting this. Some among many are as follows:
Boris says: I asked you to tell us all where any kind of democracy was pictured in the Bible. Since this question alone totally destroys your case you simply ignore it and move on. I also pointed out that our laws in this country DENY the Ten Commandments and the demand to worship only one deity and rather allow religious freedom. Address these points before you continue to repeat the lies and propaganda of Christian hoaxers like David Barton and Gary DeMar, where you got your phony Madison quote.
You said: James Madison, considered the father of our Constitution, wrote, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
Boris says: Supply your source for that supposed Madison quote. I don’t believe Madison ever said that. “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect.” [James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774, as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37]. That is a REAL quote from Madison.
You said: Samuel Adams also spoke along these lines, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. … Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Boris says: Samuel Adams was raised in a religious family so naturally he would make ignorant and culturally prejudiced statements about unbelievers. He was also a slave owner. Many of our founders had a more realistic view of the Christian religion. “The Christian god is a three-headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious… One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” – Thomas Jefferson.
You said: It is obvious that we are a society based on the word of God and the values and morals. Whether that is a democracy, republic, monarchy, or other-wise is not the point. It is the values and morals we hold.
Boris says: Obvious to who exactly? It cannot be shown that the values and morals of Christianity are any different than any others or superior to those of non-believers. All religions preach the same ‘love your neighbor’ ‘do unto others’ values and morals. Buddha supposedly said those very same things and much of what was also put on the lips of Jesus, but 500 years earlier.
You said: For science vs. the biblical truths, it is being proven to an ever increasing extent that science itself is proving biblical statements, a matter of fact.
Boris says: That is just not true and you KNOW it. Name one claim the Bible makes that can be supported by science. Just one. Your following anti-science diatribe clearly illustrates you do not trust science.
You said: I believe that people which take what is published by science, in opposition to the biblical truths, to be the defining truth, is extremely dangerous.
Boris says: Science isn’t interested in some kind of theological “truth” as if there actually could be such a thing. Science asks and answers particular questions. These answers have ALWAYS been in opposition to the Bible, which is why literal Bible believers just like you have been waging a war on science and scientists ever since there was a Bible. The fundamentalist Christian claim that science supports a belief in magic and magical beings is just nuts.
You said: This will only lead to moral decay, which historically have caused national decline. Again the right to speak out against these should not be policed.
Boris says: This is the same stupid approach Ben Stein took in his hoax of a movie and it is blatantly absurd. If we believe in science instead of religion that will lead to moral decay, so we shouldn’t believe in evolution, geology, cosmology and the rest of science Bible believers deny – even if it’s really true.
You said: The judges, are nothing but humans, and will make mistakes. We who have Christian values, the same values exhibited by many of our founding fathers, have a duty to speak up when they make decisions not based on the values this country was established.
Boris says: Our founders true values: “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” – Ben Franklin. “Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson.
You said: This should not be suppressed. If suppressed, then we are approaching a communist or socialist type of society. Not the type preached by Jesus in the bible, but a government dominated and suppressive society. … As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”)
Boris says: The Israelites were never even in Egypt. Had a catastrophic event like the Passover event actually occurred there would plenty of evidence from the ancient Egyptians in the mountain of historical inscriptions we have from them. Plus there would be unmistakable archaeological evidence. But we have nothing from the Egyptians, not even a mention of the Israelites at all. Instead we can document 400 years of Egyptian occupation of Palestine that the Bible knows absolutely nothing about. Not just physical science, but history and archaeology also disprove the Bible.
You said: I do indeed believe that God gave the commandments and the moral laws. Anyone with wisdom and reverence to the Lord would know this to be the truth. It is always interesting to me how those who proclaim them as not believing in God use his very words and reference biblical passages.
Boris says: It is amazing how people like you can so easily be deceived into thinking that words spoken and written here on Earth actually came from heaven. You have no words of any God. That would have to be proved and you have no way to do that. For us to take the Bible as the word of God, this God would have to step out of the pages of a book and tell us all he wrote it. A book cannot declare itself the Word of God.
You said: If anyone is an atheist, then there is hope and good news. You can always ask God for forgiveness and come to Jesus for salvation, (John 14:6 (New International Version) – 6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.). You have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.
Boris says: First one would have to believe in the salvation myth, which is just a Christian hoax. Salvation from what exactly? A God that offers to save you from his own nastiness and cruelty isn’t doing anyone any favors. There is no such thing as an afterlife. The real good news is that an average of 52,000 American Protestant Christians leave the church every week.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 2, 2008 at 4:01 pm


Boris,
You are missing the point. It is not the fact that domocracy is in the bible or not, it is the fact that there are bibical principals that God and Jesus have established that you must abide by no matter what you call the goverment you are under. So, to keep on saying where it is in the bible is avoiding the point and message.
As far as for Madison’s quote, you can believe it or not, but it is undisputable that there are references to the creator and other references to a supreme being in the constitution and other goverment documents and buildings. There are others that have quoted Christian values as being the basis for our governing, also. I will not debate that here. Unless you are saying that our goverment has provided us with a hoax, and have references to God throughout the system, then that should not be a debate.
As for the bible truths or justifications, all I can say is that you or anyone else CAN NOT prove that these did not take place. And, the bible is the word of God written down by devine inspiration.
As for the debate for this subjuct, the Christian beliefs have a right to speak out against things that are against their beliefs.
I still will pray for all those that do not believe. There is still time for them to repent and come to the truth.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 2, 2008 at 6:48 pm


AAL,
You said: You are missing the point. It is not the fact that domocracy is in the bible or not, it is the fact that there are bibical principals that God and Jesus have established that you must abide by no matter what you call the goverment you are under. So, to keep on saying where it is in the bible is avoiding the point and message.
Boris says: That kind of statement shows just how dangerous religious people like you are. There are NO biblical principles that I or anyone else has to abide by. The Bible has absolutely NO authority in my life whatsoever nor do God or Jesus, especially since no evidence can be given that either of these figures actually exist. I do not believe in your God or that Jesus Christ ever existed. Many people in the world have never seen or heard of the Christian Bible or your God and so they don’t believe in them either.
You said: As far as for Madison’s quote, you can believe it or not, but it is undisputable that there are references to the creator and other references to a supreme being in the constitution and other goverment documents and buildings.
Boris says: Where is there a reference to any creator in the Constitution? There are no references to the Christian God or Jesus or the Bible in any of our founding papers.
You said: There are others that have quoted Christian values as being the basis for our governing, also. I will not debate that here. Unless you are saying that our goverment has provided us with a hoax, and have references to God throughout the system, then that should not be a debate.
Boris says: Our founders were deists who believed in a God of Nature, NOT the Christian God. It isn’t our government that is hoaxing us. It’s Christian historical revisionists and the people like you who get their history from these liars that are providing I us with a hoax.
You said: As for the bible truths or justifications, all I can say is that you or anyone else CAN NOT prove that these did not take place. And, the bible is the word of God written down by devine inspiration.
Boris says: Absurd stories like a single man killing 1000 soldiers with the jawbone of a donkey don’t need to be disproved. Ridiculous claims need to be proved. And there is no evidence that any God even exists let alone that any God inspired any collection of books.
You said: As for the debate for this subjuct, the Christian beliefs have a right to speak out against things that are against their beliefs.
Boris says: No one is denying Christians the right to speak out against whatever they disagree with. But history shows that Christianity has been on the wrong side of every social issue and scientific discovery since it has existed.
You said: I still will pray for all those that do not believe. There is still time for them to repent and come to the truth.
Boris says: The use of the word “truth” to mean acceptable Christian doctrine is a distortion of our language. There is still time for you to take a critical look at your religious superstitions and reject them.



report abuse
 

James

posted November 2, 2008 at 9:30 pm


Boris,
You didn’t really respond to my statement:
“What is considered ‘essential goodness’ to a Liberal? When we’re talking about people with morals that are always changing, then it’s always a moving target. What’s ‘good’ today may be ‘bad’ tomorrow.”
You said:
“All societies have common laws that they must have in order to exist.”
– What are these laws and where did they come from?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 2, 2008 at 11:49 pm


James,
First, ideas about good and evil or essential goodness need to be done away with. People have been killing each other for years over what their religion tells them is good or evil. What we need is essential intelligence. We need to have open discussions not about what is right or wrong but what is smart, what is the INTELLIGENT thing to do. There is not one word in praise of intelligence in the entire New Testament. So I’m sure this is all very foreign to you.
Our laws, morals and values came from us. We taught them to ourselves just like we have mathematics, languages and the other sciences. We don’t need to seek some external justification for them. It can be shown that the Jews adapted their laws from those of their neighbors as well as rewriting their neighbors much older folktales in the Hebrew Bible. So don’t bother trying to make a case that our laws came from the Christian boogyman. They didn’t.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 3, 2008 at 12:31 pm


It is still a fact that no one can disprove the bible. So, it is no wonder and common sense that the definition of marriage comes from that source. When addressing intelligence one can not separate good and evil in the discussion. After-all when talking about something, you address what is good or bad about it. Or, in another way, what are the pros and cons. What ever you call it, you are thinking about both sides. For instance, one could argue that intelligence is what caused evil to come into the world. Biblically, it was the eating of the forbidden fruit that caused man (and woman) to know evil. So, it is not intelligence that defines a society, it is WISDOM. And, true wisdom comes from reverence to the LORD and his word. With that said, a society that is based on values of a supreme being (wisdom), which has set down the rules, it makes perfect sense that the definition that is defined by God’s word is the definition the society will use. This is besides the fact that biologically together same sex partners themselves can not cause a continuation of society. The procreation has to come from the different sexes coming together in union. All this is why the traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the true definition. And, it is the duty of clergy and people of that belief to speak out. I see nothing wrong with that, and the government should not suppress these views.
I am sorry that some feel that there is no God, where the word comes from. They have a void that can only be filled by God. It always amazes me though that they always try to justify there views by reading the very thing they claim they are against (THE BIBLE). By attacking the bible, they are just verifying its authenticity. They have a right to their views, as do the moral population. But, by redefining marriage you are encroaching on the truths we hold dear, and we have an obligation to speak out.
Defending moral and ethic principals, like marriage between a man and a woman, are nothing short than defending the proliferating of the human race.
There is still good news. They can still be saved by repenting, asking God for forgiveness, and Jesus Christ for salvation. Give it a try; it will fill that void in your life with goodness. And, just think of all the wisdom you will gain.



report abuse
 

James

posted November 3, 2008 at 12:41 pm


“We need to have open discussions not about what is right or wrong but what is smart, what is the INTELLIGENT thing to do.”
– So, how do you have open discussions with your 1 year old that starts hitting? Or what about your 2 year old that begins lying? Don’t we teach our youth about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? Why does that change with adults?
“We taught them to ourselves just like we have mathematics, languages and the other sciences.”
– These ‘laws’ we taught to ourselves, why are they not working? In the US alone: the family structure is failing, millions and millions of abortions occur, STDs are rampant, commitment to one partner/person is fleeting, education is failing, jails are over-crowded, lawsuits are commonplace, theft (especially music/software) is high, addictions to pornography, gambling, alcohol are high, divorce is high, drug use is high, depression is high, murder is high, suicide it high, etc…
People are more stressed, less polite, angry, bitter, and greedy, don’t take responsibility, have less respect, etc., etc., etc. People are even unhealthier physically, as a result too.
Based on statistics alone, I’d say our ‘self-taught’ laws are failing. Wouldn’t you?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 3, 2008 at 9:51 pm


James,
We teach our children that there will likely be harsh consequences for unacceptable behavior so that they don’t have to be taught as adults in a correctional center.
All these ills of society you are complaining about are “high” compared to what exactly? None of these things can be shown to be any worse than they have been in the past. They are high compared to the markedly less religious European countries or many other less religious societies. Almost all of these ills are actually more prevalent among evangelicals so obviously Jesus is not the answer to any of these problems anyway.
You said: People are more stressed, less polite, angry, bitter, and greedy, don’t take responsibility, have less respect, etc., etc., etc. People are even unhealthier physically, as a result too.
Boris says: You have no statistics to back up your contentions. The fact is more people belong to more gyms and are working out more and are more fitness conscious than anytime in history.
You said: Based on statistics alone, I’d say our ‘self-taught’ laws are failing. Wouldn’t you?
Boris says: What statistics? You haven’t provided one statistic to back up even one of your claims. I disagree that our laws are failing. Just because people are enjoying life doing things that you don’t approve of doesn’t mean society is falling apart.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 4, 2008 at 12:37 am


AAL
You said: It is still a fact that no one can disprove the bible.
Boris says: That’s like saying no one can disprove the existence of leprechauns or mermaids. The sun does not orbit the earth (Josh 10:12-13) and the earth is not immovable (1Chron 16:30; Ps 96:10). The burden of proof is people like you who believe those sorts of things, not those of us who don’t. According to the Tower of Babel story the many human languages were created instantaneously by God – after there was previously only one language in the world (Genesis 11:9). Actually, the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time and there was never only one language. The Bible says vegetation was on the earth before the sun and moon ever existed. Does something that absurd have to be disproved for you not to believe it?
You said: So, it is no wonder and common sense that the definition of marriage comes from that source.
Boris says: People were getting married and divorced long before there was any Bible or the Israelites ever existed. The definition of marriage does NOT come from a particular religion or its holy book.
You said: When addressing intelligence one can not separate good and evil in the discussion. After-all when talking about something, you address what is good or bad about it. Or, in another way, what are the pros and cons. What ever you call it, you are thinking about both sides.
Boris says: Good and bad are matters of opinion and most discussions do not involve the difference between good and evil.
You said: For instance, one could argue that intelligence is what caused evil to come into the world.
Boris says: Only a fundamentalist Christian would argue that intelligence is the cause of evil in the world. The cause of evil is ignorance and the only sin willful ignorance.
You said: Biblically, it was the eating of the forbidden fruit that caused man (and woman) to know evil.
Boris says: Sure. A rib woman was convinced to eat from a magical tree by a magic talking snake. That ridiculous explanation will never be accepted scientifically.
You said: So, it is not intelligence that defines a society, it is WISDOM. And, true wisdom comes from reverence to the LORD and his word.
Boris says: Your religion does NOT have the right to define words in the terms of its God. The dictionary says nothing about wisdom coming from any God. That kind religious arrogance needs to be rejected and the religion it comes from eliminated by educating our young about its inherent evils such as they way its promoters distort our language for purposes of indoctrination. Most societies have no reverence to the God of your particular religion.
You said: With that said, a society that is based on values of a supreme being (wisdom), which has set down the rules, it makes perfect sense that the definition that is defined by God’s word is the definition the society will use.
Boris says: Our society is NOT based on any values from any supreme being but rather on religious freedom.
You said: This is besides the fact that biologically together same sex partners themselves can not cause a continuation of society. The procreation has to come from the different sexes coming together in union. All this is why the traditional marriage between a man and a woman is the true definition. And, it is the duty of clergy and people of that belief to speak out. I see nothing wrong with that, and the government should not suppress these views.
Boris says: Not everyone gets married for the purpose of having children. The government is not suppressing anyone’s views.
You said: I am sorry that some feel that there is no God, where the word comes from. They have a void that can only be filled by God.
Boris says: There are too many ex-Christians who disagree with you. People don’t FEEL there is no God they THINK it. Conversely God belief is not based on thinking but rather emotions which is why Christians are told to believe with their hearts and to ignore intelligent and skeptical people.
You said: It always amazes me though that they always try to justify there views by reading the very thing they claim they are against (THE BIBLE). By attacking the bible, they are just verifying its authenticity.
Boris says: Someone pointing out just how riddled the Bible is with scientific and historical inaccuracies, and I’ll be glad to list many of them as well as many failed prophecies if you wish, is hardly “verifying its authenticity.” The claims you make are absurd. The good thing is that the more you fundamentalists speak out against the things you hate and fear the more you marginalize yourselves from the rest of society. Mainstream society no longer takes fundamentalist Christians seriously.
You said: They have a right to their views, as do the moral
population.
Boris says: The notion that people who believe what you do are somehow the “moral population” meaning the rest of us aren’t, we’ve come to expect from fundamentalist Christians. Christian morals are no better than anyone elses.
You said: But, by redefining marriage you are encroaching on the truths we hold dear, and we have an obligation to speak out.
Boris says: From Merriam-Webster: (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (2) The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. As we can see it is the anti-gay marriage people who are trying to redefine marriage.
You said: Defending moral and ethic principals, like marriage between a man and a woman, are nothing short than defending the proliferating of the human race.
Boris says: Minding your own business would be more beneficial to the human race.
You said: There is still good news. They can still be saved by repenting, asking God for forgiveness, and Jesus Christ for salvation. Give it a try; it will
Boris says: That isn’t good news it’s a bunch of ridiculous superstitions. There is some real good news though. You can join the 52,000 American Christians a week who reject their religion and leave the church forever.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 4, 2008 at 11:13 am


Boris,
Your words prove that there is resentment and anger against the people that are comfortable with obtaining the morals and convictions from their source, The Bible. What source do you get your morals from? I bet it has biblical roots, even though it may not be admitted to! See, you can not get way from it (the truth). Why would you deny us our opinion from our source? We do not have to prove the word of God, it is the truth. But, opposing people keep trying to disprove it, but never can. Your first response proves that you can not disprove the word of God, so why keep trying? And, our country was in deed created with Judaeo-Christian values, which can be encompassed in the beginnings of the phrases from the Declaration of Independence (notice God and creator):

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–

And, as far as morals in history (get to know your history), in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:
“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”
It is the people that believe in other than the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that are redefining marriage. The dictionaries are just revising the definition. If society allows other things to form in a marriage, they would add to the definition for that, also. Where does it stop?
For more information, read: What God Says About Gay Marriage by Max Lucado
http://www.crosswalk.com/1273774/
Keep reading that bible. If this discussion enables you to keep reading the bible, then it is worth it. Sooner or later, you will get to know the truth. In the end, those that have read it have no excuse for not knowing the word. Oh, and btw, it is a best seller. And, as many or more as you are saying are going away from the faith, there are those that are coming to know Jesus, who it the truth, the way, and the life. Give it a try, you will know a peace that you never knew before, and get rid of some of that anger and anti-Judaeo-Christian behavior. Oh, and here is that word again: wisdom, you will know by reverence to the Lord.
Now, back to what this Blog is a discussion of: The expressions and opposition by those who believe that proposals or laws are in violation of their morals, and identify other harm to society, should never be suppressed, especially by some law or government. If so, those laws must be taken off the books. The most dangerous people and laws in America are those that would suppress the views of the citizens.



report abuse
 

James

posted November 4, 2008 at 11:33 am


“We teach our children that there will likely be harsh consequences for unacceptable behavior”
– Since you don’t believe in a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, what is considered “unacceptable behavior”?
“All these ills of society you are complaining about are “high” compared to what exactly?”
– Higher than previous years…meaning an increasing trend.
“Almost all of these ills are actually more prevalent among evangelicals so obviously Jesus is not the answer to any of these problems anyway.”
– Lol. Where are your statistics?
“The fact is more people belong to more gyms and are working out more and are more fitness conscious than anytime in history.”
– Sneaky…Does being more “fiteness conscious” automatically mean that people are acting on it? Why have the obesity trends in the US increase dramatically at all age levels? Do you believe that Americans are getting thinner?
“You have no statistics to back up your contentions.” “What statistics?”
– There are some here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/agingact.htm
And here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/gisp2006/GISPSurvSupp2006Short.pdf
And here: http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/restrends.html
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/PRESSROOM/02news/div_mar_cohab.htm
Want more? There’s a lot more.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 4, 2008 at 9:09 pm


You said: Your words prove that there is resentment and anger against the people that are comfortable with obtaining the morals and convictions from their source, The Bible. What source do you get your morals from? I bet it has biblical roots, even though it may not be admitted to!
Boris says: I get my morals and ethics from critical analysis. I have studied both the Bible and ancient philosophy. I have a scientific and philosophical worldview which totally opposite of a theological one. See, philosophy asks questions that may never be answered. Your religion gives answers that may never be questioned. That is unacceptable dogmatism and I’ll have none of it.
See, you can not get way from it (the truth).
Boris says: Use of the word “truth” to mean acceptable doctrine is a distortion of language. Truth has to do with sincerity and an honest reporting of the facts, not whatever the holy book of a particular religion claims it is.
You said: Why would you deny us our opinion from our source? We do not have to prove the word of God, it is the truth. But, opposing people keep trying to disprove it, but never can. Your first response proves that you can not disprove the word of God, so why keep trying?
Boris says: Oh please. I just did disprove it in my last post and challenged you to refute me. Like a typical fundamentalist, you get totally refuted and just ignore it like nothing happened. I’ll give you another chance. What was Zipporah’s father’s name? What was Solomon’s mother’s name? Was Jesus crucified before or after the Passover meal was eaten?
You said: And, our country was in deed created with Judaeo-Christian values, which can be encompassed in the beginnings of the phrases from the Declaration of Independence (notice God and creator):
Boris says: That “Creator” was thought to be the God of the deist, NOT the Christian God.
The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
— John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815
“As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….
“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”
-Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)
You said: And, as far as morals in history (get to know your history), in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur:
It is the people that believe in other than the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that are redefining marriage. The dictionaries are just revising the definition. If society allows other things to form in a marriage, they would add to the definition for that, also. Where does it stop?
Boris says: I’m not sure but things don’t ever stop, they keep changing. That’s the way the world really is.
You said: For more information, read: What God Says About Gay Marriage by Max Lucado
Boris says: People who claim to speak for God are just ridiculous.
You said: Keep reading that bible. If this discussion enables you to keep reading the bible, then it is worth it. Sooner or later, you will get to know the truth. In the end, those that have read it have no excuse for not knowing the word.
Boris says: I have read Bible and a lot more often and lot more carefully than you have. I always tell people to read the Bible too, and not to listen to what anyone else tells them about it. “American atheists has always encouraged the public to read both the Old and New Testaments from cover to cover. Many people become atheists after reading the Bible.” – Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.
You said: Oh, and btw, it is a best seller. And, as many or more as you are saying are going away from the faith, there are those that are coming to know Jesus, who it the truth, the way, and the life. Give it a try, you will know a peace that you never knew before, and get rid of some of that anger and anti-Judaeo-Christian behavior. Oh, and here is that word again: wisdom, you will know by reverence to the Lord.
Boris says: Best selling means nothing. It’s not one of most read anymore and certainly the most misunderstood. Stories with dialog between people, animals and people, angels and people, God and people, demons and people, Satan and people, vegetation and people are NOT in any way historical narratives. They are fictive. History has never been written in the style of the Bible. Think about it.
You said: Now, back to what this Blog is a discussion of: The expressions and opposition by those who believe that proposals or laws are in violation of their morals, and identify other harm to society, should never be suppressed, especially by some law or government. If so, those laws must be taken off the books. The most dangerous people and laws in America are those that would suppress the views of the citizens.
Boris says: The government can’t try to suppress people’s views. What they do is try to influence us through propaganda and try to paint sensible people who they disagree with as undesirables.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 4, 2008 at 9:41 pm


Boris,
One more time, you are contending that the bible is false, so as like in a court of law, you have the burden of prove to disprove it. I see you have provided no evidence of this, even though you have tried. The bible is a non-fiction book, so that should tell you something.
Now, with that said, debate what this subject is for. Should there be gag-rules that prevent speaking out on moral issues, especially by churches. I think, as Americans there should be no such gag-rule.
Maybe it is time to enact laws that protect free speech starting with the repeal of the IRS gag rule. We have freedom of speech, and we also have freedom of religion. Those together should equate to NO-GAG. What do others think?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 4, 2008 at 10:48 pm


AAL,
You said: One more time, you are contending that the bible is false, so as like in a court of law, you have the burden of prove to disprove it.
Boris says: That is ridiculous. You are the one who has beliefs about the Bible being true. I don’t. FYI in a court of law it is the person who has the beliefs who has the burden of proof, not the one who doesn’t. In life it is the person making the absurd claims about magic and the unseen world that needs to prove them. So in both venues the burden of proof falls on YOU, the person making the outrageous claims about supernatural mysticism, not the skeptic. If I said you owed me money I would have to provide evidence of that like a contract with your signature on it. That is because I would be the one who had the beliefs and you would be the one who had no belief. You would not be asked to prove that you did not owe me money. That’s how it works. You say the sun orbits the earth and the earth never moves so prove it. Prove some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21). Prove camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4).
You said: I see you have provided no evidence of this, even though you have tried. The bible is a non-fiction book, so that should tell you something.
Boris says: No that is just YOU a believer, TELLING me that the Bible is non-fiction. But I know better and I proved even though you ignore it. No historical narratives have ever been written in the style of the Bible. The word for word dialog between people that runs through the Bible all in story settings is all the proof one needs that those are fictive narratives. They will never be proved otherwise. “Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed.” – Biblical Archaeological Review 31, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 16-17. Even Christian scholars admit the Bible isn’t historical. “The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them.” – Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989), German New Testament scholar.
You said: Now, with that said, debate what this subject is for. Should there be gag-rules that prevent speaking out on moral issues, especially by churches. I think, as Americans there should be no such gag-rule.
Boris says: I encourage all fundamentalists to speak out against all the things they hate and fear. The more they do it the more they marginalize themselves and are ignored by the majority of Americans. Christian fundamentalism is now recognized as the fringe cult it really is.
You said: Maybe it is time to enact laws that protect free speech starting with the repeal of the IRS gag rule. We have freedom of speech, and we also have freedom of religion. Those together should equate to NO-GAG. What do others think?
Boris says: I say we repeal all tax exemptions for all religious organizations and then let them say whatever they want.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 5, 2008 at 8:37 pm


Boris,
No, you are the one that is contending that the bible is false, so as such, you have the burden of proof. My defense is the truth of the bible. You have offered no proof or evidence to prove your case. Opinions of people are not valid proof or evidence. Anyone can say anything, and after-all it is just an opinion. Get to know your judicial process. I am not contending your book, you are contending against our Judaeo-Christian Bible. Sorry, Burdon of proof is on you. You have offered no evidence to disprove the Bible. You never can because it is the truth. But, keep reading it and gain wisdom.
Boris says: I say we repeal all tax exemptions for all religious organizations and then let them say whatever they want.
AAL says: If government does repeal tax exemptions, then are they not interfering with religious freedom? In the constitution, the first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
And, they will then make them for-profit, so they would have to charge for their services, and report income. That will cause government control over religion, I think. What next, putting restrictions and government conditions on them? That may lead to a government sanctioned religion, you think?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 5, 2008 at 9:11 pm


AAL,
1) The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.
2) “And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night….’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon? Christians try to claim that god is the light he is referring to yet, considering the context it is quite obvious that the light god is speaking of is the light emitted by the sun. Just another feeble attempt at trying to rationalize such a MAJOR blunder.
3) God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.
4) Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
5) “And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created – great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
6) “And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.
7) “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…” (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.
8) “So God created man in his own image,…male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.
9) “And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.
10) In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.
11) In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
12) God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
13) God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before — by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?
14) “There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?
15) Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?
16) Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
17) All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!
18) The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
19) When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?
20) Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
21) God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.
22) “The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
23) (Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.
24) (Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?
25) Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.
26) Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4). This statement is completely moronic for every TEENAGER knows what a “camel toe” and how it used to describe a specific split.
27) The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”
28) Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).
29) Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).
30) If there is a God, there is one thing we know for sure about him: He really likes insects (particularly beetles). There are more species of insects, by far, than all other species of life on earth. As JBS Haldane said, “he has an inordinate fondness for beetles.” Yet insects are said to have four legs in Leviticus 11:22-23.
31) Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17.
32) Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do and TO THIS DAY STILL inhabit certain cities.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm


AAL,
You said: No, you are the one that is contending that the bible is false, so as such, you have the burden of proof.
Boris says: First of all evolution and common descent prove the Bible false. Why else would Bible believers be the only group of people denying the facts of evolution? If the Bible were true or accurate the Bible believers would be on the forefront of science. But Bible believers have denied every scientific discovery and theory ever made ever since there was a Bible. And when has science ever had to revise one of its theories in the face of claims from Bible believers?
You said: My defense is the truth of the bible.
Boris says: You haven’t proved the Bible is true or even might be true in a few places.
You said: You have offered no proof or evidence to prove your case.
Boris says: What proof do you have that the Bible is true. Because it says it is? That isn’t good enough. What proof from outside the Bible for the Passover event is there? Poof. There goes your whole case.
You said: Opinions of people are not valid proof or evidence. Anyone can say anything, and after-all it is just an opinion.
Boris says: Your opinion that the Bible is true is not valid without proof or evidence. I offered proof that the Bible isn’t true and asked you questions that you ignored because you knew your answers would prove the Bible false also. Answer my question Bible man, don’t just ignore them.
You said: Get to know your judicial process. I am not contending your book, you are contending against our Judaeo-Christian Bible. Sorry, Burdon of proof is on you. You have offered no evidence to disprove the Bible. You never can because it is the truth. But, keep reading it and gain wisdom.
Boris says: First of all the Bible is no more your book than it is mine. The Bible is not the property of any particular group of people. In any judicial process the person making the absurd and outrageous claims has the burden of proof. That would be you, the Bible believer. Plus I have already provided plenty of proof that the Bible isn’t true. You prove the existence of talking animals, flying serpents, giants, unicorns, cockatrices, demons, angels, seraphs, dragons, satyrs, witches, Satan, fiery serpents and the rest of the absurdities in the “true” Bible.
You said: If government does repeal tax exemptions, then are they not interfering with religious freedom? In the constitution, the first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
And, they will then make them for-profit, so they would have to charge for their services, and report income. That will cause government control over religion, I think. What next, putting restrictions and government conditions on them? That may lead to a government sanctioned religion, you think?
Boris says: Prove the Christian religion is a not-for-profit enterprise.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 5, 2008 at 10:04 pm


Boris,
All theories, no proof. You still can not disprove the Bible. I contend it is the truth that you can not disprove. Although, you keep trying. But, that is good, you are reading the Bible. Keep it up.
Boris says: Prove the Christian religion is a not-for-profit enterprise.
AAL says: Prove to me it is not. The government says it is one, so it is protected under freedom of religion



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 5, 2008 at 10:44 pm


AAL,
You are sadly mistaken. I provided 32 points that prove the Bible to be absolutely and irrevocably false. FYI that means that the Bible is NOT true in at least those 32 cases. Those proofs stand until they can be refuted. You haven’t even tried to refute them because you know you can’t. It’s easy to claim you haven’t lost an argument when you refuse to acknowledge the evidence from the other side. But any impartial observer would say I’ve easily made my point especially since you’ve provided nothing to back up your absurd claims or even responded to any of the questions you were asked. So contend whatever you want. It just proves how brainwashed you are.



report abuse
 

James

posted November 6, 2008 at 10:31 am


Boris, dont’ forget about me now!! :)
“We teach our children that there will likely be harsh consequences for unacceptable behavior”
– Since you don’t believe in a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, what is considered “unacceptable behavior”?
“All these ills of society you are complaining about are “high” compared to what exactly?”
– Higher than previous years…meaning an increasing trend.
“Almost all of these ills are actually more prevalent among evangelicals so obviously Jesus is not the answer to any of these problems anyway.”
– Lol. Where are your statistics?
“The fact is more people belong to more gyms and are working out more and are more fitness conscious than anytime in history.”
– Sneaky…Does being more “fiteness conscious” automatically mean that people are acting on it? Why have the obesity trends in the US increase dramatically at all age levels? Do you believe that Americans are getting thinner?
“You have no statistics to back up your contentions.” “What statistics?”
– There are some here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/agingact.htm
And here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5635a2.htm
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/std/gisp2006/GISPSurvSupp2006Short.pdf
And here: http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/restrends.html
And here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/PRESSROOM/02news/div_mar_cohab.htm
Want more? There’s a lot more.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 6, 2008 at 1:55 pm


Boris,
You are the one mistaken. You have not presented any evidence or proof to disprove the Bible. It is all your opinion. or as you say, science. Everyone knows that science is not an exact science; even all your scientist and physics would say the same thing (I know that out of experience). They are all theories or educated guesses. Where is the ‘smoking gun’? You or anyone else can not produce it because the Bible has the truth on its side. We are finding fossils and bones all the time. Just because we do not find bones or fossils of things that are referenced in the Bible does not mean they did not exist. Plus, you have some Biblical facts wrong that I do not have to tell you about because you claim you have read the Bible more than I.
I would refer you to the book “EVIDENCE FOR CREATION, Intelligent Answers for Open Minds” by Tom DeRosa, who btw embraced atheism, but encountered Christ in 1978. He works to show that the Bible and science are not at odds, but complement each other.
One thing that you said earlier made me happy. You said the Bible is everyone’s book and you have read it much. Good job, keep reading it. Maybe some day you will learn to ‘pray it.’
We are just getting the truth out there, which government has no right interfering with.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 6, 2008 at 2:28 pm


AAL,
Tom DeRosa was never an atheist and he isn’t a scientist either. Science isn’t done by people who are trying to prove a particular point. There isn’t ANY evidence for creation whatsoever or Christian colleges and universities would not have been teaching evolution and common descent for the last 100 years. How do you explain THAT? ROFL! You people are not getting any kind of “truth” anywhere but simply spreading the lies your religion are built upon.
Your claim that I haven’t or that others haven’t disproved the Bible is ridiculous. How come you cannot respond to the points I made which proved the Bible false? Why are you so afraid to answer my questions about it? You’re afraid to find out which one of us has read the whole Bible and a lot more carefully than the other aren’t you? If the Bible were true, or if you really knew anything about it then you could easily refute these points and answer my questions. But instead you say it isn’t so. You got crushed in this debate and you KNOW it. Don’t waste anymore time with your dogmatic assertions that you cannot even begin to support. When you can prove the sun orbits the earth and the earth never moves you be sure to let us all know.
I find it hilarious that you have to use so many logical fallacies to defend your indefensible position on the Bible and do not realize in the slightest that you are doing this. Listed below are some of the more obvious ones:
argumentum ad nauseam – “argument to the point of disgust,” especially by repetition. Trying to prove something by saying it again and again.
observational selection – counting the hits and forgetting the misses. A favorite of “Biblical prophecy” fans.
Another favorite fallacy is Petitio principii – “begging the question,” pretty much indistinguishable from circulus in probando, or circulus in demonstrando “arguing in a circle;” demonstrating a conclusion by means of premises which presuppose that conclusion.
argumentum ad populum – “appeal to popular sentiment;” and the nearly identical argumentum ad numeram – appeal to numbers. This amounts to attempting to prove something by showing how many people think that it’s true. “According to a recent Gallup poll, 68 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism in public schools.” Well, maybe 68% of Americans are stump-ignorant about science, education, and the Constitution. Ad populum is construed narrowly to designate an appeal to the opinions of people in the immediate vicinity, perhaps in hope of getting others to jump on the bandwagon, whereas ad numeram is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
argumentum ad ignorantium – “appeal to ignorance;” whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa. Another creationist favorite.
“The virtue of using evidence is precisely that we can come to an agreement about it. But if you listen to two people who are arguing about something, and they each of them have passionate faith that they’re right, but they believe different things — they belong to different religions, different faiths, there is nothing they can do to settle their disagreement short of shooting each other, which is what they very often actually do.” — Richard Dawkins
“The true believer… if he is somewhat sophisticated, justifies and even glorifies his invincible stupidity as a ‘leap of faith’ or ‘sacrifice of the intellect.’ He quotes the Tertullian Credo, quia absurdum est,’ I believe because it is absurd’ as if Tertullian had said something profound. Such people are, quite literally idiots – originally a Greek word meaning an individual so isolated that you cannot communicate with him.” – Alan Watts
“Fanatical believers in the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah have fought one another for centuries without realizing that they belong to the same pestiferous club, that they have more in common than they have against one another… A committed believer in the Koran trots out the same arguments for his point of view as a Southern Baptist… and neither can listen to reason.” – Alan Watts
“The kinds of things that religious people offer as evidence for their brand of religion, they do not accept as evidence when proffered by adherents of other religions. Religions do not accept each others miracles, revelations, prophets, or holy books… In absence of any convincing reason to accept one set of claims while rejecting the rest, the simplest conclusion is that they are all….” – Greg Erwin



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm


Boris,
I keep defending the truth because it is the truth. I am not going to say something else but the truth just because you want me to. Just because you can not offer evidence to disprove the Bible, I will not stop stating the truth. Sorry, you had to spend all that time writting those things, it did not have to happen. My defense is that the Bible is truth. So, that is the answer to your points. All I am saying is that the Bible is true. You have not proven anything to the contrary. It is just opinions and theories. But, I find it interesting that you try. Like I said, it keeps you reading the good book. And, it is starting to seep in. Keep it up, you will get there and know peace.
As for Tom Derosa, you do not even know a former member of what you claim to be when you see one. Just because he came to know Christ, does not take away the fact that he embraced atheism, at one time. Wow, someone that saw the light. See, you can do it, also. There is hope. Why don’t you read his book? You afraid that a former atheist embracer will give you some truth? Besides that, you will like it. It has facts. If you are open minded, you will see the real facts.
As for the people you quoted, they can have their opinion. Wow, there is that word again, opinion. Opinions do not prove anything because they belong to that person. Still no facts.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 6, 2008 at 3:55 pm


AAL,
You said: I keep defending the truth because it is the truth. I am not going to say something else but the truth just because you want me to. Just because you can not offer evidence to disprove the Bible, I will not stop stating the truth. Sorry, you had to spend all that time writting those things, it did not have to happen. My defense is that the Bible is truth. So, that is the answer to your points. All I am saying is that the Bible is true. You have not proven anything to the contrary. It is just opinions and theories. But, I find it interesting that you try. Like I said, it keeps you reading the good book. And, it is starting to seep in. Keep it up, you will get there and know peace.
Boris says: While science and theories cannot be used to prove things they can certainly be used to disprove them. Science HAS disproved the Bible and evolution disproves creationism. You don’t have to accept that. No one cares. Truth doesn’t demand belief. Your religion does though, which is one way that we know it isn’t true. You sound like Fox News claiming every five minutes to be “Fair and balanced.” If they were, they wouldn’t have to keep saying it. The same with you. If you really had the truth you wouldn’t have to keep making that claim over and over and over again.
You said: As for Tom Derosa, you do not even know a former member of what you claim to be when you see one. Just because he came to know Christ, does not take away the fact that he embraced atheism, at one time. Wow, someone that saw the light. See, you can do it, also. There is hope. Why don’t you read his book? You afraid that a former atheist embracer will give you some truth? Besides that, you will like it. It has facts. If you are open minded, you will see the real facts.
Boris says: I know who creationist hoaxer Tom DeRosa is. He was raised a Catholic and only claims to have embraced atheism but never really got over the Catholic brainwashing. By his own admission he claims he was angry with God when he was an “atheist.” That is just stupid and it’s the same asinine claim creationist hoaxer Lee Strobel made. Atheists cannot be angry at something they don’t believe exists. Neither Strobel or DeRosa, therefore, were ever really atheists but rather only made such claims in order to attempt to smear atheism. They are fundamentalist liars.
You said: As for the people you quoted, they can have their opinion. Wow, there is that word again, opinion. Opinions do not prove anything because they belong to that person. Still no facts.
Boris says: What have you supplied but your opinions? Not a thing! ROFL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I HAVE supplied plenty of scientific facts that debunk the Bible. You can pretend to ignore them but I know they have you VERY worried. I can tell. You people are all alike. You are the one who has presented no facts but just keeps chanting the same old nonsense about having “truth.” You have nothing but that chant and you KNOW it. Keep it up.



report abuse
 

AAL

posted November 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm


Boris,
Yes, you are correct, I know who won this debate. Like everything, it is God that wins. You can not challenge God at all. You have offered nothing, but I have offered the truth. For if God is with us, who can be against us. Who do you have on your side, no one? Even the devil is smarter than athiest because he knows there is a God. I know the truth hurts, but keep reading that Bible and the good news. I will end this discussion, now, as I know you will want the final word. But, in the end, the final word will be God’s. I will pray for you. Jesus will always hold the invitation out to you. Revelation 3:20 – Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.
May God Bless you, Boris.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted November 6, 2008 at 5:21 pm


AAL,
You didn’t win any debate and you know it. You fundies break the second commandment by worshiping a man-made paper idol. You’ve made a magical oracle out of the Bible and it is this collection of archaic nonsense that you bow to, not any God. Even the other Christians on this blog disagree with your interpretation of the Bible. FYI the word “truth” doesn’t mean acceptable Christian doctrine. It means that which corresponds to reality, an honest reporting of the facts.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted September 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm


I am elated that Proposition 8 passed in the November 2008 General election defining marriage between a man and a woman. The Bible’s point of view limits marriage to mean just that and nothing more. Although this was a heated topic, the will of the people in California was heard.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 27, 2009 at 12:37 pm


The Bible promotes and condones polygamy.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.