Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:56 am

QUOTE:

by foreversunshine on Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:50 pm.

Poor Tosh

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:27 pm

QUOTE: by foreversunshine on Fri Oct 19, 2012 1:50 pm. Poor Tosh.

Is this relevant to the thread topic my friend ?

Does it answer any of my questions you wish to avoid ?

Does it disguise the obvious fact that poor Tosh swats you like a bug every time you open your mouth lolol.

I have reduced you to what you really are. cheers

There is a poster on here who objects to anyone responding to his sage commentary on the grounds of relevance...

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:45 pm

QUOTE: "There is a poster on here who objects to anyone responding to his sage commentary on the grounds of relevance..."

Who could have foreseen that a simple culinary herb could prove such an irritation to the fixated?

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 1:14 pm

Who could have foreseen that a simple culinary herb could prove such an irritation to the fixated?.

But no commentary on the existence of God..

Whereas "The Existence of God" ...............................

Three successive postings of no relevance to the thread topic. Are we keeping you awake, Tosh?.

Sorry sweetie, what was that you were saying about fixation ?

Am I keeping you awake at night ?

lolol...you just are not very good at this, are you ?

Does it irritate you that you seem incapable of debating any of the points you raise ?

by polyglide Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:28 pm

AS usual Shirina, you miss the whole point.

I am very gratefull for all that God has provided for us to enjoy, if treated in the proper manner, I can go out into the countryside and marvel at all that is before me, and contemplate all the thought that God must have put into creation.

I can then contemplate on the mess man has made of it all and cry in dispair.

by Shirina Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:10 pm

I can then contemplate on the mess man has made of it all and cry in dispair.

Man isn't responsible for extinction level events such as meteoric impacts or changes in the biosphere. There have been several ELEs long before Man arrived. Nor is Man responsible for the climate changes that always occur such as ice ages and solar minimums. Man isn't responsible for the moon's increasing orbit that will eventually cause the earth to wobble on its axis to such a degree as to make life impossible. Nor is Man responsible for the earth orbiting a star that will eventually die. Nor is Man responsible for the Andromeda galaxy barreling straight towards ours that will cause a collision. We're not responsible for natural disasters, either, but that's an obvious one.

I would say your designer made a mess of things when it comes to the long term survival of our species.

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:12 pm

I refuse to debate with people whose argument is simply based on rejecting scientific knowledge.

by willingsniper Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:54 pm

I refuse to debate with people whose argument is simply based on rejecting scientific knowledge.

Really Tosh, really?

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:01 pm

Well it's true that character assassination cannot really be termed "debate".

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:27 pm

Well it's true that character assassination cannot really be termed "debate"..

mmm. its only true when you can demonstrate it to be true, but that involves debate and you fail more than any sucker I have ever met. Very Happy

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:49 pm

There seems to be no evidence and no reasons to believe we are the intended outcome of an unseen agent, if the universe was not the way it was we would not exist, its that simple. There does not have to be a why is the universe the way it is, only how it came about, and we have causal explanations that do not involve unseen agents with intentionality.

It appears religion rests on the thin ice of primitive superstition, passed down through the generations for over 70,000 years, a delusion that provides comfort for lazy minds.

God seems pretty important to many poor souls and yet science spends no time looking for God, maybe its an atheist conspiracy.

by snowyflake Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:31 pm

Well it's true that character assassination cannot really be termed "debate".

That's generally all you contribute though, to be fair. Not much else. But then Eeyore didn't have much to say either and he was kind of a sad little donkey too.

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:27 pm

That's generally all you contribute though, to be fair. Not much else.

All thread related, of course.

by oftenwrong Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:27 pm

When are those two gonna get wed? Or is there something that God hasn't told us?

by Tosh Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:36 pm

When are those two gonna get wed? Or is there something that God hasn't told us?.

" Us ", lolol....just too funny.

Whatever that voice is in your head, its not God trust me.

Get help.

by polyglide Sat Oct 27, 2012 11:41 am

Shirina, there is much we do not know of the whys and wherefores of the past and present events on earth, what we do know is that there is an intelligence far beyond our understanding when you consider all the facts that we are aware of.

There is no reason not to believe that the creator is capable of either extending the length of the earths life as we calculate it, or in fact create another planet or even something entirely different in another part of the universe, we just do not know.

What I do know is that you would not accept that a house or other dwelling could come about by chance, you would insist that someone or something had made it.

Yet you are willing to believe that all living things came about by evolution ?.

by Shirina Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:01 pm

What I do know is that you would not accept that a house or other dwelling could come about by chance, you would insist that someone or something had made it.

A house is not a living thing. It cannot reproduce, evolve, or do anything on its own.

But, look ... you are free to believe anything you wish to believe. I'm not here to bust your chops, I simply debate you for the enjoyment of the discussion. However, in America, religion is becoming militant a little at a time, and that's something I refuse to accept. My anger at Christians stems from this irrefutable fact.

Oh, but you probably haven't heard. We have a large and well-funded fascist organization called the American Family Association. Not only are they well-funded, their representatives are given plenty of air time. Just recently, their 'dear leader' recommended that there be a government mandate forcing all Americans to attend church. Those that do not attend, and anyone professing to be an atheist, will be fined in the form of a "tax." Isn't that something? Now, how can you expect me to NOT combat this creeping religious tyranny here or anywhere else?

I know you're not American, polyglide, but your people on THIS side of the pond are nothing but fascist bigots, NOT Christians. But they push the same beliefs as they have for the last 100 years. I've said before that America walks a knife's edge between being a free nation governed by the rule of law and a religious tyranny governed by intolerance, hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia. If America slips and falls into the religious camp, you better start praying ... and hard. Because the world's most powerful military will be on the prowl.

by Tosh Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:03 pm

Don't feed the troll, no way is this person a genuine poster.

by Tosh Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:51 pm

The religious threads consist of Texas and polyglide spouting the identical content over and over, and oftenwrong spouting no content.

No wonder I am on the politics threads, and I hate politics. Very Happy

by Guest Sat Oct 27, 2012 1:27 pm

Shirina wrote:
Just recently, their 'dear leader' recommended that there be a government mandate forcing all Americans to attend church. Those that do not attend, and anyone professing to be an atheist, will be fined in the form of a "tax."

Unless the name of “their ‘dear leader’” is “Two Thirds Vote Of The House Two Thirds Vote Of The Senate Three Fourths Vote Of The States”, or “TTVOTHTTVOTSTFVOTS” for short (or long), it doesn’t much matter what she/he says. My Constitution of the United States, a document I co-own, a document ordained and established by a nation I co-own (“We the People of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”), speaks with a bit more authority than “their ‘dear leader’” could ever hope to muster. See what my Constitution of my United States says:

United States Constitution, Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That about covers it; “their ‘dear leader’” cannot force you or I to attend church or face a fine/tax, and you and I cannot force “their ‘dear leader’” to shut up. That’s what my country, our country, is about.

For the record, I am a Black American whose ancestors, along with the ancestors of my fellow Americans, built my country, our country.

Black Seed Keep On Growing - The Main Ingredient
https://www.youtube.com/v/VRVhlaPuG6s

by trevorw2539 Sat Oct 27, 2012 3:06 pm

Oh, but you probably haven't heard. We have a large and well-funded fascist organization called the American Family Association. Not only are they well-funded, their representatives are given plenty of air time. Just recently, their 'dear leader' recommended that there be a government mandate forcing all Americans to attend church. Those that do not attend, and anyone professing to be an atheist, will be fined in the form of a "tax." Isn't that something? Now, how can you expect me to NOT combat this creeping religious tyranny here or anywhere else?

Mm. What a good idea. Might solve your, and our UK, deficit problems Very Happy

by Shirina Sat Oct 27, 2012 8:39 pm

See what my Constitution of my United States says:

I appreciate your sentiment, Rock, and on a legal level, you're absolutely correct. HOWEVER ... let me repeat what I've said previously:

Religious tyranny is the worst kind because religion deals in unchangeable absolutes. The Bible itself says we cannot serve two masters, the end result being that these zealots believe the Bible trumps the Constitution on each and every issue. I think I mentioned how Ben Stein, one of those zealots, said on national television that the courts have no authority over him in regards to what he feels is right and wrong. That includes, by the way, the Constitution of the United States of America. If Ben Stein, and those like him, feel that the Constitution is getting in the way of their religion, they'll shred it in a New York Minute. If you think I'm overreacting, I'm not, for it's already happened.

I know you aren't particularly keen on homosexuality, but your personal opinion on the subject is irrelevant. What I need you to see is the legal ramifications of these gay marriage bans. In most states, one could not marry a same sex partner yet religious zealotry created the illusory need for state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Not a law, statute, or ordinance, Rock ... but a constitutional amendment! If you can use the 1st Amendment to protect us against a forced church attendance mandate, then why were these anti-gay amendments passed with barely a stir in the Supreme Court? We all know they are religious amendments even if the wording of those amendments are secular. No one should be fooled by that. Our state and federal constitutions are designed to GRANT rights, not take them away -- that is religious oppression, plain and simple.

It really doesn't matter how we personally feel about homosexuality. The point here is that these amendments are unconstitutional. No one says states have to allow gays to marry, but creating laws that outright bans gay marriage was a flagrant abuse of democracy and shamelessly ignores the 1st Amendment.

If it can happen once, it can happen again, for now there is precedent to defend even more religious tyranny. You know what they say about giving a mouse a cookie.

Oh, and by the way ... the American Family Association is backed by Romney.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:45 pm

Shirina wrote:
See what my Constitution of my United States says:
I appreciate your sentiment, Rock, and on a legal level, you're absolutely correct.

To move from de jure to de facto requires active commitment to the principle. Forced attendance to any religious establishment’s proceedings would require that either Congress or state legislatures pass a law to that effect. Such a law would be in direct violation of the initial phrase of Amendment 1, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, i.e., Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment. If a citizen notices it, a citizen ought to oppose it.

Shirina wrote:
Our state and federal constitutions are designed to GRANT rights, not take them away…

That’s a common misconception. The Declaration OF Independence, our foundation, (a) identifies the existence of certain Creator-endowed unalienable rights, and (b) identifies the purpose of governments instituted among men as securing these certain Creator-endowed unalienable rights unto all people, deriving their just powers to do so from the consent of the governed.

The United States Constitution, the framework, actualizes this goal in (a) its enumeration of certain of these preexistent rights, and (b) its statement that enumeration of these certain preexistent rights shall not be interpreted as disparagement of other non-enumerated rights retained by the people.

In other words, certain unalienable rights endowed unto all people by their Creator preexist any governments. Governments cannot grant something that exists prior to governments; conversely, governments exist for the purpose of securing unto all people something that exists prior to governments.

Shirina wrote:
… the American Family Association is backed by Romney.

Watch Romney closely. Listen carefully to his speech. He’s intractable, a characteristic I first noticed in “wlv”, a Temple Mormon who posted on MSNBC (2007) and MSN UK (2010) on but one subject: Mitt Romney for President.

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon. Christians have been bamboozled by this Temple Mormon whose “god” has promised him his own planet with multiple wives in the afterlife. Perhaps the American Family Association non-attendance to Jesus the Christ’s teachings has facilitated their bamboozlement.

by snowyflake Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:54 pm

In other words, certain unalienable rights endowed unto all people by their Creator preexist any governments. Governments cannot grant something that exists prior to governments; conversely, governments exist for the purpose of securing unto all people something that exists prior to governments.

If that were true, then gay marriage would not be an issue and all of the states would legislate it. Americans have the inalienable rights to freedom and happiness but only if you are heterosexual. When people love each other, whether you agree or not, it is ultimately none of your concern and they should have the freedom to marry who they wish.

by Guest Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:11 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
In other words, certain unalienable rights endowed unto all people by their Creator preexist any governments. Governments cannot grant something that exists prior to governments; conversely, governments exist for the purpose of securing unto all people something that exists prior to governments.

The point is this: Creator-endowed unalienable human rights are secured, not granted, unto all men (gender inclusive) by governments that are instituted among men (gender inclusive) for that purpose. Governments neither legislate nor mandate rights; rather, governments enact legislation and issue mandates to secure preexistent rights. This principle of securing Creator-endowed unalienable human rights unto all humans as the (implied) only legitimate purpose for governments is expressed not only in the previously referenced documents, but also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which your native and adopted nations are signatories), the Canadian Constitution, the Australian Constitution, and the New Zealand “Constitution.”

by snowyflake Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:09 am

Hi Rock

Sorry, I am not as on top of my Declaration of Independence as you are. As far as I'm concerned, as you know, that section about 'Creator endowed inalienable rights are secured' doesn't actually mean much to most people, believers or unbelievers alike. I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that grants the rights of homosexuals to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as much as anyone else and that includes being able to marry and share and will assets to those they love.

by Guest Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:53 am

Snowy,

Two key aspects of Creator-endowed rights: (a) they are given with such strings as might be attached by the giver, and (b) they are given by a higher power than any man, council of men, or government instituted among me, and thus cannot be legitimately abridged by any men, councils of men, or governments instituted among men.

The UDHR neither creates nor publishes into existence unalienable human rights. These rights into which man is created preexist UDHR, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Second Treatise of Civil Government, and everything else composed and published by man gender inclusive. These rights are not to be disparaged by any human.

Strings attached include the principle of my rights end where your rights begin. I have a right to freedom of movement, you have a right to security of your home; thus, in Texas, my right to roam ends at your property line. Courts following principles of common law often determine those lines.

As to your Creator, he is neither supernatural nor gender-identifiable. Eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power whereby existence comes to be cannot be referenced by “natural” (“super” + “natural” = “supernatural”) and cannot be confined to natural attributes (gender). That’s about all that’s necessary to “get” Creator-endowed unalienable rights. That which the Creator gives man needs to respect and secure unto all men.

by polyglide Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:16 am

What we are talking about is man made regulations and how man behaves and this has nothing to do with God.

It is the way in which man has decided to go irrespective of the advice given.

Beware of the wrath of God.

As I have explained previously you can love with all your heart but under certain circumstances one must decide between right and wrong and do something about the wrong and God is no different.

There is no doubt that in doing so those not warranting punishment may suffer but then God knows this and no doubt will make allowances for threir suffering.

by snowyflake Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:33 pm

Two key aspects of Creator-endowed rights: (a) they are given with such strings as might be attached by the giver, and (b) they are given by a higher power than any man, council of men, or government instituted among me, and thus cannot be legitimately abridged by any men, councils of men, or governments instituted among men.

If one does not subscribe to belief in a Creator, this point is neither here nor there. He doesn't exist and therefore should have no bearing on the lives of American citizens in the 21st century regardless of what the constitution says about Creators. If you are saying that the people of America cannot change their laws to include all of its citizens because their 'Creator' doesn't approve of homosexuality then you have also excluded all of the atheists and agnostics. This is a judgement that no one has the right to make on another human being. If Americans cannot change their laws then what is the point of a democracy?

The UDHR neither creates nor publishes into existence unalienable human rights. These rights into which man is created preexist UDHR, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Second Treatise of Civil Government, and everything else composed and published by man gender inclusive. These rights are not to be disparaged by any human.

That is your belief. For me, the UDHR is the document that everyone should adhere to. It is inclusive of all people regardless of race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age. That is a document I can get behind because it is the only document in the world that actually says 'judge not' and 'love thy neighbour' and means it.

Strings attached include the principle of my rights end where your rights begin. I have a right to freedom of movement, you have a right to security of your home; thus, in Texas, my right to roam ends at your property line. Courts following principles of common law often determine those lines.

Like a man shall not lie with another man as he lies with a woman? He shall be put to death? You mean like that?

As to your Creator,

He is not my creator.

he is neither supernatural nor gender-identifiable.

He is not real.

Eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power whereby existence comes to be cannot be referenced by “natural” (“super” + “natural” = “supernatural”) and cannot be confined to natural attributes (gender). That’s about all that’s necessary to “get” Creator-endowed unalienable rights. That which the Creator gives man needs to respect and secure unto all men.

I respect you, Rock. I do not respect your belief. I do not respect belief in unsubstantiated stories.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:50 am

snowyflake wrote:
Two key aspects of Creator-endowed rights: (a) they are given with such strings as might be attached by the giver, and (b) they are given by a higher power than any man, council of men, or government instituted among me, and thus cannot be legitimately abridged by any men, councils of men, or governments instituted among men.
If one does not subscribe to belief in a Creator, this point is neither here nor there.

It might not be here, and it might not be there, but it is right where it needs to be, which is right on target.

snowyflake wrote:
He doesn't exist…

You’ve stated as fact an unproven assertion. Please prove your assertion.

snowyflake wrote:
… and therefore should have no bearing on the lives of American citizens in the 21st century regardless of what the constitution says about Creators.

Securing certain unalienable rights endowed unto all men (gender inclusive) by their Creator is the sole identified purpose in the text of the Declaration of Independence, the foundational document of my nation, for governments to be instituted among men; accordingly, securing certain unalienable rights endowed unto all men by their Creator has specific, crucial, and enduring bearing on the lives of 21st Century Americans, and thus the Creator that endows certain unalienable rights unto all men has specific, crucial, and enduring bearing on the lives of 21st Century Americans.

Ironically, given your commitment to the concepts, principles, and ideas identified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and given your belief the rights exposited therein apply to all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, culture, and/or national origin, you in effect believe that the preceding paragraph has specific, crucial, and enduring bearing on the lives of all humans.

snowyflake wrote:
If you are saying that the people of America cannot change their laws to include all of its citizens…

The laws of the United States of America include all of its citizens right now.

snowyflake wrote:
… you have also excluded all of the atheists and agnostics.

The laws of the United States of America do not exclude atheists and agnostics; if you think otherwise, please identify the laws that you assert exclude atheists and agnostics.

snowyflake wrote:
The UDHR neither creates nor publishes into existence unalienable human rights. These rights into which man is created preexist UDHR, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Second Treatise of Civil Government, and everything else composed and published by man gender inclusive. These rights are not to be disparaged by any human.
That is your belief.

That is fact.

snowyflake wrote:
For me, the UDHR is the document that everyone should adhere to.¹ It is inclusive of all people regardless of race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.² That is a document I can get behind³ because it is the only document in the world that actually says 'judge not'³ and 'love thy neighbour'³ and means it.

Point by point comments:

I agree without reservation. I’ve said as much on this board on several threads, one which I initiated for the purpose.
Re: Are unalienable human rights applicable only in certain countries?
by RockOnBrother on Mon 26 Mar 2012 - 7:24
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t428p30-are-unalienable-human-rights-applicable-only-in-certain-countries#14424

[Click here for full text]
Sadly, many folks advocate unalienable human rights unto themselves and their “kind” only, in direct contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which, if they happen to be citizens or nationals of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States, their nations are signatories.
I agree without reservation.
I don’t recall these phrases in the UDHR; nonetheless, as perhaps the first document that assertively advocates that (a) all men (gender inclusive) possess unalienable human rights, and (b) no government is immune from securing unalienable human rights unto all humans under their jurisdiction, I also can “get behind it” without reservation.

snowyflake wrote:
Strings attached include the principle of my rights end where your rights begin. I have a right to freedom of movement, you have a right to security of your home; thus, in Texas, my right to roam ends at your property line. Courts following principles of common law often determine those lines.
Like a man shall not lie with another man as he lies with a woman? He shall be put to death? You mean like that?

Since you reference God’s Word, I’ll teach God’s Word.

Hebrew Bible

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 18:22

Hebrew Bible

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:13

Greek Bible:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-19

Greek Bible

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to him, and he sat down and began to teach them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such women; what then do you say?” This they said, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they persisted in asking him, he lifted himself up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.”

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And when they heard it, being convicted by their own consciences, they went out one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing, in the center of the court.

When Jesus had lifted himself up, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more.”

John 8:1-11

So much for putting to death, or stoning. Had I been there holding a stone, my stone might have been the first stone dropped.

Jesus taught, “Go, and sin no more.” Jesus also taught, “As you go, make disciples [unto Jesus] of all nations [all ethnicities]… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever that I have taught you.”

snowyflake wrote:
As to your Creator,
He is not my creator.

He is your Creator. He is all humans’ Creator.

snowyflake wrote:
he is neither supernatural nor gender-identifiable.
He is not real.

He is the creator of “real.”

snowyflake wrote:
Eternal preexistent incomprehensible causative power whereby existence comes to be cannot be referenced by “natural” (“super” + “natural” = “supernatural”) and cannot be confined to natural attributes (gender). That’s about all that’s necessary to “get” Creator-endowed unalienable rights. That which the Creator gives man needs to respect and secure unto all men.
I respect you, Rock. I do not respect your belief. I do not respect belief in unsubstantiated stories.

Snowyflake, I respect you more than I can put into words. Your disrespect of that which I know cannot diminish my respect for you.

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:43 pm

What happened to, "I am a Texan, I am a Man" ?

by Shirina Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:28 pm

The laws of the United States of America do not exclude atheists and agnostics; if you think otherwise, please identify the laws that you assert exclude atheists and agnostics.

Well, there are still 7 states that ban atheists and agnostics from holding public office. While yes, I know the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution renders these bans illegal, these bans were nonetheless passed and thus far remain on the record. Every now and again, someone digs up these old state amendments and tries to use them against atheist political candidates. True, they are unenforceable in a legal context, once it is brought up during an election means, figuratively, the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. Given the ignorance of many Americans concerning what the US Constitution actually says, these state amendment bans could be the final arbiter in the minds of the voters. Simply allowing these bans to exist on record lends to the bans credibility and legitimacy.

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Strange, don't you think, that many US Christians believe that the only Old Testament law that needs accomplished is those two passages from Leviticus? I think we both know the dangers of cherry picking laws from the Bible in order to ramrod home a society's preexisting bigotry and fear. If Jesus is truly saying that the Old Testament laws are still valid, then we had best begin performing all of those blood sacrifices and burnt offerings, no? Because if that is NOT the case, then why all the harping on Biblical laws regarding homosexuality? Is that the only valid law, the only one Jesus arrived to fulfill?

Those Old Testament laws are garbage; they will always BE garbage. Take Exodus 22:18, for instance, which commands us to "not suffer a witch to live." First of all, the Bible is making the claim that witches are, in fact, real -- as is their magic, apparently, which brings me to my second point. During the Black Death, over 100,000 women were burned at the stake in Germany alone. This gives us the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a demonstrable example of why these garbage laws in the OT need to be ignored straight away. ALL of them -- including the garbage laws about homosexuality found in Leviticus. Otherwise, in a technological advanced nation like America in the 21st Century, we still have this:

Hurricane Sandy Blamed On Gays, Obama And Romney By Preacher John McTernan

The Eastern seaboard may have yet to experience the full wrath of Hurricane Sandy, but one right-wing Christian preacher is already pointing the finger at the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

In a wordy and occasionally rambling blog on his website, chaplain John McTernan seems to link Hurricane Sandy (and a number of other recent weather-related trends and natural disasters) on LGBT people and President Barack Obama's recent backing of marriage equality. While most of McTernan's wrath is directed at Obama, he has some choice words for GOP candidate Mitt Romney, too.

"God is systematically destroying America," McTernan writes. "Just look at what has happened this year."

LINK

Let us keep in mind that the same kind of ridiculous, superstitious, religion-befuddled worldview expressed by this modern-day preacher is the exact same ridiculous, superstitious, religion-befuddled worldview expressed by preachers in the 1300's that saw millions of women and Jews strung up as scapegoats for the Black Death. I can't stress this enough. I just can't do it without alarms, klaxons, flashing text, and big neon arrows pointing at my words.

The ONLY thing standing in the way of 21st Century witch hunts with an even larger death toll is our secular law. That's right ... secular law. If we went by the Bible and religion, then millions would be put to death in huge execution factories with automated stone throwers as people are caught cheating on their spouses, children are too rebellious, and any old accusation of witchcraft. This, in my opinion, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "Our Creator" had absolutely nothing to do with the rights outlined in the US Constitution. In fact, those rights protect us from Biblical law. The Constitution neither parallels nor enforces the garbage laws found in the Old Testament.

My argument can be further buttressed by the fact that virtually none of the rights granted to us by the Constitution can be found in the Bible. Certainly the Bible does not advocate "freedom of religion" given that the Biblical God touts himself to be the Only God Anyone Should Worship. I'd challenge even the most devoted Biblical scholar to cite chapter and verse that concerns itself with gun ownership. The Bible doesn't once mention how to set up a democracy, how long a president's term is, or the right to vote. There is nothing in the Bible about illegal search and seizures, the right to a trial by your peers (or the right to a speedy trial), and, for crying out loud, the Bible certainly doesn't give us the right to be spared "cruel and unusual" punishment given God's fetish with stoning people to death.

If these rights were, indeed, "endowed by our Creator," one would think they would be found in the Bible, no? After all, the US Constitution is not, in any way, shape, or form, the 67th Book of the Bible. In fact, some of our rights contradict the Bible -- such as our laws against slavery. The Bible goes into some detail outlining how to treat slaves which means the Bible acknowledges the right to own people.

In conclusion, then, I reiterate the fact that, without our very secular laws, Biblical law would turn America into a tyrannical bloodbath of scapegoating and horrific punishments from dismemberment to stonings. Our laws protect us from the religious zealotry the Bible engenders. Our rights could not have been "endowed by our Creator" if those rights protect us from many of the laws "our Creator" laid out in the Old Testament.

by Guest Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:52 pm

Shirina wrote:
The laws of the United States of America do not exclude atheists and agnostics; if you think otherwise, please identify the laws that you assert exclude atheists and agnostics.
Well, there are still 7 states that ban atheists and agnostics from holding public office. While yes, I know the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution renders these bans illegal, these bans were nonetheless passed and thus far remain on the record. Every now and again, someone digs up these old state amendments and tries to use them against atheist political candidates. True, they are unenforceable in a legal context, once it is brought up during an election means, figuratively, the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. Given the ignorance of many Americans concerning what the US Constitution actually says, these state amendment bans could be the final arbiter in the minds of the voters. Simply allowing these bans to exist on record lends to the bans credibility and legitimacy.

Jim Crow laws spat in the face of Amendments 1 through 9 and 13 through 15 for nearly a century. I’ve told you the story of the gas station attendant that so graciously allowed “nigras” to drink water out of a used coke bottle. Perhaps I haven’t told you about the “Colored/Negro unisex bathroom” at Storybook Land; it was a lean-to wooden shack, about three by four, with a hole in the dirt as a toilet and some kind of nasty-looking unfinished wooden contraption as a toilet seat, all neatly tucked up against the back stone wall of a modern restroom with separate female and male facilities reserved for “Whites – Caucasians.” I was nine, I was sick, and I was mad at myself for being there and spending money there.

Those laws will not get up and leave the law books by themselves. They ain’t got legs. If you and others want them removed, you and others will have to provide the legs. Ms. Liuzzo, Mr. Evers, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Chaney, Mr. Schwerner, Ms. Collins, Ms. McNair, Ms. Robertson, and Ms. Wesley, among others, “gave the last full measure of devotion” to the idea that Americans call “liberty and justice for all.”

“Let us teach the children, Freedom’s never been free”, New World Order – Curtis Mayfield, 1996
https://www.youtube.com/v/KUyfMLZl_Dw

by Shirina Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:35 pm

Jim Crow laws spat in the face of Amendments 1 through 9 and 13 through 15 for nearly a century.

Yes, they did, and those laws define one of the most shameful periods in American history, seconded only by slavery itself. Apparently a lot of bigoted, racist whites felt that their prejudice and hatred overrode any laws or rights "endowed to us by their Creator." Jim Crow laws proves that even invoking God will not stop mere human beings from deciding for ourselves what those "Creator endowed" rights really are. It is up to the people to decide, and it is up to people to enforce them. Apparently during the age of Jim Crow, enforcing the rights of blacks was not high on the priority list.

Given that women were not even allowed to vote for a full half-century after the much-maligned black male received their rights, women were not well served by the Constitution, either.

It just goes to show you that, for most of America's history, our rights were not "Creator endowed" but "white male endowed."

by snowyflake Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:38 pm

Hi Rock,

He is your Creator. I'm a human being evolved from a common ancestor just as you are. You just subscribe to the idea that a supernatural being 'created' you. You are fully entitled to believe that. I don't happen to believe it for many, many reasons....reasons I have shared with you.

Gay people do not have the right to marry. You have the right to marry. That is discriminatory. Discrimination is against the law in America (which for many reasons is a bit of a joke given the history). Gay people have as much right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as black people do they not? If you were told you could not marry the one you love because you are black you would scream the nation down. Why should it be different for gay people? And the very bottom line is, it's no one's concern but theirs. If they want to marry or adopt children why shouldn't they be legally able to do so?

I have great respect for you, Rock. Take care of yourself.

by polyglide Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:47 am

If one believes in God nothing else is of any consequence

I have been castigated for mentioning Gays etc; and their rights, the problem is with rights is where does one stop.

What right has anyone to tell a parent how to bring up their child, what right has anyone to tell anyone anything.

You could end up with rights giving everyone a free for all, anything goes.

If you believe in God, then you follow his teachings and his opinion on marriage is clearly defined as that between a man and a woman.

Unfortunately, the evolutionists have no real standards to follow and believe that man can decide the rules and regulations and the state of the world should be proof to anyone that he is incapable of doing so.

It would be interestying to have an opinion on just what good to the future of mankind and life in general having two men or two women pretending they are parents when the facts say they are not, is?.

by Shirina Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:19 pm

I have been castigated for mentioning Gays etc; and their rights, the problem is with rights is where does one stop.

We stop when one person is doing harm to another. See? That wasn't so hard. The problem is that religious zealots think they have a literal God given right to impose their beliefs onto everyone else, to judge one unworthy, and then legislate bans to propagate their own belief system. In a free society, that is wrong, tyrannical, and oppressive.

What right has anyone to tell a parent how to bring up their child, what right has anyone to tell anyone anything.

In most cases, people don't have the right to tell a parent how to bring up their children. The only exceptions are when the child is being harmed. Wow, there's that "doing harm" provision again, just like before.

You could end up with rights giving everyone a free for all, anything goes.

LOL! Nothing like the same old Slippery Slope fallacy that believers always use when confronting the issue of gay rights. Thus I will tell you the same thing I tell everyone who uses this worn-out fallacy: We should ban heterosexual marriage. After all, it was straight marriage that opened Pandora's Box. If the heterosexuals hadn't started marrying, then the homosexuals would never have wanted to marry.

If you believe in God, then you follow his teachings and his opinion on marriage is clearly defined as that between a man and a woman.

Oh, but look at the beginning of your sentence. "IF you believe in God ..." But what about those who don't? IF you believe in God and follow his teachings, then by all means, don't enter into a gay relationship! But don't you DARE pass laws saying that no one else can, either, irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, the evolutionists have no real standards to follow and believe that man can decide the rules and regulations and the state of the world should be proof to anyone that he is incapable of doing so.

I've already laid out my argument against this kind of reasoning in my last post. Why not go back and read it ... and refute it if you can.

It would be interestying to have an opinion on just what good to the future of mankind and life in general having two men or two women pretending they are parents when the facts say they are not, is?.

WTF? Do you HONESTLY believe that the fate of the world hangs in the balance in relation to the gay marriage issue? Seriously? Talk about melodrama. And who are you to judge whether a gay couple are parents? By the same token, you may as well argue that a straight couple with adopted children aren't really parents, either ... because I know you're eluding to biological offspring here, and that has very little to do with good parenting.

by snowyflake Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:27 pm

Unfortunately, the evolutionists have no real standards to follow and believe that man can decide the rules and regulations and the state of the world should be proof to anyone that he is incapable of doing so.

One can live a decent, moral existence that is productive, fulfilling, socially conscious without belief in any god/God/gods. Religion does not have a monopoly or morality. In fact, it is the believer than hinders progress to peace and harmony in the world.

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:11 am

Shirina wrote:
Jim Crow laws spat in the face of Amendments 1 through 9 and 13 through 15 for nearly a century.
Yes, they did, and those laws define one of the most shameful periods in American history, seconded only by slavery itself. Apparently a lot of bigoted, racist whites felt that their prejudice and hatred overrode any laws or rights "endowed to us by their Creator."

True. If one allows one’s view of Creator-endowed unalienable human rights unto all men to be constrained by those who deny humanity to all men, then those words become meaningless marks on paper.

Shirina wrote:
Jim Crow laws proves that even invoking God will not stop mere human beings from deciding for ourselves what those "Creator endowed" rights really are. It is up to the people to decide, and it is up to people to enforce them. Apparently during the age of Jim Crow, enforcing the rights of blacks was not high on the priority list.

Given that women were not even allowed to vote for a full half-century after the much-maligned black male received their rights, women were not well served by the Constitution, either.

It just goes to show you that, for most of America's history, our rights were not "Creator endowed" but "white male endowed."

To the contrary; our rights were “Creator endowed” and “(white landed) male usurped.” That’s what they didn’t get: that’s what decent folks sacrificed to make real. And on a wider scale, that’s what those who dare to challenge “culture-mandated” customs and traditions that steal women’s humanity in various locales today are “talking about.”

by Guest Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:45 am

There are persons that interact sexually, “sexual”, with persons of the same gender, “homogeneous, homo-geneous”; they are “homosexual”, a definition that describes people by that which they do. The other “sexuals”, by the definition I use, are “heterosexual” (heterogeneous, hetero-geneous + sexual) and “asexual” (a, absence of + sexual), the first referring to persons who interact sexually with persons of the other gender, and the last referring to persons that interact sexually with no other persons.

Homosexual persons, heterosexual persons, asexual persons, and any other persons I might have missed, have identical rights within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States. I had the right to marry when I was single and of age; all single persons of age within these fifty-one jurisdictions have the right to marry. There is no discrimination; equal rights under the law and equal protection of the law are afforded all persons.

by Shirina Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:41 am

Homosexual persons, heterosexual persons, asexual persons, and any other persons I might have missed, have identical rights within the fifty-one sovereign jurisdictions of the United States. I had the right to marry when I was single and of age; all single persons of age within these fifty-one jurisdictions have the right to marry. There is no discrimination; equal rights under the law and equal protection of the law are afforded all persons.

Sorry, Rock, but that simply isn't true, nor is your definition of "homosexual."

Now here's the issue for me. I haven't really advertised this fact before simply because it never came up, but I live with two roommates -- a lesbian couple. I'm not gay myself, but having lived with them for three years now and watching their trials and tribulations, I think I understand their point of view far more than I would have if I simply read about it. I don't always agree with the actions of the gay culture, and I've told them so when appropriate, but I also know how often non-gays who aren't around gays 24/7 like I am get so many things wrong.

Thus I will offer you a brief but important education.

First and foremost, you wish to define "homosexuals" based on what they do, which is to have sexual relations with the same gender. Wrong. That would essentially be like defining "black" as mere skin color while ignoring the culture, language, religious beliefs, and many other aspects that are unique to the black race. It all really boils down to this: Being homosexual is not like being a plumber. It's not merely something you do. It's not a profession. Being homosexual is who they are ... just like being heterosexual is who YOU are and who I am. They cannot change their sexual identity any more than you can. You can't pray it away. It can't be beaten or bullied out of them. It can't be shamed or guilt-tripped out of them. It can't be discriminated out of them. They identify with being gay just as you identify with being black, and as someone who has brought up the Civil Rights movement many times, you should know how it feels to be discriminated against.

The idea that homosexuality is merely an action rather than an identity is merely an excuse offered up by those who want to be against homosexuality but can't quite bring themselves to admitting it -- so they redefine what homosexuality is based on their own perceptions instead of the perceptions of the homosexuals themselves. That is the first justification of prejudice. They reduce the entire gay culture and identity to a mere sex act because that's a lot easier to condemn.

Secondly, I know first hand the nastiness that goes on, the kind of stuff you don't hear about on the news. For instance, one of the lesbians I've known for 16 years, long before she ever came out of the closet. We were even roommates once before while living in Pennsylvania. When she did come out, everyone assumed I was gay, as well. I was taunted and threatened by the neighborhood kids. Our house was egged two or three times a week. My tires were slashed. Vulgarities were spray painted on the sidewalk in front of our house. I was on a first name basis with several police officers because of this, and it didn't stop until they sent a patrol car to do drive-bys every few hours. And that's just what happened to me, and I'm not even gay. Just LIVING with a lesbian brought that down upon my head.

And then there's the second half of this couple. During my first year living with them, the other lesbian was drummed out of her job because the guys groped her constantly, the office personnel called her an "it" (they refused to use a human pronoun), people left Bible verses from Leviticus and Deuteronomy in her locker and under her car windshield wipers, her co-workers were always trying to get her fired, and I don't even have to mention how many times she was physically threatened. She eventually began making inroads to the media for an investigative report, and when her employer found that out, they had to isolate her by moving her to a different department ... and then demanded she break all kinds of safety regulations in order to keep her job. When she refused, she was kicked to the curb.

Now, with all of that going on just with these two lesbians, I can't even imagine how widespread this is all across the country. And you know what, Rock? Those gay marriage bans do a lot more than simply ban gay marriage. Oh yes. Those bans send a message to every bigot, bully, and psycho that harassing, tormenting, and discriminating against gays is perfectly fine and Jim-Dandy in the good ole "Land of the Free." You remember how it was, right, Rock? When whites could get away with just about anything as long as it was done to a black person? Oh, I understand perfectly that the severity of gay persecution is nowhere near what it was against blacks. I get it.

But you know what? Prejudice and discrimination piss me off no matter HOW small it is and no matter who it is directed toward. I don't claim to be a part of gay culture, I'm not an expert, and I won't even say I know what it's like to walk a mile in their shoes. But after watching my two friends sink into depression after North Carolina banned gay marriage, I don't have to. I recognize pain when I see it, and that is universal.

On to your original point. You claim they have the same rights as everyone else ... that they can marry the opposite gender like everyone else. Well, Rock ... what if the shoe was on the other foot? What if you were told that you could only marry another man and, if you don't like it, well, you have the same right to marry a man just like a homosexual does. Could you change who you are, hmm? Could you suddenly decide to be homosexual? Or would you continue having a relationship with a female even though you know you could never legally marry her? I'm betting I know the answer. Tell me then how "fair" those so-called "equal" rights actually are. They can no more become straight in order to marry a member of the opposite sex than you could have become white in the 50's in order to marry a caucasian girl. Remember those laws against interracial marriage?

Just how many times do we have to re-learn this lesson before Americans start living up to the standards we have set for ourselves? I mean, once gays get their rights (which they eventually will), who will it be next? We've already had our hate-fests in regards to the Irish, Chinese, Catholics, Germans, Japanese, Africans, women, Muslims, British, Quakers, and a long list of others. Who will be the target next? Fat people? The disabled? Gingers? People whose last names begin with R?

The cycle of bigotry and unfounded hatred needs to stop. It's that simple.

by Sponsored content