They are like the masked terrorists who support OWS. Too chicken sh*t to show themselves. If they feel so gd normal why are they hiding?

There is a big difference between wanting to be accepted for who you are and being a troublemaker.

Why liars? It seems their desire for honesty is what is at issue.

Gays can admire Jesus, love Jesus, but they can't be followers of Jesus. Jesus never accept sodomy

Troublemakers. That's all they are, troublemakers. If they don't like what this college does then go to another college. Duh.

Actually its the Christians who are lying. The preach about love, but then they backstab. Do you feel comfortable or safe around backstabbers? If not then you might keep things about yourself hidden too.

It does not matter what man says. It matters what God says. God says in the Bible that sodomising is wrong. The school is a Christian school. It has every right to hold itself in a way that is presentable to God and not to man. The school does not attack students, but puts out the standards in black and white. Students can choose not to go to that school for another that they would prefere. Why should that school have to change? I say no. There is no Biblical excuse for that. I am not hateful about it and God loves everyone, but He does not say sin is right in any circumstance. The school has the right to set up its own policies and inform the students of them before and while they are attending that school.

Quote from a facebook picture that I thought was awesome:

Jesus: Love everyone, do not judge, and treat everyone with kindness and respect.

Person in the crowd "What about gay's, or people of other faiths like Muslim or Atheist? And how about people from other nations?"

Jesus: Did I stutter?

(Very good quote from a internet picture. figured I would copy on here. Regardless of your belief, still a good line to go by!)

Actually, we have NO record of Jesus ever saying ANYTHING about same sex love. If it was such a terrible abomination that would lead to the downfall of the human race, don't you think He would have had something to say about it? Instead we have isolated scriptures that deal with rape, or preserving Jewish ritual from intrusion of practices of neighboring idol worshipping cults. Christians ignore other Levitical Laws such as stoning someone who works on Sabbath or eating shellfish but insist on literally interpreting scriptures dealing with same sex behavior. It would require a textbook to go into the rationale of why these scriptures really do not address same sex love and the hypocrasy of selecting certain verses as literal and others to ignore. Basically the historical bias against GLBT people as well as bias against equality for women is rooted in the Hebrew Patriarchal culture.

Our culture has evolved as our knowledge base has expanded. We certainly no longer expect women to be silent in the Church as Paul commanded. Unfortunately, prejudice is not based in knowledge but in fear and ignorance and cultural tradition.

Liars? Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many heteros have had sexual intercourse, in spite of the student handbook's own guidelines on the matter, and don't go around blabbing about it all over campus.... Would they be lumped in also? Probably not, but in either case we are talking college "kids". I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't ever parties that might have the presence of alchohol, or whatever; even if there are guidelines about that also...

Truth be told, nothing really has changed, except they have come out and said they are there... Now if they went out and tried to pick up other guys who aren't interested or something, that would be one thing. But all they really did was say "hey, actually we are here, and..." Eh, whatever; but truth be told, this sort of reaction is a reason (or part of a reason) why many can end up being turned off by organized religion, even those who aren't necessarily atheists or agnostics per se. No one has really promoted any individual, no matter how devout or sincere they are in their own beliefs, to serve as the morale police for the entire human race; to serve as judge and jury over everyone else :o

Hence why I think veeryone needs to watch the movie Dogma with Ben Affleck and Chris Rock. Its better to have an idea than a belief system. Ideas can change, beliefs cause trouble. People blindly follow whats told to them without understanding why it is that way.

Who would Jesus persecute and hate?

"There is no heresy or philosophy so abhorrent to the church as a human being." -James Joyce

Do any of you supposed Christians stop to think, for even a moment, that maybe your quoted beliefs are being tested by the presence of homosexuals? Maybe you're being tested for fitness to enter God's kingdom with your acceptance of ALL of God's children, be they living a lifestyle of which you approve, or one that goes against every grain of your being.

Christ didn't reject anybody, but you "Christians" tout how certain acts are against God and you actively abuse, discriminate and in some instances bully and outright terrorize certain peoples just because they don't live the same way you do. I have to say that I don't see very much of the Christ's teachings in your every day behavior. And for all of you who like to say what God likes or doesn't, and what is acceptable to Him or not, how the hell do you personally know? you weren't there when He created the world; you're just spouting stuff that has been passed down to you, and none of those folks had personal contact with, or a hand in creating this, so why do you feel justified in deciding just what is acceptable to Him or not?

Biola requires a student to sign a statement of faith, which says that they will follow the student code of conduct. That code of conduct says they will not participate in what Biola has termed sexual immoral behavior. This includes homosexual activities, as well as sex between a man and woman who have sex outside of marriage.

A great saint said once: "Simplicity is freedom from ancient prejudices" - one of the greatest 'universal wisdom' quotes I have ever run across.

JH, how silly can you be? "Why are they hiding?" In the past week two evangelical preachers (one in Mississippi and another in North Carolina) have openly promoted the belief that gay people should be killed. What do they have to be afraid of? Get your head out of your arse.

I agree with ManFromNantucket...The worlds most hateful people are the evangelical (holierthanthou) ones. Go treat others badly, then sit on the front pew with evil hearts!!!! I'd rather be gay then a hypocritical religious nutcase

@Sarah

Dont always agree with you, but this is true. Some of these private institutions have really good educational systems, and people should be thrilled that others want to learn from them.

Homosexuality is hate speech and this group is going to get expelled from Biola. However, as for Biola, I really believe that some of their polices are not Christian, despite their claims otherwise, and I could prove it with the Scriptures. I don't see this one ending peacefully.

OSKAR,

These kids don't dislike Christians, they ARE Christians. This isn't about the posters on Newsvine, it's about people who are trying to practice their religion, and that very religion (which by the way preaches, peace, love and tolerance) is attempting to persecute them.

I have a sneaky suspicion that oskar-1391552 has "accept sodomy".......repeatedly

Some argue that 'God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.'

I am not sure about that. But I do remember for sure that the Bible preaches the Golden Rule but some so-called Christians have forgotten the golden rule regarding gay rights.

I dont have an issue with people of all lifestyles. However you didnt see me trying to attend or join anything that has a Majority I dont agree with and try to change the institution. I live in down town Detroit and Im not even close to being tan, never mind black. Im not going to go out and walk down the street claiming equal rights to everything in my neighborhood. Even though I can walk down the street and talk to my neighbors with out an issue. It would be dumb of me to push that envelope.

Sarah, You need to reread your bible if you believe it only preaches about peace, love and tolerance.... I believe that there are rules and commandments that we must live by if we want to get to heaven. We all have the free will to make those decisions on our own and if we choose not to, then we don't get past those pearly gates.
I'm not religious at all but these students have the choice to not attend Biola and attend any school they want to if they don't want to follow the rules of the school. This example is happening in every aspect of our culture and is extremely scary. "If you don't believe what I believe, then you need to change your ways because you are a racist, homophobe, nazi, etc., but if you're on my side then it's our RIGHT to make everyone feel the way we do! AND DAMMIT WE ARE GOING TO FORCE YOU IF YOU DON"T!!!"

Welcome to the new regime....

oskar,

do you consider yourself a christian?

Not familiar with Biola. Is that one of the places where they stone folks? Reminds me of when my ultra religious mom was thrown out of a "church" when the "church" found out she had re-married before her first husband died. I love the Christ....not so fond of most "Christians" in my experience!

Luke,

This isn't about the Bible, how they interpret it, or anything else. It's about hypocrasy. If they want to pass judgment and disclude entire demographics of people, that's fine, but then you don't get to call yourselves the religion of "Love, tolerance, and compassion".

@Ssimmons117

Quote from a facebook picture that I thought was awesome:

Jesus: Love everyone, do not judge, and treat everyone with kindness and respect.

Person in the crowd "What about gay's, or people of other faiths like Muslim or Atheist? And how about people from other nations?"

Jesus: I also love the child rapists, thieves, murderers, war mongers, idol worshipers, etc. Warn them all of their behaviors, as they are all in danger of hell's fires.

The laws brought on by the governments in the Old Testament were abolished by Jesus Christ dying on the cross thus you have the New Testament. The moral laws were not abolished though. This is why you don't hear Jesus Christ specifically talk about homosexuality. Jesus Christ covers all the moral laws by simply saying, "Go and sin no more". In other words He will love and forgive you but do not continue with immoral ways.

This is, after-all, how these miscreants got into positions of authority in this nation. They hid their true intent until they felt they had substantial enough numbers to support their agenda; in addition to the water-down legislation and court findings they constructed for when that time came.

The teachings of the Christ dictate that you abandon your sin and follow. Bringing your sin with you is not an option.

Being gay is genetic-being religious is a choice.

Being gay does not cause one to be hateful-but being religious seems to really bring out the uggly in many who claim to be christian.

I have a gut feeling,if evangelical christians were told their in utero child could already be identified as gay or an atheist-they would be all for abortion.

Forget EVERYTHING ELSE!!! Read the hand book. There ARE rules in all aspects of life! They KNEW the rules of conduct when they entered the school. TOSS 'EM OUT!!!

Sarah, you and others on here have a gross misunderstanding of the Bible's teaching on love and tolerance. Yes, we are commanded to love everyone, but nowhere does the Bible give the liberty to tolerate sin. Jesus loved everyone, but he never said that we could continue to live in sin and expect to inherit the kingdom of God. Just because Christians believe homosexuality is a sin does not automatically mean that they "hate" homosexuals. You homosexual supporters always want to twist standing up for truth into calling it hate. It simply isn't so. I've been reading your comments on here for weeks, and if you don't believe what the Bible says, then why are you trying to pick and choose certain passages from it to defend your support of homosexuality?

Jo Ann and spider: Well said.

Mr. Steady,

Your presumptuousness knows no bounds. YOUR version of the Bible, YOUR version of Christianity, YOUR interpretation.

That's the thing, none of us can prove any of it, so you've gotta have some serious cojones to claim you have it right. The only thing we know for a fact, the only thing that's universal here, is the definition of hypocrisy...

hypocrisy

NOUN

1.
feigned high principles: the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings
"It would be sheer hypocrisy for them to turn around and do what they criticize in others."

2.

hypocritical act: an act or instance of hypocrisy
"After his hypocrisies became widely known, he decided not to run for re-election."

huli:

YOU WROTE: "Actually, we have NO record of Jesus ever saying ANYTHING about same sex love. If it was such a terrible abomination that would lead to the downfall of the human race, don't you think He would have had something to say about it?"

MY RESPONSE: I'm NOT a Biblical scholar, but as far as I know Jesus also didn’t say ANYTHING about bestiality, kidnapping, animal cruelty, road rage, or urinating in public, but I think we’d all agree that those behaviors are inherently wrong or immoral. He also didn’t warn us about the dangers of second-hand smoke, deforestation, global warming, or too much sugar in our diets, but that didn’t stop us from still identifying life’s many dangerous pitfalls, did it? In the same way, rational people can still deduce that same-sex marriage (NOT natural), abortion (killing innocent, helpless children), profusion of pornography (degradation of women), and sexual promiscuity (reckless sex) are essentially evil.

Sarah...There is but ONE interpretation of the Bible. It says so IN IT. You can twist what it says all you want, BUT, Mr. Steady is dead on!! You are so far off its not worth talking about because you are "blinded FROM the truth". I suggest you actually read the Bible.

True,

Really? Explain that to all the different people who read into it in all their different ways. And then, please explain, which version of the Bible???

Never before have there been so many versions of the Holy Bible. It can become confusing when one goes to purchase a Bible. Is one better than another? Matters of accuracy and readability must be considered. But how does one get this information?

The first attempt to translate the complete 66 books of the Holy Bible into English occurred in 1382 by John Wycliffe. Until then the Holy Bible remained in Latin and was mainly available only to the clergy for nearly a thousand years. Though books at this time were still written by scribes, the English printing of the Bible came later, the Guttenberg Bible being in German.

In the early 40's, the two main English versions of the Holy Bible were the King James Version, published in 1611, and the Douay or Douay-Rheims Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate in 1582 and 1609, used by the Catholic in English-speaking countries. The Douay-Rheims contains additional books known as the Apocryphal books, intertestament books that are not considered part of the official Canon.

Why do we now have so many versions of the Holy Bible? If languages were fixed and unchanged then there would be no need for revisions and new translations. However languages are constantly evolving. Words go out of style, words come into style and words change their meanings and words are borrowed from other languages. The different translations take into account the words that are no longer socially recognizable to modern English speakers. The principle is the same as how native speakers will automatically replace the word trolley with streetcar or train.

The King James Version of the Bible was written in a style easily understood in Shakespeare's day. But the same phrases that make Shakespeare hard to understand for many present a problem in the King James Version. A couple of examples are:

• SORE: The French word "very" replaced the English word "sore" since the publishing of the King James Version. One example are found in Numbers 22:3 "Moab was sore afraid of the people." In a more modern version, the New International Version (NIV) makes an accurate translation as "Moab was terrified because there were so many people."
• PECULIAR: This word in the 1600's meant "unique, special" but now it means "odd." In the KJV we read in Exodus 19:5 ". . . ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me. . ." whereas in the NIV it reads more accurately, ". . . you will be my treasured possession. . . ."
• Since many changes have occurred over the years, new translations have developed. And since the language will continue to change, new translations or revised translations will continue to be forth coming. Some controversy has arisen over the numerous translations. It would be wise to read the information in the introduction of each Bible as to its source material. Is it a translation of the oldest manuscripts or a translation of another English translation? The farther back the source documents are, the more likely the translation will be the closest to the original intent of the Biblical writers.

  Yes, there are many versions of the Holy Bible. But as long as our language changes so will we need revised translations. The Bible doesn't change its meaning, rather, it is our language that changes and the translators are working to keep the Bible as accurate as possible.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/versions-of-the-holy-bible-faq.htm

See, it doesn't matter what you assert, or that you BELIEVE yourself to be correct. You can not prove it. Then you say, "Blinded by the truth" in order to get out of even conducting a conversation. How cowardly. Perhaps, you make that excuse, because you are so close minded, you can't accept anyone who maybe has a different idea about things.

And why are you so judgmental? What, are you picking up God's slack for him/her?

I suggest you read a science book, but that's neither here nor there.

"I like your Christ, I do not think I like your Christians." - Ghandi

Simply because Jesus doesn't specifically address homosexuality does not mean that he condones it. At the time homosexuality was seen as immoral in Judaism. It had historically been seen as immoral. If the truth was that it wasn't immoral, wouldn't Jesus have said so? Isn't it more likely that he didn't say anything because, on this subject, their society had it right?

In Christianity, sex between members of the same gender is a sin. There has to be some serious biblical gymnastics to see it any other way. That being said, I do believe that the Christian community, in general, has completely and utterly failed to minister with compassion to the needs of the gay and lesbian community. I hear people constantly demonizing and hating these people, who God loves. Yes they are sinners. We are, all of us, sinners.

Romans 5:8 "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

THAT being said. Homosexuals cannot expect Christians to simply ignore or condone that behavior. Christians need to stay committed to what the Bible says. We should love and not persecute homosexuals, while at the same time not ignoring or condoning the behavior. A fine line, and too nuanced for most people.

Of course they are liars. They are peter puffers and as such are satans spawn. These people have been planted inside these organizations to further the agenda of undermining Christianity and destabilizing our wonderful country

TrueTexan,

Again, that's all YOUR assertions of what is or isn't true, or how it's been interpreted, or what version should be followed. You CANNOT, however, make any kind of claim that YOUR position is correct, because you CAN'T prove a damn thing in the Bible, or any religious belief pertaining to it.

Come on, PROVE to me how it's true. Cites, sources, links, credible scientific evidence... Show me how it's true. What, is it true, because it says it's true??? Well, I read a book about vegitarian vampires in Washington State. I know they exist now, because the book says they do.

And no, there is no peer reviewed, accepted by the scientific community, science, in the Bible. There's faux science, that un-peer reviewed, bias faux scientists, pass off to weak, fearful, folks, ahem, but there isn't any REAL science.

That's why we don't study the Bible in science class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23813443/

Those are links to REAL scientific things, that may throw a bone or two into your "The Bible is Science" argument.

Remember, just because YOU want it to be, doesn't mean it ACTUALLY is.

@tiredofdoublestandard100

Good thing there is a spellchecker for small minds.

Remember, just because YOU want it to be, doesn't mean it ACTUALLY is.

And that sword cuts both way does it not????????

To all of you 'christians' who have shown just how far from the teachings of Jesus (and oneness with Christ Consciousness) you are:

You are the antithesis of the WORD. You don't hold the truth to the Bible at all (just what you've been told by the false prophets of organized religion). You hold this sense of moral superiority that is a mirage, and you spew your hate and judgement everywhere. You are so blinded by your hate and false sense of righteousness that you are failing the true lessons of life - love, generosity, forgiveness, tolerance... If God created everyone, you'd best learn how to accept all of his creations.

Robbob,

If you actually read, you would know that it isn't his interpretation I have a problem with, it's his claiming his interpretation is correct, without being able to prove it.

You think Christianity is wrong and should be abolished or at the very least pushed back in to a dark corner, but you also think Christians shouldn't be allowed to feel that way about things they consider wrong.

Please quote where I ever said any of that, or anything even remotely close. I said, I have a problem with Christians claiming to be the religion of peace, love and tolerance, and then turning around and calling people who've never done a damn thing to them, abominations.

I have a problem with hypocrisy, not Christianity. Apply the "but for" test. But for, your using Christianity, to judge my fellow citizens, would I be saying anything about your God?

Your right the government shouldn't be involved in the business licensing of religious ceremonies, that should be a church issue. Yes a lot of none believers hold these religious ceremonies but should they? Shouldn't the government get out of the business of religion, why is the government even remotely involved in licensing what makes up a family

Yup, that's why the government has NOTHING to do with Holy Matrimony.

See, now this is where you really start to get to me...

As to the issue at hand, some are in fact born that way, some chose to be that way, and some are pushed in that direction by outside forces in their lives, but God didn't make them that way Adam did

Prove it.

Here you are passing judgment, and you can't even prove your point. THAT'S the issue here. And don't give me that, "I hate the sin, not the sinner" crap. No, you all hate and judge the sinner, if you JUST hated the sin, you wouldn't be posting, or preaching, or expelling these kids, YOU JUST SIMPLY WOULDN'T BE GAY. (Not that it's a choice, but hey, deniel goes a long way).

True,

Like I said, do your own research.

Why should I prove your point? You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Libs dont want "truth"!

Sure we do. You just have to show us it's the truth, first.

Lib50...God created satan also but I will not accept him! YOU may, but I will NOT. YOU my friend spew foolishness and have no idea of what you speak! God created ALL things...ALL! That includes EVIL! He said he did. You are foolish! And No, I dont "hate" you. You are just foolish.

Truetexan says,

You first have to truly want to know the truth.

There in lies the assbackwards nature of faith. It's the opposite of the scientific method. You're starting with a conclusion and woring backwards, shoehorning "facts" in to fit your premise. It's a hopeless starting position. It's conspiracy theory hucksterism. First you believe and then all will be revealed. Sweet. That makes so much sense.... It's ludicrous. It's an unbridgeable gap. You accept theosopy, revelation, prestigidation, wizardy, necromancy, eschatology, soothsaying, prophecy, and all other forms of MaGiKal Thinking as valid methods of understanding the natural world. Proclaim it all you want but at least have the cojones to admit that faith is a completely absurd proposition.

You invalidate faith when you try to put a scientific veneer on things. I have much more respect for people of faith who recognize the true nature of faith.

I kind of feel sorry for these blindly ideological people. When they do end up 'on the other side' they are the ones with the most problems accepting that it wasn't the way they thought it would be and it takes a long time for them to complete their transition.

truetexan: God gave all souls free will, nobody was CREATED evil, they make choices, like the ones who follow the false prophets instead of thinking for themselves. You don't need a church to commune with God, and if you did it one on one instead of believing somebody in it for nefarious reasons (power, control, wealth) you'd know what we are really here for.

For those wondering, Biola is a creationist (or is it 'Intelligent Design'? I get confused, as they're pretty much the same @!$%#ing thing), college. They've rooted any evolution teachers out of their faculty, and gone on witch hunts to promote biblical thinking, whatever the @!$%# that is, including firing professors for drinking alcohol IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

I don't know about their other departments, but with a science department that actively disdains and refuses real science, I don't have much hope for the rest of them.

Sarah...the more you Rant the more you prove "MY" point! You have the ranting of a lunatic. But thats what libs are. OH, you libs always want "big gov." involved telling everyone what to do unless it bites YOU in the butt! I dont want them telling me ANYTHING! Including health care!! Sarah, you and your friends are truly loooony! HAHAHAHAHA Have a great dimwitted life.

Sarah -

I'll say it, then. I think Christianity should be pushed back into a dank, dark corner. You know, like that one guy, who was it?...

Oh, right, @!$%#ing MATTHEW 6:6 - Pray in the closets, and leave the rest of us alone.

HA HA HA HA HA - Deceitful liars??? What the hell do you call people that actively deny reality? Good for them, nothing like shaking the foundation of fairy tales and myths!

Lib,

Or my personal favorite...

John, 5:17; "And then Jeebus say unto them, YOU DIMWITTED LUNATICS!"

True,

I mean, for the love of Pete! Who would Jesus call a "dimwitted lunatic"??? And right, you don't want the government telling you what to do, except who to marry, how to have sex, what you can do with your body, that you have to have a probe shoved up your vagina, that members of certain religions can be spied on, that people who look Mexican have to carry papers...

No one speaks for Jesus or God. No one.

No, you all hate and judge the sinner

I didn't judge them, actually if you read my post you will notice that I pointed out we are all sinners, none better than the other, but just to be clear the bible does say we can judge sin. reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine

Prove it.

Just like me your views are just beliefs no more no less, you choose to believe what you believe, you accept your "proof" as factual and choose to dismiss others, but the long and short is you can't "prove" your beliefs either.

My point about homosexuality was the fact we were created sinless, all sin came in because of a choice made by Adam, all sin springs forth from this point, and none of it is any better or worse than any other. We choose to do sinful things, or we choose not too, it is a choice.

Sure we do. You just have to show us it's the truth, first.

You can't be shown, you have to first want to be shown the truth, at this point and time it is obvious you don't want to, maybe some day in the future you will be, but ye need not that any man teach you. If and when that time comes the truth will be there, but until that time nothing anyone says will change that for you. Your arguments, cries for proof, rantings, railings and hatred are pointless, I have my proof that I accepted that God is real, his word is real, and that he will teach me to understand it, if he did not make his word so we can understand it then then he would be God.

But alas the bible let us know to expect this from those in the world. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient

or all of Romans 1

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=KJV

It is a private institution that has a set of rules that one needs to abide by in order to stay in school. If you don't believe in those values and rules, perhaps the institution is not the place for you. Keep in mind, one of those rules is "no premarital sex" for heterosexuals.

I'm glad I skimmed through these postings. I didn't know God "wrote the Bible". To equate this group with "terrorists" is, at the very least, a ridiculously asinine comment. The New Testament references to homosexuality, if you can even call them "references", are fraught with amibiguity, always in the second or third person, susceptible to the frailties of language interpretation, and skewed by the opinions of the writers and interpreters. They are not quotes from Jesus, or from God. Many of the comments here speak volumes about those posting, not about the group at Biola. Their silence indicates fear, obviously justified by many of the comments.

Robbob -

Oh, boy, another disingenuous "your beliefs are just beliefs, like mine, so mine are better BECAUSE I have this fantasy of someone out there that tells me these things." I ain't buying it.

For one thing, you claim that my beliefs are just as fallacious as yours. Wrong! I base my beliefs upon critical thinking, logic, and experimentation with reality. You know, observe, record, verify. For instance, I believe that if I jump off a building, I have a very high probability of being injured or even dying. I assume you have the same belief, else you may have attempted to fly by now. See, that is what we call a rational belief. We believe that because we have experimented with gravity and wind and air and our bodies. We have seen what happens when people have jumped off of buildings. We know that there is virtually no possibility of certain portions of the law of gravity being instantaneously revoked for us or in our area if we choose to jump off a building.

You, on the other hand, take a book written over many thousands of years, with no credible eyewitnesses confirming it or any events in it, which blatantly violates just about every natural observation made before or since, and claim it as truth. Fair enough, freedom of belief and all that claptrap. Where I draw the line is you (and those like you) intend to codify these silly superstitions into our laws in order to hate on, alienate, and discriminate against groups of people who don't fit your definition of "normal." So yeah, don't even bother selling me that @!$%#, I smelled you a mile away and already got my @!$%#-mucking boots on. Leave the gate closed, and I'll clean up the mess as long as it gets you the hell away from here faster.

Excuse me, pardon me, just want to get a word in edge wise. I see no passage where Jesus touched some one on the head and said, "now go fourth and be straight," nor is there any Commandment that says, "Thou shalt not be Gay." I'm sure that Jesus and God are up there, scratchin there heads wondering what the Hell have we created.

From the article:

We are Biola's students, alumni, employees, and fellow followers of Christ. We want to be treated with equality and respected as another facet of Biola's diversity."

Christ loves everyone.

Biola is not following Christianity.

The bible is clear on sexuality. God made Adam and Eve. He wanted the "1st" couple to share a life and to bear fruit. Only people of 2 different genders can produce a child. God never intended for people of the same sex to interlock and refer to themselves as a married couple.

Biola may call themselves Christian.

However, their stance is in direct opposition to scripture.

I base my beliefs upon critical thinking, logic, and experimentation with reality. You know, observe, record, verify.

Of which I highly doubt that any ofyou have done any of the experimentation, or more importantly ALL of the experimentation.

Oh, boy, another disingenuous "your beliefs are just beliefs, like mine, so mine are better BECAUSE I have this fantasy of someone out there that tells me these things." I ain't buying it.

I never once said my beliefs were better, but I can with out a doubt PROVE YOURS IS NOTHING BUT A FAITH BASED RELIGION ALSO.

Here goes it.

You all have a system of belief based on evidence gathered by others, of which you all accept by faith as being factual even though you have no way of personally verifying it, you have not gone out and collected ALL of the samples, or done ALL of the testing yourself. You all are relying on others to do that and as long as the results fit within your belief system you all accept them as being factual.

You all are accepting the evidence of your religion on faith alone, you choose which parts you want to believe on the faith that it is correct and if it fits with your beliefs. Even though in this area of study there has been countless examples of incorrect results, lies, half truths, miss information and out right FRAUDS, but you blindly on faith alone continue to accept evidence that you have no way of proving is right.

Your religion is no different than Christianity in that it is a FAITH BASED RELIGION, you can't prove most of the "FACTS" you believe, you hope they are right and stand the test of time and are not proven wrong as a lot of past "FACTS" have been proven wrong. Don't feel bad a lot of people believed things that turned out to be FALSE later on. All of us accept our belief system on faith, you all can try to say you have the "FACTS" on your side but you are no more capable of proving your beliefs than I am.

Now what to do, 1. admit it is nothing but a faith based religion. 2. ignore the facts and this post altogether. 3. let the ranting, insults and denial begin.

On faith I expect #3

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Walker25

just a FYI it's the underground still in hiding group who is in direct opposition to scripture, Not the school itself.

Robbob -

Blah, blah, blah. If you want statistics, you can check your "documents" (hint: one book) versus mine (hint: way more than your one book) in terms of numbers.

Or, you can, you know, read. I will admit that I accept the word of scientists. But I don't just accept their word. I read their works. The papers they submit, they are available. Some are behind paywalls, true, but the information is out there. Not only that, but scientists go back to first principles often times. The works of many are built on the works of others. Also, scientists are willing to change their minds when new evidence comes out. Creationism was accepted as fact, for instance, until geology came about and began questioning the age of the earth. Flat-earth was accepted until the Greeks actually measured the circumference of the earth. You see, when science comes in with something new, there is a method called peer-review. People who have studied that subject (and similar subjects) all get to look it over. After that, other scientists get to replicate the experiment and see if the prediction holds true. It's not perfect, but better than listening to the voices in your head in order to shoehorn any new facts into your current belief structure, rather than accepting the new facts as changing your belief structure. And, the scientists that prove big science theories incorrect? Insta-fame. Science encourages doubt and skepticism. Faith is the exact opposite - crushing doubt and skepticism through dogmatic adherence.

But, here's the biggest difference I see between science and religion: science works. You have a computer to write this on thanks to science, not prayer. You have the ability to reach billions of other people because of science, not god. You have medicine that saves lives, you have information at your fingertips, you have a greater understanding of the world through science, not faith. Faith is always holding to the old, never exploring and discovering. Science is the opposite, always doubting, always demanding evidence.

Science is not a "faith-based religion." It is a series of principles that remove human failings, like cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, improper outlier handling, etc. Science is the study of the world. Faith is the study of something that has not been shown to exist. In fact, the definition of faith is to believe in something despite all evidence to the contrary. That's not a virtue, that's psychosis.

You think you can show science is a religion, but all you do is put up a bunch of words in bold and scare quotes. Ho hum, just another apologist for the naked emperor.

For those of you who say Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, the opposite is actually true. The Bible talks about the issue a lot, including in Romans 1:26-27: "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is wrong. You can believe whatever you want to believe and even try to justify it, but it doesn't make what you believe the truth. Obviously people struggle with homosexuality; this doesn't make them any more of a sinner than me or anyone else. We have all sinned and we all need God's grace.

We can't take other Scripture and twist it to blame God and say how he is a God of love, not hate, so we need to accept homosexuality. He is a God of love, but He is also a God of justice. He wants everyone to turn from their sin and be in a relationship with Him, but if you choose not to do this, then this is your choice, not God's.

Science is not a "faith-based religion."

Yes but your beliefs aren't science, it's mixed in with science and some scientific information is used, but as someone who has studied a lot of real science I can with out a doubt or hesitation tell you that your beliefs don't qualify as real science, I mean who would truly want to say science proves we all descended from a rock, now that takes faith.

called peer-review

Oh ya like no peer-review "FACTS" haven't turned out to be pure FRAUDS either.

Faith is the exact opposite - crushing doubt and skepticism through dogmatic adherence.

Thank you, that is exactly what you are doing, you cannot prove your beliefs, you even admit it it's purely faith. ie YOUR RELIGION

you know, read. I will admit that I accept the word of scientists. But I don't just accept their word. I read their works. The papers they submit, they are available. Some are behind paywalls, true, but the information is out there. Not only that, but scientists go back to first principles often times.

And just how is this any different than what a Christian does????????????

The works of many are built on the works of others.

And if the "others" work is flawed or out right wrong, oops and guess what IT HAPPENS, and you would be surprised how often, or worse things that have been proven false years ago keep popping up again hoping no one notices.

IT"S your religion, your faith based belief system, you can say but but the scientist said it was so, oh well so what they could be wrong, and you just believed them, talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel, ya right we all came from ROCK

OH look a photo of Grandpa http://www.emporia.edu/~es/garden/rock06.jpg

AWE a family photohttp://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/images/igneous.jpg

and lets not forget the family reunion http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00461/images/igneous.jpg

Underground gay group emerges....? How, through underground railway? or underground superhighway?

that you have to have a probe shoved up your vagina,

Sarah-3043284, was that you that got kicked off the American Airlines flight?

Although, in all honesty, I did immediately think of you when I saw that story.

Homosexuals are so quick to point out the Christian "hypocrites," but who are the real hypocrites? Homosexuals claim to love Jesus and follow his teachings, but they pick and choose what to follow in the Bible. The Bible in the NEW TESTAMENT speaks clearly about homosexuality."In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26

Robbob -

I seriously doubt you have read real science if you continue parroting the line about "Oh, my granddaddy was a rock, huh?" If you have no gut for complexity, then go ahead and continue the quote-mining.

You pull a whole lot out of my first paragraph describing how science works. I can understand how the quotes you chose out of context seem to say similar stuff to what you are talking about, though I am skeptical of calling the bible a "first principle." Especially after seeing how derivative it is of other mythologies, religions, and stories at the time (hint: Gilgamesh, Osiris, Isis, Mithras, etc.). And then there's the content. Yeah, go ahead and keep preaching, I've heard it all before.

You keep saying I have faith, which is a belief in something that is contradicted by the evidence. I don't actually. I'm not saying that all my beliefs are scientific in nature. I'm saying that my beliefs are informed by science. As to your whole scientific fraud rant: who exposed the frauds? Some priest? No, it was scientists (who, admittedly, might also have been priests). Science is used to clean itself up. If science can't replicate an experiment, guess what, the hypothesis is proven wrong.

You also have nothing to address my second paragraph. Science works, faith just keeps on chugging along because idiots like you keep putting their whole lives into a bunch of fairy tales. So, I think it's time to say put up or shut up. Show that faith has real effects in the world. Come on, show me how we didn't evolve from rocks. Bring your evidence (note, if you choose to use the bible, it must first be proven to be accurate). Also, if I find you sleeping in class, you'll get pegged by a piece of chalk. Your science teachers should have done that anyway, apparently you missed a whole lot in your education.

When we die we just rot in the ground. Sorry, guys.

Hi Sarah, I agree 100% with everything you've said. Trying to deal with people like truetexan or robbob, though, may be a waste of time. After all, you can't reason someone out of something they never reasoned themselves into. And religion, by its very definition, refuses to hold reason (it is faith based, basically turning the scientific method backwards). We can only hope that, as our older generations die off, the percentage of our citizens choosing to forgoe any effort at logic, critical thinking, and general human decency will decline. Eventually, enough will die off to where the accepted majority of our population will judge others not by the orient of their sexuality but by the content of their character. We just have to keep pushing that direction.

TO Sarah-3043284:

And no, there is no peer reviewed, accepted by the scientific community, science, in the Bible. There's faux science, that un-peer reviewed, bias faux scientists, pass off to weak, fearful, folks, ahem, but there isn't any REAL science.

That's why we don't study the Bible in science class.

You are correct. We do not study the Bible in science class. We don't because, if you are Christian and believe in God, the bible supercedes Science. This book cannot be "proved up" by man. Christians put their faith in God and the teachings it comes with. We believe the book is God's word because God says it. We have no proof except through our faith and that, if you can even imagine it, is all the proof we need.

I choose to believe in God. I believe in Him and his word. It is a choice I have made. Much like homosexuals have made a choice to be homosexual. yes I do believe it is a choice. How? I will give you an analogy:

I dislike eating vegetables. I get no joy from it. I'd be much happier indulging in a cheeseburger. However, I know it is in my best interest and for my own wellness to eat vegetables. They provide me with all the things my body NEEDS. Not wants, needs.

Homosexuals dislike being with partners of the opposite sex. They get no joy from it. However, if they are Christians, they KNOW it is in their best interest and for their own spiritual wellness to obey God's word and not lie with another of the same sex.

It is all a choice. God gave us free will in hopes that we would CHOOSE to obey Him.

Homosexuals can attend a Christian college, partake in all the bible studies, be baptized, give to their churches, love and otherwise do everything else God asks HOWEVER they are not true Christians in the eyes of God.

We must follow all of God's teachings not just the ones we like. Have I made mistakes in the past and shamed God? Of course. I am human and am therefore sinful. However I try not to disobey and when I do I ask forgiveness. And God gives it to me if I truley mean it in my heart.

Christianity is not a hateful religion. We have some people who claim to be Christians who are hateful towards the homosexual community. Just as there are those in favor of gay rights who are hateful against our beliefs. Just as you have been.

It saddens me and breaks my heart when I hear of men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women. Do I love them any less? No. I love them with all my heart. But I pray for them. I will always pray for them just as I pray for you to see the error of your ways.

As a christian I have no problem with giving respect to homosexuals, transgender individuals or to lesbians. The problem I have to is to state you are a follower of Christ is to follow christian teachings and the Bible is very emphatic where it states that homosexuality is a sin. So as the Bible states you can not follow Christ and ignore his teachings. So pull out of school and to a state or non-christian school.

But with this being stated, to hate people of different sexual preference, or to wish them to hell is missing out what we are taught to do. We are to love without conditions, accept without qualifications, and to respect the respectable. As the bible states, you will be known by your actions and hate and Christian living have no compatibility. We are to love, not hate; pray not gossip; and to show Christs love without reservation. But if one states they are Christians and refuse to abide by what Christ asks of us, then rather then hate we are to let them be and pray for them, Christ is very capable of sorting everything out in the end without any help from us.

One last thing. Because we are Christians does not mean we need to accept people browbeating us to accept their lifestyle, nor should be pressured into following their moral principles. Love, but do not surrender!

Let's have some logic -

Seriously? That's your 'nym, and you spout out the most anti-logical load of crap I've seen this side of Robbob up there? Wow. Just... wow.

Tbenton -

Your holy book is full of hatred, ostracism, judgement, denouncing others, death, death, death... Where's the love? It's like, "hate everything about anyone having a good time. But love. The end." Serious disconnect there. You really need to get a better PR firm.

To both of you, meh. I've heard better theologizing from Chris Mooney. Being gay is like not wanting to eat vegetables? Yeah, sure, let's see your scientific research proving that. Better yet, when did you 'choose' to be straight? Did you wake up one morning and think, "You know, I think it would be better for me to have sex with girls, so I will not be attracted to men." Or, did you do like the rest of us, and when you hit puberty your hormones set you on fire and you had indescribable urges to mate with anything resembling what you thought was sexually attractive? Did you get excited looking at people of the same sex for a while, but decide not to be attracted to them? Seriously, inquiring minds want to know.

I've never gotten a real answer to this question. I've heard the stories of 'ex-gays,' but, to be honest, I feel so sorry for their families that they have created based on a lie that they most likely will not be able to live with forever. Why? Because sexuality is not a choice. Sexuality is inherent in the person. Personally, I'm straight. I don't have sexual attraction to men. I just don't. Many gay men I've met describe it in the same exact terms, only they find men attractive and not women. It's there, and there's absolutely no reason to be ashamed or to attempt to "fix" it or anything. No reason. None.

You can quote your bible at me all you want. I'm not impressed. It seems a trifling thing, poorly written, bad plot, and completely unfounded in history. I have better fiction to read now.

Please do not use the born with issue, because everyone is born with the same choices, how we turn out is how we chose. Am I saying it is a bad choice to turn out gay, no. It is their choice, a personal decision. It is not my place to judge them, just to love them and accept them as they are, if God wants them to change and they are willing to listen it is His responsibility to do this not mine.

Janstince,

Let me use a little elementary education on Christianity and then see if your argument still stands up. We Christians believe the Old Testament was fulfilled with Christ's death and now we are living with the new covenant, or live under the guidelines of the New Testament. So please go through all the books of the New Testament and find me any book that deals with death, hatred, or anything else you are accusing it of and I will gladly recant my statement. But please read before you make a statement.

Oskar: Gays can admire Jesus, love Jesus, but they can't be followers of Jesus. Jesus never accept sodomy.

really Oskar? How do you know?

1. None of you have ever proven that the jesus-myth is real of existed, or is the son of a god.

2. None of you has ever proven your god (or any god) exists.

3. The buyBull doesn't indicate that the jesus-myth said ANYTHING about homosexuality.

4. the jesus-myth is never shown to have been intimate with a male or a female. if he existed at all, he could have been gay. You have now way of knowing or proving that either way. I mean, think about it. He walked around in gowns and sandals, only hung out with other guys, and was even caught in a garden with a naked little boy. Kinda sounds a lot like one of the pedophiel priests that have raped and molested tens of thousands of kids already.

5. your jesus-myth says (in the BuyBull) that ALL are sinners, and ALL are welcome to come to god through him. where does it exclude gays? are you a lair and a fraud about THIS concept in christianity, too? Why do you find the need to lie and misrepresent your BuyBull scriptures, just to try and win your petty, hateful arguments?

You have no facts, oskar, just the ignorant, mindless, hateful rants of other BuyBull lowlifes that you choose to repeat.

Let me tell you not my opinion but jehovah God's opinion in Leviticus 18:22 He says thou shalt not lie with Mankind as with womankind it is an abomination. also in Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own Image,in the Image of God created he him; Male and Female created He them. so let us go to the new testament Romans1:26&27 God says this. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is againstNature:(27)And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense(reward) OF Their error which was meet.or(due). soI do not care if the whole world embraces that lifestyle God will not tolerate it. if the Homosexualls and Lesbians expect to go to Heaven they will have to give up that abomnible lifestyle. otherwise they will suffer the wrath of Almighty God. the lie they are trying to convince the world that they are born that way is a ballface lie. there is not a shred of truth bin it. that lie was hatched right out of Hell itself.and they are blinded by Satan. that lifestyle is contrary to God's nature. they say that life style is not a learned Behavior, I guarantee you you take two women or two men and let them adopt children which I oppose strongly they will teach them to be just like them.that is a absolute Fact. another thing no two women can procreate without the help of a Man. and no two men ca procreate period. that liufestyle is sickening and makes me want to puke. but let me tell those people their is hope. it is in Jesus Christ. they have an eternal soul that is what God is after and so is the Devil so let Jesus take over you will not regret it.

Janstince

You still refuse to see the truth, in that you are accepting your "proof" on faith, you have not done any of the work, sample gathering or testing yourself, you are accepting the answers on faith. Unless you are less than a year old then you have accepted evidence of your religion that was proven wrong later.

I have and do continue to study science everyday, most science has nothing to do with your religion, you look around the world and see billions of accidental happenings, I look around the world and all is complexities and see order and purpose not accidents, not to mention there is no way I am stupid enough to believe we came from rocks, unlike others on here. It was science and my years of studying science that helped me accept my beliefs.

Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

This is where I have proof of your religious Faith, I happen to know for a fact that you are taking what you believe on faith, I know you have not done all the experiments yourself, you hope the evidence is correct, but you can't prove that it is. You keep wanting us to prove our beliefs, I can't, none of us can, BUT NEITHER CAN YOU, any evidence you post will be someone else work that you have not way of proving is correct at all, and yes there has been peer reviewed "evidence" that was proven wrong 30-40 years later, and but at the time the "best minds in science" said it was right. OOPS

This is were truth and honesty come in to play, I know that my belief is based on faith, I accept that, but if you were remotely honest you would know you are doing the same thing yourself.

I mean you really believe you descended from a rock by billions of accidents, now which one of us has the most faith in our belief system.

I know you will keep ignoring this one simple truth about your beliefs system but that doesn't change the truth one bit.

What really is the Bible? Is it the word of God? I didn't see any of the versus of the bible signed by God himself. I have read numerous sections of the Bible that were written by MEN who claimed to know what God thought. I have seen modern day Charlatans on T.V. claim that "God spoke to (them)". If that is really the case, why are they not considered living prophets of God and taken more seriously.

The Bible (new testament) is a collection of letters written 20 - 60 years after Jesus died. It is a collection of stories that were passed down through oral tradition. Perhaps I am just a cynic, but any story I heard 20 years ago that has passed down through Oral Tradition certainly has some of the facts askew.

Here is one of my newly found favorite classic statements that I would like to share with you all:

"Many on the Christian Right are fond of posing the question WWJD?-- What would Jesus do? I'd like to remind them what Jesus DID do: he cared for the poor. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery. He prayed alone. He commanded us to love our enemies. He preached peace. He ate, drank, and lived with tax collectors and sinners the lowlifes and outcasts of his day while reserving his condemnation for the religious leaders who from a place of privilege imposed their legalism and literalism on the people they were responsible for leading. He told his disciples not to oppose the healing work of those outside the ranks of his followers. And again and again he reminded us to care for the poor. (That moral issue gets more air time than any other in the gospels: 1 verse in 9.) If Christians concerned about how to respond to the grave global issues facing us all were to reread the Gospels for guidance, I think we'd find some pretty clear indications there about what Jesus would do. And what he wouldn't. (One of the few bumper stickers I've been tempted to affix to my still undecorated car in recent months reads "Who would Jesus bomb?")

Whatever Jesus would do, given what he did do, and has promised he will do, I don't think it looks much like what the insulated, self-congratulatory Fox News fans on the "Christian Right" are doing.'

-Marilyn Chandler McEntyre

@dannyboy: Who was Leviticus? How did he know so much about what God wanted. Could it not be for a moment that perhaps it is what he wanted and not what He wanted?

Does your faith prohibit you from challenging the basic tenets of the Bible? Basic tenets like "who were the people that wrote the Old Testament?" How is it that God only spoke to them? Where are all the other chapters of the Bible that have been "edited out" known as the Gnostic Gospels?

The concept of faith means to accept something as fact without any tangible proof. Jimmy Swaggart claims to speak with God all the time yet he is considered more of a charlatan than a prophet. Same can be said for David Koresh.

Why is it also that Jesus was not considered what he is today until almost 300 years after his death? He was deified at the Conference at Nicea by King Constantine who prayed to him for victory in battle. When he won the battle, he kept his word and voted on Jesus as becoming the savior.

The bottom line here is that people that "believe" in God, religion and Jesus as a deity want to use the Bible as a concrete guidepost for rules of daily action and have them codified into laws. Just as Christians are horrified at the prospect of Sharia law, so are the non-believers about codifying Christian dogma into the laws of the land. North Carolina just performed a very un-American act by preventing all of its citizenry from sharing in the same rights we should all enjoy because of an antiquated book. The Bible also claims in Leviticus that it is acceptable to own slaves yet we seem to have mustered the moral courage to refute that part of religious doctrine. I'm sure you have heard all the other things in Leviticus about crop rotations, wearing different fibers, eating shellfish, poor eyesight and a lengthy list of other "abominations unto the Lord" that are all on the same plane as homosexuality. Can we not move forward and just accept once again that maybe the Bible is wrong on this one? If not, I'd like to purchase your daughter as my slave (the Bible says it's O.K.).

Robbob -

I was going to go on a rant about how you keep strawmanning my position, you keep putting words in my mouth that weren't there, and you keep insisting that what I have is faith when it really isn't. But you know, in the spirit of the moment, I'll just go ahead and do it back to you.

You have faith in something that doesn't exist. You treat women badly because your book tells you to. You treat children with abuse because your book tells you to. You treat gays and queers and transgender/sexual people with horror because your book tells you to. You pray to a magical fairy-man that you think lives up in the sky, but I know you're just talking to yourself. You feel superior to others, because even if you aren't 'better,' you are 'saved,' and that makes all the difference to you. You shun those who question your beliefs, and call them names like "fool" and "possessed" and "angry at god," but you have no idea what those terms really mean, because your book has kept you in ignorance.

You see what I did there? I built a complete strawman out of your life for you, so you don't even have to respond. Not that I'll actually read anything you say to counter it, because I already know what you REALLY believe and that it's wrong. Have a nice day, @!$%#.

(And you wonder why atheists are angry?)

And you wonder why atheists are angry?)

Because you have to admit you believe you came from a rock based on your religion, would be my guess. Hay if that is the fairy tale you want to believe that is your business, but it is no more provable than my beliefs.

You still can't admit you I'm right about you accepting your beliefs on faith as well, it's just easier to ignore the question and rant about which you know nothing. And like most liberal lefties you have to resort to attacks and name calling because that is all you have left, in the absences of admitting the truth about your beliefs.

Rock on.

Robbob,

I don't understand from where this "came from a rock" idea you keep throwing around came. And Janstince was only showing what you are doing: instead of reading his words, you keep telling him what he believes. That's not discussion.

Being informed by science is not faith. True, I haven't proven gravity, but many smarter than me have. And, after reading the information they provide, versus the other options, I take their word for it. If they happen to be wrong, then I'll have to admit I was wrong and keep searching for answers.

With faith, no one has proven a god. No one has proven a heaven. You are taking the word of fellow believers, who also merely have faith, not proof. And if they happen to be wrong (which there have been several instances of) you will refuse to accept it because it does not agree with your faith. See the difference?

Probably not. Feel free to repeat yourself if you respond to me as you have in every response to Janstince.

Hambone

Just trying to get the "informed" to realize that the way you all are accepting information is not any different than the Christians. You are accepting other peoples words as fact when you have no way of knowing if it is correct, sometimes written by people long dead. Don't get me wrong I love science, been involved with science most of my life, and the basic part of evolution is correct, dog and wolf have a common ancestor ok, but to believe that it rained on the rocks for millions of years and made prebiotic soup which got shocked and came alive then became all life on earth is too funny even by most standards.

Being informed by science is not faith. True, I haven't proven gravity, but many smarter than me have. And, after reading the information they provide, versus the other options, I take their word for it. If they happen to be wrong, then I'll have to admit I was wrong and keep searching for answers.

But back to my main point, y'all laugh at people of faith say they can't prove what they believe, OK, but 99.99% of y'all can't prove what you believe yourself either, you are relying on others who you have never met and have no way of knowing if their information is correct, and even peer reviewed, tested, studied and accepted "facts" turn out to be false sometimes. What the funniest part of it is all of you can't even see that for yourselves, even after many frauds and hoaxes have been used by those pushing your beliefs you still believe, not because of any real proof but because the alternative is unacceptable to you, but you are taking it no less on faith.

You are taking the word of fellow believers

How is this any different than what you are doing, it is exactly the same and repeating the mantra - but but scientist say it's so, doesn't make it so. You are free to believe what you want but don't act like you are any different because of science, you even admit you don't have proof, that you are relying on others for your proof.

That's all I'm trying to point out, swallow a camel and strain at a gnat

Robbob -

See, the thing is, we could actually step in, repeat the experiments, and discover the same results. How do I know this? Because that's how science works, how it has worked, for hundreds of years. We don't rely on one person's revelation from on high, or whatever the hell you want to call it. We can read their methods of obtaining data, and, time and other factors permitting, recreate the experiment and discover for ourselves.

We do not take the word of some high and mighty guy who says he can talk to an invisible being that, despite the threat of burning us forever in a pit of fire, will absolutely not do the one thing that could save us from that fate by making us believe: your god has not shown himself and never will. That's what we ask for, evidence.

But go ahead, keep strawmanning away. Keep repeating "science is like faith, and my granddaddy ain't no rock." That's right up there in stupid with "if monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys?" Or maybe you prefer Ray Comfort's banana-hand argument? Whatever.

I'm not going to argue anymore. You obviously won't see reason, and I refuse to blind myself with faith.

I'm not disputing the science or the data, I'm only point out that you haven't done the test, experiments, studies or collected any samples, and you have no way of knowing if the results were skewed in some way, and yes it happens in science all the time. You choose to believe the results that fit your beliefs and thats fine, but don't think for a second that somehow your so much more enlightened than Christians, you can try and justify your beliefs with the whole because scientist say so argument but that does change the facts. There are countless examples of past frauds that were accepted and even promoted by "scientist" in the past that were believed by the masses only to come out much later as being complete hoaxes, and you accepted them as fact yourself. I'm just very clearly pointing out the complete fallacy of your argument that you have any proof, you don't, you keep going back to the same thing, because some scientist you don't even know said so, that is the funnest part.

You can't even be honest with yourself about that fact, you have zero proof you descended from a rock, go figure.

There are countless examples of past frauds that were accepted and even promoted by "scientist" in the past that were believed by the masses only to come out much later as being complete hoaxes

That's exactly the point. They were proven false. Someone went ahead and redid the experiment and the results did not match. And everyone moved on.

And, considering I have taken several science labs, I have recreated several experiments and gotten the same results. That's what science is. Something you can do over and over and get the same results.

You can keep saying science this and science that and that fine, I know how real science works, but the point I am still trying to get you to see is you are not experiencing any of it first had, there is no way for you to, so in the end you are no better than the Christians in that you can't ever prove what you believe to be factual, no way no how, you are just believing what someone else is telling you.

That's exactly the point. They were proven false. Someone went ahead and redid the experiment and the results did not match. And everyone moved on.

Not always the case, some times they just get caught, no one redid the test, someone and a lot of the time it's non scientist or people from other fields that come out and point blank prove their answers as being complete bull.

Ok but what about when it takes 30-40 years to correct it, or when it is an out right fraud but is fully backed by the scientific community until they get caught. Having studied science for most of my life I have seen countless examples of blatant miss information. Take a little time and study the whole and I mean whole KBS tuft fiasco that went on for years. Big battle to get most accurate date, then bam Leakey finds skull and everyone becomes unhinged over it, everyone involved in the "dating race" from 1969 into the mid 70's first reaction to skull 1470 was to try and discredit Leakey and they tried very had to do it, instead of saying wow we may have made a mistake. This is just one of hundreds of examples of changing the results not because a new test came up with better information, but because something came along to prove they were way wrong in the first place. If Leakey had not found skull 1470 or been discredited as a lot of people hoped the KBS tuft would be still be listed as being 2.9 mil years old and you would believe it and you would be way way wrong.

My point is you have no way of knowing if what you are being told is even remotely true, and yes scientist in that field back each other up all the time, test results that don't fit "expected" answer are tossed all the time, most of these scientist are not looking for answers, they are looking for evidence to fit their expected answers and anything that proves them to be wrong is most often ignored out right.

I have had the benefit of being around a lot of different true sciences that work like you think this area works, sorry but it most often doesn't, on a dig one time what one researcher 100% guaranteed as fact was unearthed not 10 feet from him proving he was in fact 100% wrong, know what he did, turned to film crew and said I don't see anything here and refused to just turn around to look at it, then stormed off with film crew in tow. That was a water shed day for me, that is when I quit accepting information just because some other scientist said so.

Here is a great one for you: Coelacanth is a 65 mil yo Index Fossil, find a rock with a Coelacanth fossil and that rock has to be 65 mil yo because that is when they went extinct, WRONG still around TODAY, could be from any age to present date, but still being used in text books today as a index fossil which is complete bull.

Talk about blind faith, you can keep believing what you want, keep saying but that is how science works, but when it comes right down to it y'all can't prove a single thing you say you believe your self you have done ABSOLUTELY ZERO of the work, you always go back to but but the scientist says so so it must be true.

First of all, you appear to have missed my second statement:

I have recreated several experiments and gotten the same results. That's what science is. Something you can do over and over and get the same results.

So you can't legitimately say I've done "ABSOLUTELY ZERO of the work." I've not done much, maybe .00001%, but that's not zero. For someone who's been around science for so long, one might expect you not to make such hyperbolic statements.

Second, anyone with a bit of intelligence never trusts science with only one or two studies behind it... like you said, it could take years to get all the data and find the correct conclusion. And then that conclusion could be wrong. I know that. I don't take it all on faith.

Faith = belief in something despite the facts.

Yes, some scientists can be arrogant and ego-driven. Many might ignore facts that don't fit in with their preferred outcome. But not all. Science is the search for knowledge. And I do trust that search. I don't take it all as truth or fact. No one does. But it's a far cry from faith, which is claiming to know the truth. Science admits it doesn't know the truth. I've read many astronomers who admit we know almost nothing about the universe. That's why I trust them. But that trust is not blind.

Third, I have been aware that Coelacanth is still around today. It's one of my favorite animals. And I learned that in high school. If it's still in text books, those text books are wrong.

I don't care if you keep saying, over and over, that taking the word of science and scientists is the same as faith in a deity or magic because I know it's not true. And most rational people understand the difference.

Keep shouting in the forest.

I don't care if you keep saying, over and over, that taking the word of science and scientists is the same as faith in a deity or magic because I know it's not true. And most rational people understand the difference.

No a honest intelligent person would see there is no difference as I have pointed out, other than their own self righteousness superiority complex in that their beliefs are right and the other is not, even though you have no proof other than believing what someone else says is right.

I have recreated several experiments and gotten the same results

Please enlighten us oh wizard of science to which experiments in the field of evilution have you been able to recreate?

As I have also stated I believe in evolution in the extent of dog/wolf common ancestor, but the rock to us evolution is complete bull pucky.

That's exactly my impression. Of course they want to have the 'open dialogue' so these students will identify themselves, and subsequently be expelled.

But they will keep every penny of their tuition. You can bet on that. I doubt they'll give any part of it back.

Religion vs. sex. It's a war that has been going on, in some form or another, for thousands of years. The casualties in this war are too numerous to count. It continues...

@ewayne - These 2 statements, both by the school, demonstrate the problem.

"The problem"? Sort of like an athiest taking a job at a religious organization then starting to make waves with his employer over the existence of God. Sort of stupid IMO. Plenty of colleges to go to so why would anyone pull this sort of tactic unless they were trying to get their 15 minutes of fame?

@Jonathan F:

No atheist believes in a god. Many gay and lesbian people, however, consider themselves Christians. That would explain why they are attending a Christian college.

If you're a Jew, Leviticus makes it quite clear homosexuality is a sin. Paul also makes it quite clear one needn't follow Jewish law to be a Christian.

Unless there's something in the New Testament that reiterates the sinful nature of homosexuality, and since Jesus himself was silent on the subject, then Christians have no reason not to accept it. Or is Biola really a Jewish institution?

Jonathan - im a lesbian and I dont believe in GOD, and I subsequently would NEVER apply for and work at a christian institution.

HOWEVER - I know plenty of gays and lesbians who are christians, who believe in and love GOD and simply DISAGREE with their fellow christians about what the bible says about homosexuality.

I would imagine, it's no different than how christians see no problem with becoming wealthy, despite GOD saying emphatically in the bible that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.

picking and choosing, works alright for heterosexual american christians (who by the worlds standards are filthy rich).

BYU has a similar code of conduct, but you CAN be openly gay and a student at BYU. You just have to be celibate like every other unmarried student. So, they have open LGBT groups on campus even though the official line from the School and the Church is that acting on your homosexual urges is a sin.

Biola should take a page from their book. If they truly want an "open" dialogue, they should just come out and say that as long as the student remains celibate during their tenure there, they will not be expelled. Same with the unmarried hetero couples. However, I suspect that they would be unwilling to consider such a compromise.

The College have the right to expel those peoples, because they are attacking the principals of the their College.

There is a difference between being gay & acting on those feelings. I would think that at that college, being "gay", but abstaining from sex would be permissible. Just as being heterosexual & abstaining is the rule.

Many people enter college without coming to terms with their sexuality. I was in my mid 20's, almost 30, before I accepted my sexual orientation was not just a phase. I can see how a student might choose to go to this college thinking that they could repress their sexuality while getting a Christian education. As someone matures they realize that being GLBT is who God created them as and to deny that or feel shame in that is actually the real sin.
I know someone who was expelled from Liberty University (Jerry Falwell's school) just on the basis that he was suspected of being gay. Why in the world would a GLBT person "come out" when the consequences would be expulsion and that would follow their academic record for the rest of their life?
If these people want a theological discussion about Christianity and Homosexuality, I suggest that invite some progressive theologians who do not fear expulsion for a debate and invite all students to hear both sides of the issue. I suspect that will never happen in our lifetime.

The school apparently has a strict policy against sex outside of marriage, and if that's codified as a part of campus policy and evenly dealt with when it becomes apparent, then yea, there should be no issue in allowing open groups on campus.

Deal basically is, private institutions are private institutions, and generally should be. If people should be free to be who they are and do what they do, then all people should be free to be who they are and what they do. Sometimes that means there will be disagreements and issues with conduct. Myself, I'm a conservative Christian, Lutheran. Some of my best friends and closest acquaintances are atheists, wiccans, gay, liberal...basically, any polar opposite of me you can imagine. I have my positions, they have theirs. We debate a fair amount, they know where I stand and I know where they stand. We differ on opinions and theological matters, but we treat each other with respect. In my opinion, my faith is incompatible with practiced homosexuality. When asked, I will say so. When conversation goes on, I will go on. I recognize that is my faith, though, and not the law; the law should allow anyone who's not a homicidal maniac the freedom to do as they wish, and that's fine by me. I'll debate why my interpretation is wrong or right, but I won't tolerate someone telling me I should change my beliefs because of a groundswell of popular opinion.

As an aside, I also have issue with divorce, promiscuity, drinking, smoking, etc. I love my wife and will go to the ends of the earth for her, she's the only woman I've ever kissed let alone anything else; that counts out divorce and promiscuity for me (and that was a very deliberate decision on my part, not that I'm a sheltered, home-schooled, brainwashed yes-man). I prefer to be in control of myself and my words, so that counts out drinking and recreational drugs for me, and while I respect your decision to smoke, I choose to live a lengthy life and would appreciate you doing it away from me so I'm not coated in smoke and tar, nor are my possessions. I live my beliefs, and they're not incompatible with the world at large as long as I'm not an ass about them. I offer people the respect they are accorded, regardless of the above. I offer help, a shoulder, a brain, a sandwich, you name it. Only caveat is I don't tolerate the same stupidity over and over again, because sometimes the best cure in those cases is a little crash and burn; maybe that will stick and keep it from happening again.

In all such cases, where people are a bit died in the wool wrt their own doctrines or whatever, and yet the direction of human thought is changing (what they'd call "moderinizing"), nature has, and always has had the ultimate "solution" or answer. It's a fact of life, that that which is born, will eventually grow old, and pass on. Those saying this, can say this for today, but it would be up to the next generation on whether such matters continue or not. Once the torch is passed from the older generations, onto the younger generations, those who have passed the torch already, really won't have much say in what their sucessor's will do in their place... This pretty much goes for everything in society. One day or another, we all pass on, and others are born who takes everyone's "place". It's the nature of our existence on this, here Earth....

So many mixed messages. "We want an open discussion." "We have no intention of changing our policy." "Gay students won't be expelled." "We will start the dismissal process."

And people think being anonymous and underground means that they know what they are doing is wrong. To those people I ask, imagine you lived in a country where being a chrisitian would get you the death penalty. Would you stop being a christian? Or would you continue to be christian and just be very sneaky about it? My guess is that you would be anonymous and underground. Does that make being a christian wrong? Nope, it just means that you are a christian in the middle of a bunch of people who hate christians.

Everyone has to have someone to look down upon..... otherwise how could they feel "good" about themselves?

In a "open" society no one should have to hide their proclivities .... in order to obtain a education or honor their religious beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others ...

We all need to learn tolerance .....

daMoose52 - well said. Usually those that demand tolerance are the least tolerant. Christians have just as much right to their beliefs as do others. Respect for one another is the key.

AG99 "If you're a Jew, Leviticus makes it quite clear homosexuality is a sin. Paul also makes it quite clear one needn't follow Jewish law to be a Christian...Unless there's something in the New Testament that reiterates the sinful nature of homosexuality, and since Jesus himself was silent on the subject, then Christians have no reason not to accept it."

Obviously, you are not familiar with the 'New Testament'. Paul himself wrote 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 wherein the practice of homosexuality is condemned. This is widely accepted by virtually all Bible scholars, although the homosexuals try to put their 'spin' on it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=NIV

By the way - Having homosexual feelings is not condemned by God - just the PRACTICE of homosexuality.

They won't be expelled for being homosexual they will be expelled if they act on it. The act is the sin.

If they don't act on the desire they won't be expelled. No different than any other rule any other place.

Sorry I have to agree with the school. They have a right to make their rules and enforce them the students do not have the right to break the rules and expect the school to not enforce their rules.

The students where surely aware of the rule when they started attending there. And given that they claim to be Christians they surely know what the Bible says.

God decided what is and is not acceptable. These are his rules the school is simply sticking to God's rules.

“We are Biola's students, alumni, employees, and fellow followers of Christ. We want to be treated with equality and respected as another facet of Biola's diversity."

That statement is very contradictory, if one believes in and follows Jesus Christ, they must also believe in the Bible which teaches that homosexuality is a sin.

If you discard the Bible, you also discard Jesus Christ, if you assume that the Bible is only a book written by man and not having any truth in it, then Jesus Himself is not true either.

Selective faith in only the parts that you like does not remove the rest of it, obviously this collage does not follow their (the students) interpretation of the scripture, IMO attending it is hypocrisy, why would they attend a school that teaches against what they believe.

As for the “employees” part of the statement, it becomes obvious that they are there only because of the money and have no concern for what is taught as they do not believe in it themselves.

Jessica,

And I don't believe what the bible says about adultry or lying, does that make it okay??

I am not against someone being gay. But don't expect christian churches and schools to accept it. People make me laugh because they don't want christianity "pushed" on them, but when to comes to being gay, christians are supposed to allow it to be "pushed" on them!!

Tether is correct!!!

The school should be consistent when applying Bible principles. Since pre-marital sex by heterosexuals is also condemned, they should revise their code to condemn ALL sexual conduct outside of marriage - like BYU does.

Simple solution.

What is it that compels these people to infiltrate organizations just to promote their agenda? This is little different than posing as someone of the opposite sex for the purpose of visiting their restrooms.

Roy,

I love 1 Corinthians 6. Beause taken literally, like you do, it means that nobody who has sex out of wedlok, gets a divorce, or has a cross in their church (idolatry-look it up in a really good concordance) gets to go to heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

⁹ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous^[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,^{[b] 10} nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Nothing is more delicious than Christian hate.

The people with the most evil nature in the world, and they think that they are good.

If you know it is a Christian College go somewhere else or keep quiet. Why should Christians have to sacrifice their beliefs? Im sick of everyone feeling "entitled" in this country. Rules are meant for everyone and if you don't like them go somewhere else that better fits your life style! The college is not wrong if it is clearly stated in the handbook. Should the students be expelled - I believe that is what they wanted when they came "out". So give them what they want!

The fact that none of the students have come forward leads me to think that this is all a plant from a gay group trying to cause trouble. Liberals are nasty people who have hate for religion, so I expect that there really is no gay group at the college.

Derek-3400544 "Nothing is more delicious than Christian hate."

Christians don't 'hate' people who don't agree with them, they only 'hate' the practice of sin. Basically, Christians are encouraged to 'Hate the sin but love the sinner'. If you don't understand the difference, then you would never be a true Christian. The Apostle Paul made it clear that even those who 'practiced' sinful conduct could be saved by stopping the practice of sin (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11).

That's the basic difference between Christians and Muslims.

Really you people don't get it. You are saying the greedy won't go to heaven or the slanderer or the reviler, or the covetous or the "abusers of themselves" will ever get to heaven. So that means, no person who has ever been greedy-fat people, slanderer-gossips,reviler-gossips and shi$-talkers,covetous- jealous of somebody else ,the self abusers-masturbators: according to you everybody is going to hell. YES! EVERYBODY! I consider many churches to be extortionist organisations, in that they take tithe to pay God off for his favors, so yes, you are all going to hell along with the gays. IDIOTS!

We Willy, paranoid much? These people obviously feel very christian (I know, crazy right?) and attend this school as part of their faith. They are not some sort of sleeper cell trying to cause discord.

TXHorseman

People make me laugh because they don't want christianity "pushed" on them, but when to comes to being gay, christians are supposed to allow it to be "pushed" on them!!

I don't want to push anything on Christians. I just want them to leave me and our laws alone. That's all. As to a discussion regarding those who "don't want christianity "pushed" on them" (I assume your referring to Atheists), kindly leave us out of this conversation. This is a "christian" on "christian" thing (no pun intended).

It is a dilemna that I, as a Christian, haven't completely solved yet. "Love the sinner, hate the sin?" Easy to say, difficult to do. I don't hate gays, honestly I've known several and they were all good people. But honestly, as a "straight" I don't understand it and probably never will. Is it a sin? Probably, but so are alot of things that I do, like swearing and overeating. I don't think I'm any better than gays, or that my sins are somehow less "sinful;" besides, only GOD gets to decide who will be with him and who won't. It's not my call. I think the Church should allow gays to come in just like the Church allows divorcees (something condemned by Jesus himself) to come in. Talk about what's right and what's wrong, but don't kick people out if they can't live up to Jesus' standard - I mean, who can? I work at a private Christian university; we have gay students and gay student organizations - we even have some gay faculty members! We've been picketed by Fred Phelps, and I'm PROUD of that!!! I believe we are WAY more Christian than HE is - oops, there I go being judgmental again!:) See what I mean?

The gays seem so desperate for God to accept them. I on the other hand wouldn't step foot in a Church I am not living by Gods ways/rules. Therefore I won't listen the the sh*t coming outta those pedophile priest mouths. Face it God doesn't accept you or me for that matter. Now quit begging for his followers to accept you f*ck them you'll meet up with them in hell. Why the hell would you want to hang out on Sunday with a bunch of hypocrites?

Attended a "Christian" university many years ago. While I'm not gay...have no problem with same-sex marriage. Having seen how several of my friends were treated once the administration even thought they were gay and expelled students/fired employees. If any of you read this article...you better keep your eyes open for spies among fellow students/faculty. (Remember the parable about vipers.) As the article mentioned...the administration will do everything they can do to get rid of these students...no matter how unchristian or illegal it is to keep their bright shiny institution gay free. On the other hand...if any of the families of these students were to give large sums of money...the institution would have no problem with their lifestyle.

ROY WILSON-336103

Christians don't 'hate' people who don't agree with them. That's the basic difference between Christians and Muslims.

How soon we forget the Inquisitions...witch hunts...forced conversions and the rape of Latin America; all done in the name of Christ. How is that any different than killing in the name of Allah?

How can a religion indoctrinate children long before they ever reach their age of sexual maturity, tell them that if they do not believe, and then tell them that they cannot possibly be of that religion once they reach their sexual maturity because of how they are oriented?! Why does religion have to be all or nothing in a world where all or nothing does not exist! This is the biggest bait and switch in history!

I don't believe that people are born gay, but it is a choice that they make. they talk about 'entering the lifestyle', therefore, they should also be able to leave the lifestyle, and live a life that is pleasing to God. Easy? I don't know. Possible? Yes, with God's help.

If you think it's a choice you're probably bisexual, and probably in the closet.

While we're on the topic of marriage how do you Christians justify King Solomon and his 900 wives?

Ol_Doc "How soon we forget the Inquisitions...witch hunts...forced conversions and the rape of Latin America; all done in the name of Christ."

So what makes you think they were actually 'practicing Christianity'? True Christians 'practice' Christianity, but there have been despots throughout history that claimed they were Christians but actually 'practiced' the teachings of Satan. I think God knows the difference, even though men often don't.

Men,meh. "Really you people don't get it. You are saying the greedy won't go to heaven or the slanderer or the reviler, or the covetous or the "abusers of themselves" will ever get to heaven. So that means, no person who has ever been greedy-fat people, slanderer-gossips,reviler-gossips and shi$-talkers,covetous- jealous of somebody else ,the self abusers-masturbators: according to you everybody is going to hell. YES! EVERYBODY"

When you reason from the scriptures at 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, you might want to read verse 11 - it shows the error in your reasoning.

Hi moonbeamracer; good one! In our house, we view "tolerance" as "putting up with", which makes for uncomfortable relationships, therefore, we prefer "ACCEPTANCE". Peace be with you (ALL)!

Ol Doc,

Thank you for clearly making my case!! You talk out of both sides of your mouth and don't even know it!

As to a discussion regarding those who "don't want christianity "pushed" on them" (I assume your referring to Atheists.

No, Athiests don't believe in anything. I was speaking of gays who wish to push there agenda into christian churches and schools wanting them to change their beliefs and rules to accomodote the gay agenda. As I stated, be gay if you wish, just don't expect these types of organizations to accept it.

Christians don't 'hate' people who don't agree with them, they only 'hate' the practice of sin. Basically, Christians are encouraged to 'Hate the sin but love the sinner'. If you don't understand the difference, then you would never be a true Christian. The Apostle Paul made it clear that even those who 'practiced' sinful conduct could be saved by stopping the practice of sin (1 Corinthians 6: 9-11).

Of course, Papa Jesus (who apparently WAS Jesus in the same way and egg white is an egg) disagreed with this brand of morality, encouraging the wholesale slaughter of anyone who did not follow Yahweh on multiple occasions, not the least of which killed off everything but (apparently) sinless fish.

Your theology is dross, to quote the KJV of Paul's own words. You dismiss the largest swaths of theology in favor of the 'new and improved version', and assuming your god COULD change, despite being just, "not a respecter of persons", and the outright admission of Jesus that "those believe will live, those who do not will die." And not JUST die, mind you, but die for infinity for a finite crime... in the worst torture chamber ever conceived in literature.

Sure man... believe all you want that you don't "hate the sinner", but, and color me silly, sending that sinner to hell for eternity IS NOT LOVE. You can rant on and on about how Yahweh is "just", then consider my definition of "justice" irrelevant, all while YOU define justice as... you got it... anything your invisible Sky Daddy decides is just.

You also must be forced to assume Jesus was the WORST communicator to have ever lived. "Not one dot or tittle shall pass from the Law," said the Torah-observing Jew. Yet, according to your Belief 2.0 version, "Well, that was BEFORE he was nailed to a plank of wood." Nifty that he never bothered to mention that...you know, "Not on tittle...well, until I die and remove the Law, of course. But I'll just assume some unheard Apostle of mine will make that clear one day..."

No, I think the ideal scenario for this school would be to admit they are all believing the fantasies and perceptions of reality conceived by a combination of illiterate shepherds, passed down orally for centuries ( no mistakes there, I'm sure ) and one rather odd ex-Jewish protege who never saw the physical christ, nor read a word he ever preached, as none of the synoptics or John had been penned in his day. Accept the fact that EVERY MAMMAL on earth has between a 3-9% homosexual population; well documented, well observed, and obviously an indication that Yahweh is a bit imperfect in his designing skills...or the hoot & hollar version of Christian theology that suggests A&E chomping on forbidden fruit caused sin to mutate Sally and Steve the Turtle into Sally And Sue the Turtle.

Damn silly, as have been most of your posts -- but as an ex-pastor with a broken knee, stuck in bed for a few days, I'm more than happy to take you to task over your own supposed holy book. I know it quite well, obviously -- so well I became an atheist over it.

So, students all admit they're living out a fantasy... move on... and study 'actual' science. There you go.

Problem solved.

If you think it's a choice you're probably bisexual, and probably in the closet.

So if it is not a choice then we MUST give acceptance and allowance to all others who are born with sexual desires that are not heterosexual only. Yes, I know how silly that sounds, but it is modern America and we must quit living in the dark ages or living in a society that uses religion, God, and scriptures as a way to promote good.

Come one come all.:

If you have sexual attraction for your mother, you are now FREE to act on that attraction.

If you have sexual attraction for you father, you are now FREE to act on that attraction.

If you have sexual attraction fo your sister or brother, you are now FREE to act on that attraction.

If you have sexual attraction toward your children, you are now FREE to act on that attraction.

If you have sexual attraction toward your family pet, you are now FREE to act on that attraction.

We should not exclude ANYONE, we should allow all mankind to live and act as they so desire, and they should be able to marry whomever they wish.

WE ARE A FREE SOCIETY, and nobody should have their civil rights of sexual attraction taken from them!!

Jon-2730330 "Of course, Papa Jesus (who apparently WAS Jesus in the same way and egg white is an egg) disagreed with this brand of morality, encouraging the wholesale slaughter of anyone who did not follow Yahweh on multiple occasions"

Can you name a single scripture in the New Testament where Jesus was "encouraging the wholesale slaughter of anyone"?

No, you can't, so it's easy to see why you're an 'ex-pastor'.

So if it is not a choice then we MUST give acceptance and allowance to all others who are born with sexual desires that are not heterosexual only. Yes, I know how silly that sounds, but it is modern America and we must quit living in the dark ages or living in a society that uses religion, God, and scriptures as a way to promote good.

itt Christians do not understand the concept of informed consent.

I just don't get why various liberal groups keep picking fights with conservative Christians. The CC's are quite clear that sex should only happen between a married man and woman. Period. So, why would a LGBT ever consider going to one of their schools? The only unique programs that CC institutions have run counter to LGBT views. So why go there? Whatever happened to freedom of speech and freedom of association? I have encountered plenty of groups and people that don't like me just because I'm an old, white guy. Life is too short to actively try and change some people's minds (including my in-laws). So, you may consider CC's to be close-minded and wrong. But they have a right to be close-minded and wrong. And getting upset because someone sneaks into one of their groups and finds that they won't change their minds seems kind of pointless. Sometimes, other people just don't like you. Get over it and move on.

chadical

Thank you for exposing the obvious conclusion from having everyone define what's right and wrong for themselves, without regard for Bible principles. Your logic is impeccable.

No, Athiests don't believe in anything.

Actually, TXHorseman, this isn't true. As an atheist I believe in all sorts of things, just not God or gods.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and freedom of association?

Are you saying only the Christians freedom of speech matters? Because that's what it sounds like.

Oskar13-------quit taking verses out of context and they do not say the same things in the old language as it does in English. I get sick and tired of hearing "The Bible says GOD HATES GAYS". Nope, It's what MAN SAYS the Bible purportly says. Jesus says gays (a type of eunuch) were born that way. If a Gay person accepts the Lord then he or she is under the New Testament Law of LIBERTY and LIFE (not the Old Testament Law of BONDAGE and DEATH). Being Gay does NOT send you to Hell and being straight does NOT send you to Heaven. The school is showing FAVORITISM which is a SIN....it is the school who is doing the unbiblical and sinful things against the saved Gay Christians!!!!!!!

Ah, Roy Wilson, and his usual one-sided BuyBull comments.

Like how much the one obscure tenet in leviticus, assumed to be a blanket anti-gay law, needs to be followed, while mainstream christianity routinely ignores every other ridiculous "law" in leviticus. Or how Saul of Tarsus made some rant in the NT that must be followed before any of the words of the mythical jesus creature's words should be considered...

Ya gotta love the double standard. The jesus creature is credited in the NT with at least THREE clear prohibitions against divorce: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. -- Matthew 19:6 (and) Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery. -- Mark 10:11 (and) Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery. -- Luke 16:18

Pretty clear, even when they are read in the full context of the BuyBull. Allegedly right from the mouth of the jesus-myth. But, this is just more of the "stuff" in the BuyBull that mainstream christianity ignores, otherwise, to follow these jesus-tenets (and others) would make their own lives inconvenient. And, why do that, when it's so much easier to twist the words and context of leviticus, and Saul, and demonize gays, just to show the mythical jesus creature that you are at least crusading against SOME evil while you're here, just not anything that would actually make your own life inconvenient.

I wonder how many tuition checks this college has accepted from parents who are divorced? I bet they have no problem cashing those checks.

And where are all of the nationwide anti-divorce rallies? Where is all the concern for adherence to the words of the christ-myth when it comes to divorce, and the need to protect the marital institution from the one thing that the chrsit-myth himself has prohibited MORE THAN ONCE?? Why all the anti-gay rallies and campaigns from christians when the christ-myth said NOTHING about gays...NOTHING... and yet, when he clearly speaks against divorce, mainstream christian hypocrites IGNORE his very words, or probably sit back and try to find a way to suggest that it only LOOKS LIKE he's prohibiting divorce here, but he really isn't...you see, the jesus-myth was actually making a reference to mashed potatoes here, this really wasn't about divorce!

yada yada yada -- the hypocrisy and lies seem to continue in full force with mainstream American christianity. they are nothing but liars and frauds, every damm one of them.

You know what? These people have a right to remain anonymous. Until pseudo-Christians realize that LOVE is not a sin, the world will never be right, and people will always hate.

BTW, if you hold marriage as strictly a "religious" institution, you should be protesting all persons who get married and don't have a religion. If you feel that marriage is for procreation, you should protest any marriage that involves the bride being past child bearing age, and any couple that chooses to be childless. If not, then its a HATE crime to just protest against homosexuals marrying. You can disagree all you want, but that's what it truly boils down to. You need to take your religious beliefs and keep them within your religious community, and out of the public's. How woudl you feel if we took on Islamic religious laws? Not too happy, right? I am not happy that you force your religious laws down my throat, by saying that my friends, who have been in together for the last 15 year, can't get married.

I found the statement in the above article

"Obviously, if it's underground, they know it’s wrong and on some level they know they shouldn't be doing it"

to be very ironic since the exact same thing could have been said about christians practicing christianity 2000 to 1600 years ago.

Christians hid in caves and catacombs to avoid persecution ... and were tortured and killed because of their beliefs. The most historically infamous of all christian persecutions was christians thrown to the lions for public entertainment in Rome.

It took the acceptance of christianity by emperors and kings before christianity gained a stronghold and tolerance by the Greeks and Romans, and hence the world they ruled.

All because it is "underground" at some point in time doesnt mean it something is wrong or shouldnt be done ... it merely means it is not safe to be open and exposed about it.

Many things began "underground" and people were persecuted for it. Some of those "things" include Christianity, itself, the abolishment of slavery, women's right to vote (and subsequently, women's equal rights to emplyment, education, their children, and property ownership), child labor laws (with success only upon successfully defining a child as a member of the animal kingdom and then using animal abuse laws already established), interacial marriage, and so much more, which includes our own very nation's birth.

So, students all admit they're living out a fantasy... move on... and study 'actual' science. There you go.

Problem solved.

Jon-2730330 I have been down that dark road you are now on, and I found the science. As I delved deeper into that science and forgot about theology, I found that I was happy for a while. I followed science because following God didn't allow me to do the things I wanted to do. When I wanted to go out and have sex with two or three women in a night, God stood in my way, but science was great to me and never told me it was wrong, it felt good.

I studied paleontolgy, micro biology, physics, computer programming, and astronomy. It wasn't until I was deep into the latter that I realized how much science could not explain everything. I tried to find explanations for life and for the human spirit. What makes up my thoughts? How come I am me and this being that can speak, think, rationalize, create, manipulate, and love, can do all these things with just the neurons and electrical impules that control them?

I tried to find explanations of the vast expanses of the universe, time, and what will be left of me when I die. Is that human spirit that learned all these things just going to be nothing but a mass of decomposing organic matter once I die? When I asked myself that question, I realized it was once that science could not answer. So ask yourself, why are you here on earth for only a milisecond of time compared to all the time that has and ever passed or will pass by? Your life is so short in the overall scheme of the universe, that by your scientific belief only, you are NOTHING!

Eventually God will find you again, even if you have to die for it to happen.

roy wilson: Thank you for exposing the obvious conclusion from having everyone define what's right and wrong for themselves, without regard for Bible principles. Your logic is impeccable.

Wow. There's a POT MEET KETTLE moment for everyone to absorb!

Apparently these Christians forgot that Christians used to be persecuted once, and have decided to do a little persecuting of their own.

chadical: I have been down that dark road you are now on, and I found the science. As I delved deeper into that science and forgot about theology, I found that I was happy for a while. I followed science because following God didn't allow me to do the things I wanted to do. When I wanted to go out and have sex with two or three women in a night, God stood in my way, but science was great to me and never told me it was wrong, it felt good. I studied paleontolgy, micro biology, physics, computer programming, and astronomy. It wasn't until I was deep into the latter that I realized how much science could not explain everything.

Because it's 2012 now, and science SHOULD have the answers to everything. EVERYTHING!

But then I found a BuyBull...and it has ALL the answers. I don't have to ask any questions anymore, and I have a whole church full of people who tell me how to think now!

HALLELLUJAH!

(eye roll)

You know what? These people have a right to remain anonymous. Until pseudo-Christians realize that LOVE is not a sin, the world will never be right, and people will always hate.

Well, if there's one thing that mainstream American christians know how to do, it's how to hate people and denigrate others. They haven't lost that talent...that's for sure.

lolfattynerdswhoknew

Are you saying only the Christians freedom of speech matters? Because that's what it sounds like.

You sound a lot like one of the many close-minded folks I have encountered. All I said was that a group of people with similar ideas had a right to get together and do their own thing without busybodies sneaking in and challenging them. Say a group of Ford Mustang fans got together and then a Corvette fan sneaked into their group and said Mustangs are junk. Or a football fan claimed to be a baseball groupie and then talked smack in a group of diehard Red Sox fans? What is the point? I live in Kansas and the Westboro Baptist folks can be truly annoying. But under the Constitution, they have an absolute right to spout whatever they want so long as they don't incite a riot or make actionable threats. LGBT groups can say anything they want on their own property or on public property. But enrolling in a CC college so they can pick a fight is stupid and not going to change anything. And a kid who suddenly "discovers" that he/she is LGBT should leave the CC community and find a place where they belong. The definition of a community is a group of people with something in common. LGBT and conservative Christian don't have much in common and a newly discovered LGBT should amicably part ways ASAP.

OK: interesting question time: since these "christian" colleges and BYU require abstaining from sex outside of marriage, do they accept homosexual married couples ?

I know the catholic church/colleges don't (they only like to have sex between priests and little children.)

This is one area where there is government interference and it really should be MYOB.

No one has the moral or religious mandate to judge how another person practices their religion, the college by even suggesting this goes completely against what God has said about religion.

When colleges churches and evangelistic groups tell people how they should maintain their relationship with god they are stepping between their personal relationship an individual has with god.

A person who is gay can be Christian and can have a personal relationship with god, no one has the right to judge them, their sin or their relationship with god. Period.

wjrust: I just don't get why various liberal groups keep picking fights with conservative Christians.

The fight is being brought to them by conservative christians who, for one of many examples, continue to try and limit their rights in our society and smack them down to second-class citizenry. Does that help you "get why"?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech and freedom of association?

Well, in the USA, that is supposed to apply to ALL citizens, not just the cultists who follow the BuyBull.

I have encountered plenty of groups and people that don't like me just because I'm an old, white guy.

Really? And just tell me which laws exist that dsicriminate against Olw White Guys, and single you out, and limit your rights in our society?

Life is too short to actively try and change some people's minds (including my in-laws).

It isn't about changing minds. It's about being treated with Equality under the Law.

So, you may consider CC's to be close-minded and wrong. But they have a right to be close-minded and wrong.

Fine. But it stops there. It should NOT extend to limiting people's rights in a Constitutional Republic.

And getting upset because someone sneaks into one of their groups and finds that they won't change their minds seems kind of pointless. Sometimes, other people just don't like you. Get over it and move on.

Again, it's not about that -- i truly hope you are just pretending to be ignorant, and this isn't really the logic you are trying to apply to this issue.

Toasty McGrath

Apparently these Christians forgot that Christians used to be persecuted once, and have decided to do a little persecuting of their own.

Who is doing the persecuting? These Christians say that practicing homosexuality is a sin and breaks God's law. That's all they are saying. And all they are doing is trying to keep the government from passing man's laws that conflict with God's laws. How is the persecuting?

When laws are passed that impinge on your beliefs that's persecution. But when laws are passed that impinge on other people's beliefs that's justice. Maybe you need to walk in somebody else's shoes for a bit.

WJ, opposing a person's constitutional liberties is persecution. Don't try to turn the persecutors into the victim here. They're on the wrong side of this. We live in a secular democracy whose laws and government are in no way based on any religion, and this college has to accept that living here means they have to adhere to the law and the Consitution.

But then I found a BuyBull...and it has ALL the answers. I don't have to ask any questions anymore, and I have a whole church full of people who tell me how to think now!

I am amused at your post and find it funny how you made an assumption of what I found. Maybe one day you will be stricken with cancer as am I, and you will realize that your time is very limited. It might be that you never find a reason for your existence except to promote your own brand of sarcasm, or it may be that you see a bigger overall picture. Whatever happens matters not to me, I have found it for me and no man can find it for another, they either find it or they don't. Good luck with what remains of your life.

I guess jon is gone. Yep, no wonder he is an EX-"pastor". cant handle the heat. Better get use to the heat though, because you will feel it. You dont TRASH GOD and not answer for it.

Oskar13-------quit taking verses out of context and they do not say the same things in the old language as it does in English. I get sick and tired of hearing "The Bible says GOD HATES GAYS".

I never said God hate gays, God love everybody and reward to the ones return to his herd. According to the Scriptures , God create Eve and Adam, not Eve and Eve or Adam and Adam to populate the earth. God loves gays to but like all the creatures in the earth, Jews have their own belief about homosexuality, Christians to, and among Christians many groups disagree in this issue according to the interpretation of the Bible and Sacred Scriptures. But hate, is not even mention, sin is something else, for some Christians the practicing of homosexual relationship is a sin, you have to respect their believes regardless if those disagree with yours.

I think many Christians bigots don't get it. This is not a secular College , this is a Religious institution, like it or not.

In one article after another, people state and/or argue that we are a democracy or that we are a republic.

We, the USA, is neither and both. We are a democratic republic. In a republic, the head of a province (state) is appointed by the leader of the republic (like in our US territories, past and present) and in a democracy, our leaders are elcted by popular election of those eligible citizens to vote.

Our democratic republic allows us to elect by popular vote our state heads and body of government and our representatives in Congress and to guide our electorial representatives in whom to vote for in a presidential election. Once we democratically vote into office our Congressional representatives, the Republic kicks in and they vote for us on a federal level, whether we agree with their votes or not.

If a majority of us agree more than disagree in how they vote for us, we likely will reelect them, if not we have democratic means to "impeach" or not re-elect them.

It is in the state democracy that we produce our republic's "leaders", and we can only pray we havent elected someone who will betray our faith in them and legislate that which harms our country.

Not only do we have a democratic republic, but we have recourse should they, or=ur democratically elected representaives, work against us in an uncontitutional manner ... US Supreme Court challenges both for the state and federal legislations that may be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, this does not apply to our electoral college, who in good faith, should elect the president receiving the majority of votes in the democratic process, but who can through their appointment, act in our republic, according to how they deem fit, even if in stark defiance of a popular vote from those they represent.

As a democratic people, we elct our own federal represntatives who should, but do not have to, represent us in the federal republic. If they do not, come the next democratic election, we can replace them, or if grounds exist, impeach them prior to the next election.

Unlike a mere republic, our deomcratically elected officials are indeed answerable to the people, but on a state level, not a federal level. It is the state's democratic election that a federal official representing their state's interests in our republic is elected.

Our forefathers saw that neither a democracy (ruled by the tyranny of the majority) nor a republic, ruled by the top down, without the say of nor the responsibility to it's citizens was appropriate for a the land of freedom, and experiment in equality for all with all equal under God, with no specifications of how to recognize and worship God. They took what they believed was the best of democracy, added what they believed was the best of a republic, threw in a dash of oversight (SCOTUS) and mixed it well with their distain against royalty, imperialism, dictatorships and religious control over popluation. They didnt define God by religion, and they were well versed in most earthly religions, but by natural design.

We are indeed a democratic republic with a Constitutionally protected way of living, not merely a democracy nor a republic.

ROY WILSON-336103

Can you name a single scripture in the New Testament where Jesus was "encouraging the wholesale slaughter of anyone"?

Ah yes, another who missed the entire concept of god's 'infallibility', 'unchangeable nature', 'moral absolutism', etc., etc.

So, Yahweh the FATHER can damn half the civilized world to death, and you're FINE with that, but Yahweh the SON (supposedly the SAME being) is exempt from his past. Nifty.

Of course, what you probably do NOT realize, simply by the fact you asked such as sophomoric theological question, is your concept of "new versus old" testaments was, by and large, a Roman Catholic construct. After all, the GOVERNMENT of Rome could not allow the peon religion of the people to take Roman law into their own hands.

There are a ton of interesting fact-filled books on the subject you will no-doubt ignore, so I won't bother pointing them out to you. It's clear you're not interested in facts that disrupt your rather puerile world view.

Yet, to answer your question: Yes.

Yes, I can Roy...

1. Hell

Do you NEED me to quote John for you, or do you want to look it up yourself? "He who does not believe in me SHALL DIE (Greek; 'Perish, face damnation'.) Ironically, it's doubtful that Jesus was referring to hell, but rather imposed judgment re: the destruction of Jerusalem, which was an established fact at the time of the writing (or shall I say "copying") of the other gospels from a combo of Mark and the Quelle. So, either way, hell or damnation from the Roman invasion, Jesus wasn't playing pretty here.

2. Supporting the death of disobedient kids (even if used as allegory, this is heinous at worst; and indicative of the moral monster you claim to be 'god' at best.)

Jesus defends himself against the Pharisees for not washing his hands prior to eating. Such a nasty offense. He stands to his own defense by... get ready... by bitching at them for NOT killing disobedient children, a 'law' given to Yahweh's hapless followers in the Law. According to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” So, check out Matthew 15:4-7.

Kids, and the fast majority of people on earth. I think that fits your request. OR, do you only want to discuss the slaughter of entire cities? If so, that seems TRIVIAL compared to the introduction of hell, which was never mentioned in your 'old' testament. So odd, so convenient to leave that bit out, eh?

Go ahead and try to defend that... I look forward to the ignorance coming my way.

No, you can't, so it's easy to see why you're an 'ex-pastor'.

Yes, I can.

And that's why I'm an ex-pastor. Get it?

I doubt it.

truetexan

I guess jon is gone. Yep, no wonder he is an EX-"pastor". cant handle the heat. Better get use to the heat though, because you will feel it. You dont TRASH GOD and not answer for it.

Nope. Right here TrueIdiot.

Awaiting your "heat"... so far I'm having to grab a jacket.

But feel free... no, really.

THERE IS ONE "tiny" little problem here...to the GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSSEXUAL, TRANSVESTITE, BISEXUAL students, alumni, workers, faculty, etc...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOU TO BE CALLED "CHRISTIANS" AND GET THE EQUAL "CHRISTIAN" RIGHTS YOU ...DEMAND, NOW THAT OBAMA HAS MADE US A HOMOSEXUAL NATION. THE "ONLY" WAY YOU WILL "EVER" BE KNOWN AS A "CHRISTIAN" IS TO REPENT OF THIS FILTHY, DISGUSTING, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE, you are living and THEN YOU CAN BECOME A CHRISTIAN. AS LONG AS YOU LIVE THIS WAY YOU CAN CALL YOURSELVES CHRISTIANS UNTIL YOUR BLUE IN THE FACE, YOU WILL STILL SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL.!!! I LOVE you, I just HATE your sin, and am trying to save you from HELL by telling you JESUS TRUTH.!!!

LOL... you people have NO IDEA what BYU students are like. I have known many girls who attended this college, and various "Christian" colleges. Very strict rules on campus and in student housing... so strict, in fact, that it caused these students to rebel in a manner which borderlines cliche.

I can talk about the Halloween party where a group of "good Christian" BYU girls showed up in nothing but body paint... yup, completely naked except for the paint on their skin. For the record, the paint DOES rub off when you start dancing.

Or the date I had with a female student who explained to me how we were not allowed to sit in a parked car, on student housing grounds, and we had to move immediately. But once out of the parking lot... hmmmm, how do I put this politely... you could not see her head if you drove by. That's right, first date. Love it.

I know it's a stereotype to say that girls from overly religious schools are easy... but Jesus Christ is it true. It's not even a challenge. They are so repressed that they are literally ready to explode. Have you heard the term "soaking"? It's a new trend at religious schools, particularly Mormon schools... look it up.

And as far as homosexuality... does two girls kissing count? Because if you don't think that happens at any of these "Christian" schools, you are delusional.

I find it absolutely hilarious that the religious nuts here, and the ones working at this school, are too god damned stupid to realize what their actions are doing. And now they are shocked that there is an underground homosexual community? LOL... f***ing morons. You think your actions, and their ramifications, will stop at hyper-sexual straight students? Maybe they should invest in psychology professor or two, particularly one who specializes in human sexuality... oh wait, that's "bad", I forgot. I guess keeping your head in the sand is another way to approach it.

@Frogmorton!

As an Atheist, I completely agree with what you have said, but I think your delivery is counter-productive. Many Xians like to label Atheists as angry haters of religion, and some of the things you said feeds that idea. Even moderate Xians who might acknowledge and respect your opinions are probably turned off when you refer to them as cultists and their scripture as the BuyBull.

I respect the beliefs of others, even if I don't share them. I can't expect people of faith to respect my non-belief if I don't respect their belief. Respect doesn't mean I agree, it means I disagree without being insulting or intentionally inflamatory.

I'm not trying to flame you, I simply suggest you consider your desired outcome and the effectiveness of your approach. Because I think a lot of your rational message is drowned out by the delivery.

chadical

I have been down that dark road you are now on, and I found the science. As I delved deeper into that science and forgot about theology, I found that I was happy for a while. I followed science because following God didn't allow me to do the things I wanted to do. When I wanted to go out and have sex with two or three women in a night, God stood in my way, but science was great to me and never told me it was wrong, it felt good.

This is a nice maneuver, but as you know it's a straw man argument.

"Science" and morality are two different subjects. Personally I am 'more moral' now than I was as a pastor. This is due to simply growing up; maturation based on numerous psychological and societal factors.

Also, "god standing in your way" from having sex with 2-3 women; would you care to explain Solomon's harem? Surely you're bright enough (from your reply, you seem rather intelligent) not to use the tired old "that was different times" argument.

I studied paleontolgy, micro biology, physics, computer programming, and astronomy. It wasn't until I was deep into the latter that I realized how much science could not explain everything.

Nothing explains everything. Your goal for studying these sciences, if that was it (to find the answer to everything) was a bit more than a tad idealistic.

As a scientist NOW, and as a former theologian, I can tell you flat out that science explains FAR MORE than any religion does as to 'how' things work. This science is routinely contradictory to the biblical explanations, from demons causing disease, to the creation of the universe. Hell, Genesis 1:2 is wrong on so many levels it would take a novel to explain it. (Water without hydrogen? Yeah... talk to me babe.)

I tried to find explanations for life and for the human spirit. What makes up my thoughts? How come I am me and this being that can speak, think, rationalize, create, manipulate, and love, can do all these things with just the neurons and electrical impules that control them?

My minor was philosophy, so I completely relate to these questions.

What I cannot do is explain it way by "magic" -- especially when said magic can be easily ripped apart on numerous levels (theologically, scientifically, archeologically, etc.)

Read Steven Pinker -- he has some interesting thoughts on this. Also, consider history: We used to believe that eclipses was a sign from god. Now we know better. These issues, as deep as they are, stand a good chance of being no different.

I tried to find explanations of the vast expanses of the universe, time, and what will be left of me when I die. Is that human spirit that learned all these things just going to be nothing but a mass of decomposing organic matter once I die? When I asked myself that question, I realized it was once that science could not answer. So ask yourself, why are you here on earth for only a milisecond of time compared to all the time that has and ever passed or will pass by? Your life is so short in the overall scheme of the universe, that by your scientific belief only, you are NOTHING!

Eventually God will find you again, even if you have to die for it to happen.

Assuming he's not the dickh*ad buffoon described in the Pentateuch, I'm all for that. Actually my goal is TRUTH at all costs... and if Yahweh IS god, I really feel sorry for all of humanity.

Perhaps there is something larger... open to it... remain open to it.

And, for what it matters, I do appreciate your reply. Your care and thoughts are appreciated.

branxoz

THERE IS ONE "tiny" little problem here...to the GAY, LESBIAN, TRANSSEXUAL, TRANSVESTITE, BISEXUAL students, alumni, workers, faculty, etc...IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY OF YOU TO BE CALLED "CHRISTIANS" AND GET THE EQUAL "CHRISTIAN" RIGHTS YOU ...DEMAND, NOW THAT OBAMA HAS MADE US A HOMOSEXUAL NATION. THE "ONLY" WAY YOU WILL "EVER" BE KNOWN AS A "CHRISTIAN" IS TO REPENT OF THIS FILTHY, DISGUSTING, PERVERTED LIFESTYLE, you are living and THEN YOU CAN BECOME A CHRISTIAN. AS LONG AS YOU LIVE THIS WAY YOU CAN CALL YOURSELVES CHRISTIANS UNTIL YOUR BLUE IN THE FACE, YOU WILL STILL SPEND ETERNITY IN HELL.!!! I LOVE you, I just HATE your sin, and am trying to save you from HELL by telling you JESUS TRUTH.!!!

And my girlfriend wonders why I love debating morons like you.

It's because THIS level of hate is causing 90% of the world's problems.

OH, AND THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON CAN BE TURNED OFF.

We can hear you just fine without it.

Unfortunately for us.

Toasty McGrath

WJ, opposing a person's constitutional liberties is persecution. Don't try to turn the persecutors into the victim here. They're on the wrong side of this. We live in a secular democracy whose laws and government are in no way based on any religion, and this college has to accept that living here means they have to adhere to the law and the Consitution.

You have got to be kidding!!

from dictionary.com

persecution: a program or campaign to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate apeople because of their religion, race, or beliefs: the persecutionsof Christians by the Romans.

First, what Constitutional liberties? Unless you are claiming that the Commerce clause allows the feds to regulate anything and that Griswold makes marriage subject to federal review, I don't see where this is a Constitutional liberty (although you did have a small "c" so I guess you are implying that your views apply to everyone).

Second, persecution is an activity that has an impact on people, usually a physical impact. How does a person saying "You are a sinner" have an impact? If I were to say, "I don't like you", would I be violating your constitutional liberties? That's how I am reading what you are saying. Is that absurd? Sure. I think that your statement is absurd.

You post all the time. Do you ever step back and consider what your literal words mean? And do you ever consider what the world would look like if other people had the rights that you want to impose on the Christian folks and imposed them on you instead?

lolfattynerdswhoknew,

While we're on the topic of marriage how do you Christians justify King Solomon and his 900 wives?

Geese, someone get this guy a bible. FYI King Solomon is an Old Testament figure. Christianity is all about the New Testament. You should have kept your mouth shut. Now you've gone and removed all doubt.

Geese, someone get this guy a bible. FYI King Solomon is an Old Testament figure. Christianity is all about the New Testament. You should have kept your mouth shut. Now you've gone and removed all doubt.

Get back to me when Christians stop referring to Leviticus to justify their hatred of homosexuals.

I predict that once President Obama's gay marrriage mandate becomes law and marrried hetero men are forced to go out and find a gay partner in order to continue their hetero marriages there willl be a widespread outbrreak of complaints from both gay and hetero commmunites. THis is not even mentioning how irked all the wives willl be at having to share their husbands with another man. THe husbands, I predict, in some instnaces willl graduallly get used to having another woman in bed.

chadical

Apologies for missing this one...

I tried to find explanations of the vast expanses of the universe, time, and what will be left of me when I die. Is that human spirit that learned all these things just going to be nothing but a mass of decomposing organic matter once I die? When I asked myself that question, I realized it was once that science could not answer.

Yet it's one YOU cannot answer, either. You can guess. You can believe. You can have hope.

Or, you can ask yourself this question: "What were you doing/feeling before you were born?"

Since this is our ONLY frame of reference (if you can call it that), it seems "the void" is a logical answer. I think the attachment you've placed upon these experiences is part of the problem. Don't get me wrong: I value my life and experiences as much as you value yours, but I'm also okay with surviving only through my words, actions, work, and family.

So ask yourself, why are you here on earth for only a milisecond of time compared to all the time that has and ever passed or will pass by? Your life is so short in the overall scheme of the universe, that by your scientific belief only, you are NOTHING!

The same question would apply to the blade of grass that just blew into my den. It was here for a far shorter time, and that blade was utterly unique.

Humans have a need (based on the way the RAD works, and how our brains stimulate pattern recognition) to attribute design, reason for being, and meaning itself to things without meaning. That, surely, we can agree upon -- otherwise ALL religions were and are correct (including sun worship).

Interesting conversation, chadism. Let me know if you want to take it offline, since obviously you can converse on a level that's both civil and thought-provoking.

Either way, I wish you the best.

Trent

@Shandril - its called an analogy. look it up. my point still stands even though a bunch of you didnt like it. seems as long as you can stick it to a religious organization logic seems to go out the window. feel free to collapse this as well since you people cant take the truth.

@Jessica - sort of like you picked and chose your verse? regardless, you made my point exactly. thanks

Svenolafson

lolfattynerdswhoknew,

While we're on the topic of marriage how do you Christians justify King Solomon and his 900 wives?

Geese, someone get this guy a bible. FYI King Solomon is an Old Testament figure. Christianity is all about the New Testament. You should have kept your mouth shut. Now you've gone and removed all doubt.

Well, I have a bible... in fact I have dozens of them in various languages. So, have at it with me, if you care to.

First, you'll have to explain why something was MORAL to Yahweh in 500 BC that suddenly became IMMORAL to Yahweh in AD (fill-in-the-blank; at the earliest 36).

Is your god imperfect? Does he change? Is he a "respecter of persons" perhaps? (Scripture says he is NOT.)

Was the Law too difficult to follow? (No, in fact Yahweh claims the law was EASY to follow when introducing them to the Israelites.)

Was the law ONLY for the Israelites? Good question -- but there are mixed reviews. Many scriptures claim that the followers of Yahweh were preachers (i.e. Nineveh, which was populated not by Israelites but by essentially Babylonian occupants at the time of Jonah, so one wonders WHY Yahweh commanded repentance from a non-Isralie nation IF the law was only for Israel.)

And, IF it was only for Israel, then Yahweh is the biggest "respecter of persons" in the history of histories. "Chosen people" has a very "respecter" ring to it, no?

Oh, I await your response... in fact, I'm licking my chops. Idiot Christians who believe the OT doesn't apply to them in the least are either Paulineans, or ignorant of the words of their own savior. But it's fun to watch Paul jump through hoops to describe this 'new law' when he never even met or READ the words of Christ himself.

Oh my goodness run for your bibles...... the gay people are taking over the planet. Okay back to reality. Our father's word is final in all things and it's his decision alone that defines right from wrong. Argue all you want about GLBT issues it doesn't change a thing.

Humanity has taken an alarming U-turn into the wild.

It being nature and a person being born that way has become justification for allowing practices that are quite frankly unhealthy to continue as far as homosexuality is concerned, and now they want to change those of us who still deem it inappropriate, no matter our rationale, and force us to accept it in open society. Guess what, homophobic vultures exist in nature too!

Never mind religion.

All indiscriminate sex spreads disease and should be frowned on by civilized society, yet with the sexual revolution we've lowered our standards so far that our children have little innocence left and sex is literally everywhere one looks. This is why homosexuality is being thrust upon us now, because our standards have fallen so far. Frankly, I don't care what you do in your own house (so long as you aren't hurting someone). Just don't expect me to come out and condone it, because natural as it is, I still think it's wrong. (And yes, I know that not all homosexuals have indiscriminate sex, however let's consider the act itself and whether or not it is healthy or clean even with one partner for the rest of time.)

Of course, homosexuality occurs in nature, but so do all sorts of other uncivilized things: inter-species relations (would it be alright for a young man to wander the streets humping the legs of stray people just because dogs do it, or for people to practice bestiality in the open, hanging out in their donkey and llama bars wearing their leather and chains), gang rapes (is it alright in civilized human groups of men to gang rape young girls because dolphins do it), incest (is it okay in humans, because it's okay in every other species), eating of young (we're not far off with abortion, but do we consider infanticide by parents good practice just because cats and fish sometimes do it), murder (all sorts of animals kill, yet we imprison people for it, even though it's perfectly natural), theft (all sorts of animals steal as well, but humans aren't allowed, even though it makes life much easier, and nature is survival of the fittest), cannibalism (how many carnivorous creatures become cannibals when the carcase of a loved-one is available, so shouldn't we all just break out our forks and knives at the next funeral because it's only natural and we are, after all, born this way--already dying, going to be a meal for something eventually, may as well feed Aunt Pearl and Cousin Jean before resigning ourselves to the worms), and even poo-flinging (monkeys do that, yet people shouldn't... because it's gross).

Nature is not a good excuse. Nature is contrary to civilization. There are millions of things that make us like the animals. The one thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to distinguish between right and wrong and to struggle past nature to better ourselves, but it appears we are quickly losing that ability. Just because something feels good doesn't make it acceptable. We don't look at smokers and say, "Go on, keep puffing," (by the way chantix and welbutrin combined is the cure). We don't look at fat people and say, "Go on and eat, we know how hard it is to use moderation." We don't look at drug addicts or alcoholics and say, "keep it up, we understand, that's just who you are." All of these things are frowned upon and many of them are being discriminated against and shunned by society on a daily basis. Why is it necessary for us to look at homosexuals and pretend that what they are doing is alright? For Equality's sake, because equality is humane and civilized? If there were anything like equality in the first place, there would never have been a gay person born that way or else everyone would have been, and meanwhile no child would ever have been born with cancer (we try to cure them, unlike animals) or to abusive parents (we try to save them, unlike animals) or into a poor family that didn't know how to strive for better (we pay to help them, unlike animals) or a thousand-thousand other situations that society tries to fix, not just accept because that's the way it is and monkeys do it. We all have our plights, and every single one of us does our best with what we have. I do believe that homosexuality is nature, I just think that our struggles against our baser nature is what makes us human in the first place. If you want to stay the way you are, that's fine. I won't judge you, so long as you don't force me to judge you.

When will we quit trying to legislate what goes on in the bedroom and start taking care of our National Debt. As for these students who are supposed Gay Christians is an Oxy Moronic Statement. So all of a sudden after they are already enrolled and already read the Student handbook on the schools policies concerning Homosexuality. They are now homosexual. Come on they didn't all turn into homosexuals while at school. They obviously had these sexual desires before they went to college. Unless all of these people are late bloomers. So why didn't they chose another college that was more accepting of their lifestyles. Like say a Methodist College which accepts Gays and Lesbians as Pastors. I guess its just the Militant Gay Lesbian Movement again beating the war drums. Homosexuality is a sin and I thank Jesus for saving me from it. Was one and now I am not since the Blood of Jesus washed away that sin. Love the Sinner and Hate the Sin. Nothing in there about hating the person.

BTW to the person who claims to be an ex pastor. There is an obvious reason your an Ex Pastor since you can't see truth.

Here's what C.S. Lewis has to say about sexual morality (not homosexuality specifically, but it falls under the same subject). Warning: This is a long quote.

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the old Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.

But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is quite true that most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much. One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously. But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.

Or take it another way. You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act-that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?

One critic said that if he found a country in which such striptease acts with food were popular, he would conclude that the people of that country were starving. He meant, of course, to imply that such things as the strip-tease act resulted not from sexual corruption but from sexual starvation. I agree with him that if, in some strange land, we found that similar acts with mutton chops were popular, one of the possible explanations which would occur to me would be famine. But the next step would be to test our hypothesis by finding out whether, in fact, much or little food was being consumed in that country. If the evidence showed that a good deal was being eaten, then of course we should have to abandon the hypothesis of starvation and try to think of another one. In the same way, before accepting sexual starvation as the cause of the strip-tease, we should have to look for evidence that there is in fact more sexual abstinence in our age than in those ages when things like the strip-tease were unknown. But surely there is no such evidence. Contraceptives have made sexual indulgence far less costly within marriage and far safer outside it than ever before, and public opinion is less hostile to illicit unions and even to perversion than it has been since Pagan times. Nor is the hypothesis of "starvation" the only one we can imagine. Everyone knows that the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, grows by indulgence. Starving men may think much about food, but so do gluttons; the gorged, as well as the famished, like titillations.

Here is a third point. You find very few people who want to eat things that really are not food or to do other things with food instead of eating it. In other words, perversions of the food appetite are rare. But perversions of the sex instinct are numerous, hard to cure, and frightful. I am sorry to have to go into all these details, but I must. The reason why I must is that you and I, for the last twenty years, have been fed all day long on good solid lies about sex. We have been told, till one is sick of hearing it, that sexual desire is in the same state as any of our other natural desires and that if only we abandon the silly old Victorian idea of hushing it up, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is not true. The moment you look at the facts, and away from the propaganda, you see that it is not.

They tell you sex has become a mess because it was hushed up. But for the last twenty years it has not been hushed up. It has been chattered about all day long. Yet it is still in a mess. If hushing up had been the cause of the trouble, ventilation would have set it right. But it has not. I think it is the other way round. I think the human race originally hushed it up because it had become such a mess. Modern people are always saying, "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of." They may mean two things. They may mean "There is nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that the human race reproduces itself in a certain way, nor in the fact that it gives pleasure." If they mean that, they are right. Christianity says the same. It is not the thing, nor the pleasure, that is the trouble. The old Christian teachers said that if man had never fallen, sexual pleasure, instead of being less than it is now, would actually have been greater. I know some muddle-headed Christians have talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body, or pleasure, were bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body-which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy. Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But, of course, when people say, "Sex is nothing to be ashamed of," they may mean "the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of."

If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips. I do not say you and I are individually responsible for the present situation. Our ancestors have handed over to us organisms which are warped in this respect: and we grow up surrounded by propaganda in favour of unchastity. There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome them.

Before we can be cured we must want to be cured. Those who really wish for help will get it; but for many modern people even the wish is difficult. It is easy to think that we want something when we do not really want it. A famous Christian long ago told us that when he was a young man he prayed constantly for chastity; but years later he realised that while his lips had been saying, "Oh Lord, make me chaste," his heart had been secretly adding, "But please don't do it just yet." This may happen in prayers for other virtues too; but there are three reasons why it is now specially difficult for us to desire-let alone to achieve-complete chastity.

In the first place our warped natures, the devils who tempt us, and all the contemporary propaganda for lust, combine to make us feel that the desires we are resisting are so "natural," so "healthy," and so reasonable, that it is almost perverse and abnormal to resist them. Poster after poster, film after film, novel after novel, associate the idea of sexual indulgence with the ideas of health, normality, youth, frankness, and good humour. Now this association is a lie. Like all powerful lies, it is based on a truth-the truth, acknowledged above, that sex in itself (apart from the excesses and obsessions that have grown round it) is "normal" and "healthy," and all the rest of it. The lie consists in the suggestion that any sexual act to which you are tempted at the moment is also healthy and normal. Now this, on any conceivable view, and quite apart from Christianity, must be nonsense. Surrender to all our desires obviously leads to impotence, disease, jealousies, lies, concealment, and everything that is the reverse of health, good humour, and frankness. For any happiness, even in this world, quite a lot of restraint is going to be necessary; so the claim made by every desire, when it is strong, to be healthy and reasonable, counts for nothing. Every sane and civilised man must have some set of principles by which he chooses to reject some of his desires and to permit others. One man does this on Christian principles, another on hygienic principles, another on sociological principles. The real conflict is not between Christianity and "nature," but between Christian principle and other principles in the control of "nature." For "nature" (in the sense of natural desire) will have to be controlled anyway, unless you are going to ruin your whole life. The Christian principles are, admittedly, stricter than the others; but then we think you will get help towards obeying them which you will not get towards obeying the others.

In the second place, many people are deterred from seriously attempting Christian chastity because they think (before trying) that it is impossible. But when a thing has to be attempted, one must never think about possibility or impossibility. Faced with an optional question in an examination paper, one considers whether one can do it or not: faced with a compulsory question, one must do the best one can. You may get some marks for a very imperfect answer: you will certainly get none for leaving the question alone. Not only in examinations but in war, in mountain climbing, in learning to skate, or swim, or ride a bicycle, even in fastening a stiff collar with cold fingers, people quite often do what seemed impossible before they did it. It is wonderful what you can do when you have to.

We may, indeed, be sure that perfect chastity-like perfect charity-will not be attained by any merely human efforts. You must ask for God's help. Even when you have done so, it may seem to you for a long time that no help, or less help than you need, is being given. Never mind. After each failure, ask forgiveness, pick yourself up, and try again. Very often what God first helps us towards is not the virtue itself but just this power of always trying again. For however important chastity (or courage, or truthfulness, or any other virtue) may be, this process trains us in habits of the soul which are more important still. It cures our illusions about ourselves and teaches us to depend on God. We learn, on the one hand, that we cannot trust ourselves even in our best moments, and, on the other, that we need not despair even in our worst, for our failures are forgiven. The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection.

Thirdly, people often misunderstand what psychology teaches about "repressions." It teaches us that "repressed" sex is dangerous. But "repressed" is here a technical term: it does not mean "suppressed" in the sense of "denied" or "resisted." A repressed desire or thought is one which has been thrust into the subconscious (usually at a very early age) and can now come before the mind only in a disguised and unrecognisable form. Repressed sexuality does not appear to the patient to be sexuality at all. When an adolescent or an adult is engaged in resisting a conscious desire, he is not dealing with a repression nor is he in the least danger of creating a repression. On the contrary, those who are seriously attempting chastity are more conscious, and soon know a great deal more about their own sexuality than anyone else. They come to know their desires as Wellington knew Napoleon, or as Sherlock Holmes knew Moriarty; as a rat-catcher knows rats or a plumber knows about leaky pipes. Virtue-even attempted virtue-brings light; indulgence brings fog.

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither. - Mere Christianity

Especially of concern to me, as a Christian, is the last paragraph in which he says,

"The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred."

As usual, Christian belief is more complicated and nuanced that either side makes it out to be.

BTW to the person who claims to be an ex pastor. There is an obvious reason your an Ex Pastor since you can't see truth.

I don't just 'claim'... I am.

And quite to the contrary—it's because truth was all I was after.

Of course, I invite more than just an ad hoc attack; you're welcome to debate 'truth' with me. We'll see how well you know your own bible (usually that's a shocking revelation, pardon the pun, to those who undertake the challenge).

Just for those who are interested. Rome had similar situations it was dealing with before it fell. Interesting these parallel our nation today.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire
The major causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire are detailed in the following list:

The Major Causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire

• Antagonism between the Senate and the
  Emperor

• Decline in Morals

• Political Corruption and the
  Praetorian Guard

• Fast expansion of the
  Empire

• Constant Wars and Heavy Military
  Spending

• Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military
  Tactics

• Failing Economy

• Unemployment of the Working Classes
  (The Plebs)

• The 'Mob' and the cost of the
  'Games'

• Decline in Ethics and
  Values

• Slave Labor

• Natural Disasters

• Christianity

• Barbarian Invasion

• The major causes for the Fall of the Roman
  Empire

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
One of the main causes for the Fall of
the Roman Empire was the Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor. The
Roman Emperor had the legal power to rule Rome’s religious, civil and military
affairs with the Senate acting as an advisory body. The emperor had power over
life and death. The powerful, spoilt, wealthy Roman Emperors inevitably became
corrupt and many lived a debauched, deluded and immoral lifestyle. The Roman
Empire saw many examples of antagonism between the Senators and the Emperors.
Either the Senators didn't like the Emperor or the Emperors was at odds with the
Senators.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Decline in Morals
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper
classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans.
Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors
such as Tiberius kept groups of
young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated
so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal
Virgin into marriage, Commodus with
his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in
the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious
festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs,
lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and
sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob.
Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot
races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic
cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
One of the main causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire was the Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard. The power
of the Praetorian Guard, the elite soldiers who made up the bodyguard of the emperor, led
to political corruption and grew to such an extent that this massive
group of soldiers decided on whether an emperor should be disposed of and who
should become the new emperor! The story of Sejanus,
who was the commander of the Praetorian Guard during the reign of Tiberius, illustrates the extent of
the power of the Praetorians. At one point the Praetorian Guard sold at auction
the throne of the world to the highest bidder.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Fast expansion of the Empire
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was the Fast expansion of the Empire. The rapid growth in the lands conquered by
the Empire led to the need to defend the borders and territories of Rome. The
people of the conquered lands, most of whom were referred to as Barbarians,
hated the Romans. Taxes on the non-Romans were high and constantly increased.
Frequent rebellions arose.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
One of the main causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire was the Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending. Constant warfare
required heavy military spending. The Roman army became over-stretched and
needed more and more soldiers. The barbarians, who had been conquered, and other
foreign mercenaries were allowed to join the Roman army.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
One of the main causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire was the Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics. The
knowledge that the Barbarians gained of Roman style of warfare and military
tactics by serving in the Roman army were eventually turned against the Empire
and led to the sack of Rome by the Visigoths led by an ex-army soldier,
Alaric.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Failing Economy and High Inflation
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire was the Failing Economy and high inflation. The Government was constantly
threatened by bankruptcy due to the cost of defending the Empire, the failing
economics, heavy taxation and high inflation was another Causes for the Fall of
the Roman Empire. The majority of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire failed to
share in the incredible prosperity of Rome. The amount of gold sent to the
orient to pay for luxury goods led to a shortage of gold to make Roman coins.
Roman currency was devalued to such an extent that a system of bartering
returned to one of the greatest civilisations the world had ever
known.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Unemployment of the Working Classes
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was the Unemployment of the Working Classes. Cheap slave labor resulted in the
unemployment of the Plebs in Rome who became dependent on hand-outs from the
state. The Romans attempted a policy of unrestricted trade but this led to the
Plebs being unable to compete with foreign trade. The government were therefore
forced to subsidize the working class Romans to make up the differences in
prices. This resulted in thousands of Romans choosing just to live on the
subsides sacrificing their standard of living with an idle life of ease. The
massive divide between the rich Romans and the poor Romans increased still
further.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - The 'Mob' and the cost of the Gladiatorial Games
One of the main causes for the Fall of the
Roman Empire was the 'Mob' and the cost of the Gladiatorial Games. If the
thousands of unemployed Romans became bored this led to civil unrest and rioting
in the streets. The 'Mob' needed to be amused - spectacular gladiatorial games
had to be provided. The cost of the gladiatorial games was born by the Emperors,
and therefore the state, and corrupt politicians who sponsored the games to
curry favor and support with the 'Mob'. The cost of the gladiatorial games
eventually came to one third of the total income of the Roman Empire.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Decline in Ethics and Values
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was the Decline in Ethics and Values. Life became cheap - blood shed led to more
blood shed and extreme cruelty. The values, the ideals, customs, traditions and
institutions, of the Romans declined. The basic principles, standards and
judgments about what was valuable or important in life declined. The total
disregard for human and animal life resulted in a lack of ethics - a perverted
view of what was right and wrong, good and bad, desirable and undesirable. Any
conformity to acceptable rules or standards of human behaviour were being
lost.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Slave Labor
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was the Slave Labor. The number of slaves increased dramatically during the
first 2 centuries of the Roman Empire. The Roman's dependency on slave labor led
not only to the decline in morals, values and ethics but also to the stagnation
of any new technology to produce goods more efficiently. Romans could rely on
the slave manpower for all their needs but this reliance inhibited technological
change and growth. The treatment of slaves led to rebellion and several Servile
(Slave) Wars, the most famous being the revolt led by the gladiator slave,
Spartacus. In the later centuries of the Empire and the advent of Christianity
the attitudes towards slaves changed. With manumission (the act of freeing a
slave) the number of slaves declined together with the manpower that Rome was
dependent upon.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Natural Disasters
One of the main
causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire were the Natural Disasters. During the
time of the Roman Empire there were not only foreign wars, civil wars, street
fights, fires and revolts there were also natural disasters such as plagues,
famines and earthquakes. As in all periods and societies the people looked for
someone to blame and different religions to turn to.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Christianity
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
was Christianity. Life and the future seemed hopeless for the millions of people
who were ruled by Rome where an early death was almost inevitable. Christianity
taught the belief in an afterlife which gave hope and courage to the desperate.
Eventually the Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, proclaimed
himself a Christian and issued an edict promising the Christians his favor and
protection. Attitudes in the Roman Empire changed from being antagonistic to
becoming pacifistic.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire - Barbarian Invasion
The last of the
causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Barbarian Invasion. Rome had
fierce foreign enemies. There
were great Barbarian armies consisting of warriors such as the Visigoths, Huns
and the Vandals. The final death blow to the Roman Empire was inflicted by these
Barbarians. The city of Rome was sacked by the
Visigoths in 410 and by the Vandals in 455 signalling the disintegration of
Roman authority and the Fall of the Roman Empire.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire Roman Empire
The content of this Roman Empire category on life in Ancient Rome
provides free educational details, facts and information for reference and
research for schools, colleges and homework. Refer to the Colosseum Sitemap for
a comprehensive search on interesting different categories containing the
history, facts and information about Ancient Rome.

Causes for the Fall of the Roman
Empire

Fed Up-3261941

Oh my goodness run for your bibles...... the gay people are taking over the planet. Okay back to reality. Our father's word is final in all things and it's his decision alone that defines right from wrong. Argue all you want about GLBT issues it doesn't change a thing.

Oh, how splendid.

Let's start with the obvious: prove your bible is true.

I'll provide plenty of evidence that it is NOT true, and then you'll have to lean on the tired old rhetoric, "I know it's true because it's been revealed to me."

Yeah. You, Krishna, Odom, Buddha, etc, etc, etc.

But I look forward to your proof, mkay?

Toaty, Toasty.

Constitutional Rights?? In a private "christian" school? What ever happened to your seperation of church and state argument?

They agreed to abide by the laws and bylaws of the school. They broke them. Good bye!

As for the rest of you arguing "faith" anywhere, much less here is a waste of time. We can take individual versus and books of the bible (choose a translation), fuse them together and get anything we want. Then we will get the old tired athiest well instructed "prove the bible." BLAH, BLah, Blah. Then the christian counter.

So once again I will say, IF you want to be, choose to be, are gay. Fine!! Just don't think the christian schools and churches are going to accept it. Move on! They believe what they want and iit is a part of their belief system and thus them individually. You are the same, just with a different system. Want tolerance, you still have to give it in return.

My kids won't go to a Muslim school. Why? I don't believe what they teach. Now, is that so hard??

RE: The fall of Rome:

• Fast expansion of the
  Empire

• Constant Wars and Heavy Military
  Spending

• Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military
  Tactics

• Failing Economy

• Unemployment of the Working Classes
  (The Plebs)

These are your primary factors. However, you left off one:

Christianity.

You DO know that the fall of Rome and the introduction of Christianity mirror each other historically, right? The acceptance of "national religion" had more to do WITH the factor above than anything else. It's just not politically correct to state this fact.

When the "plebs" as you say gained spiritual power, they soon demanded monetary power. The government had to produce more money (just as our government is going to have to do) in order to keep up with the demands of a NEW sect of people with actual POWER. (Funny, as the institution and Hellenization of Christianity was intended to pull off just the opposite.)

The economy "failed" because more money was produce than could be accounted for, leaving the once might Roman army weakened and ripe for internal and external attack. And, let's not forget WHO moved in, shall we? OR the dark ages that befell that area of the world for almost 1,000 years post-fall.

One more interesting fact re: Rome's fall—the exceptionalism of the people, primarily the Christians, forced massive changes in government structure. Even within this restructuring, "moral values" (which were NEVER high in Rome... don't know where you're even trying to go with that... these are the guys who invented most of our torture devices, after all) went into a rebellion state. This is COMMON. NORMAL. And today, the Church is seeing the same, exact thing happening. Protestant and Catholic faiths are facing abnormal (to the rest of us) rates of divorce, molestation, etc.

To make matters worse, idiots like Gingrich (well, ALL of the Republican candidates) who want MORE Jesus control in our government are failing to learn the lessons of Rome.

Have a look at our divorce rates, rate of crime, murder, suicide, teen pregnancy, etc. in 1960 versus today. One thing that has change that is NOT open for debate is the increase in Christian presence within political structures, NOT a decrease.

Christians want to bitch about prayer not being allowed in school — to them this is a 'repression' despite being a clear violation of church and state. But overall, evangelical believers have been on the rise in a MAJOR way since 1970 in particular, and is higher today than ever.

Basically, it IS Rome, Part II -- The Sequel. But not for the reasons you may believe.

Peace.

One half of the victims...often linked their homosexuality to their sexual victimization experiences...The age at the time of the molestation ranged from 4 to 16 with a mean age of 10.

Yeah, I see your bulls*it copied and spread on any forum on the internet dealing with anything "gay", often under a moniker involving the word "science'.

What a disgrace.

First, please DO post a link to this 2009 JAMA study, as I was unable to locate it.

Second, even if this is an actual study, you then must defend your god allowing such sexual victimization in the first place, only to hold the child/future adult responsible for it.

Third, there is OVERWHELMING evidence point to the fact that this is just not so. Every mammal has homosexual behaviors, down to regular mating habits -- ironically to about the same percentage as humans. Go figure.

Oh, and have a look at this paper. I KNOW this one is real:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qAbgvAtCFrYJ:www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch10.pdf+JAMA+2009+study+homosexuality&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESin0vzgmVUJ1KPMztZphFYoh48FVHfnbITgvslxINQdv0hmLqTDGWRLo0rZV0BakjvtTF7tSsFVw41VbE2qA7m5d1RtcpxMNGKzUXHosv7mjzv_NL91Typp1-eeGTHmwdM8d2qe&sig=AHIEtbTEIp6Q-H1cPdrF75sYT6Q8xEzpNg

Regardless of your thoughts on homosexuality the college has a right to set its own rules. It is a private entity. The anonymous whatevers knew the rules before they enrolled. They don't like it now that's fine. They can go to a more welcoming college. To hear some the outrage some of the individuals posting on here have about the college's stance is more of a case of radical homosexual advocacy then it is about anything else. Take a deep breath and don't get your panties all in a bunch. Think about it this way. One of the rights we enjoy here in the US is the freedom of association. You have the same rights. You can set up your own college of homos for Christ and only allow those that are practicing homosexuals to join. More power to you. Heck if you decide you can let non-practicing homos attend too. That's your freedom and your choice. You start crossing the line when you start imposing your beliefs on others. Exactly what you charge others with. Those damn oxen seem to gore other's oxen at the strangest times.

TrueLgbt,

Wow! I knew that stuff. Yet now I know why I had all those feelings. I was molested at the age of 2 years old by someone I can't even remember. My parents divorced when I was 4 years old. My dad never really ever spent a lot of time with me. In fact I would be left sitting on the porch waiting for him to come pick me up when I was a little boy to only get the phone call that he wasn't coming. Then while I was a young boy I found myself experimenting with other boys and some girls. Yet I found myself becoming attracted to men and it caused me deep confusion. Since everyone around me said it was wrong and nasty. Then I grew into a teen and lived a double life. I had a girlfriend and also went out later and ended up with older men. Then one day a man tried to kill me and I was fortunate to get away. I consider that the hand of G-d watching over me. Since the person tried to drug me and I felt the drug taking effect and I ran as fast I could. Then I met Jesus Christ and those dreams I had when I was 11, 13, 15 years of age began to make sense. Thank you True for bringing light to this. I am glad that Jesus found me and set me free.

I think in past generations, becoming a nun or priest was a way for gay Catholic men and women to try and overcome their allegedly sinful orientation. Since they had no way to marry and could not live openly as a gay person, it was an escape route and yes. I'm sure many were blindly devout too.

However they were most likely fascinated to see many others joined for the same reason. Thus, yes, there were and probably are a lot of gay nuns and priests. Whether they are celibate is only known to them.

This What Happened "When God created Men,Women and Gay" for reasons.I dont understand why must the Church has to condem the creations of God of all this,with his creations "Very Basic existence of Human Mother Nature of past-time,the needs of Sexual Desire Orientation urges in every behaviours of Human's body preferences "

Dont be Surprise If the Truth started to spew out that,the Conseal Secrecy facts ,Gays,Lesbians and Straight congregation come from Bishops,Priests and Nuns closets..

I wholeheartedly side with Biola on this one. To change their policy would send the wrong message. Too much sympathy is exerted to homosexuals. They're disingenuous recidivist to their own conscious. Cowardly perverts, with persecution complexes, steeped in paronoia, projected on the world around them. They should be expelled as an example for the rest of those who would rather have homosexuality than follow Christ. If you're homosexual, stay your behind out of a Christian university. This situation is in the veins of the coup theatric played out by Sandra Fluke, or the deceptive charlatry of Alfred Kinsey. Deceitful frauds whose lying methods bucked the system resulting in the rape of society's values. People who want to change the system to give their own immoral desires a public outlet. These people do not have a leg to stand on.

They're –if it's even more than one person – hiding in darkness because of their own conscious "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the
light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." -- John 3:19-21"

First, if you're a professing disciple of Christ, how do you have the audacity to even have a sexual lifestyle. "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. "( 1 Cor 5:9-11) There's nothing in the bible tolerant of sexual sin. Biola is being generous even trying to have a conversation.

What type of delusion asks where guilt is coming from? The Holy Spirit is the only one who brings conviction of sin in the first place.

Cowardly perverts, with persecution complexes, steeped in paronoia, projected on the world around them. They should be expelled as an example for the rest of those who would rather have homosexuality than follow Christ. If you're homosexual, stay your behind out of a Christian university.

I love Christian love.

And, I'll just assume that log has been removed from your eye.

</body>

Where does Jesus mandate tolerance to practicing homosexuals, emboldened in their rebellion? Love was demonstrated towards the people trying to change. Jesus said:

"If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

He also said, "Go and sin no more."

Boy have people gotten off on tangents with this story. The basic problem, as I see it, is that some Gay and Lesbian students/staff want to force the school to abandon its policy against those who PRACTICE homosexuality.

I'm sure there are plenty of colleges that don't really care whether they practice homosexuality - why don't they merely go there instead of trying to force a school to abandon its religious beliefs?

I have to admit, I am enjoying watching Jon school every supposed "Christian" with historical facts... LOVE IT.

Still waiting for one of you "Christians" to tell us which translated version of the Bible is the correct one? Then, you can explain how all the rules added to the Bible, which were NEVER spoken by Jesus, are the supposed "word of God"... even though God did not speak it nor write it, instead man did? And once you are done with that, feel free to explain why only 4 gospels, out of the dozen written, were included in the Bible... who made that choice, why, and how do we know these MEN were right?

Oh, I forgot the typical Christian response to all of these questions: "Because it is what I believe, I am right and everyone else is wrong... because I say so." Apparently narcissism trumps historical fact.

ROY WILSON-336103

Boy have people gotten off on tangents with this story. The basic problem, as I see it, is that some Gay and Lesbian students/staff want to force the school to abandon its policy against those who PRACTICE homosexuality.

Yes sir, we sure have. However, this 'polite steer' back on to the subject at hand (which I'd still argue stems from silly superstition) is due to the fact you're wanting to avoid my answer to your question.

So, either admit you cannot give a proper rebuttal, or can it with the tough talk.

One of these days, you christians and other believers of various dogma will get it through your skulls that you cannot legislate sex. Oh, you can try, but you just cannot do it. This, coming from a heterosexual male... you know, just in case your only argument is that "I" want to engage in homosexual acts. My girlfriend would find that amusing.

No, I'm just one of the guys out there who happens to know your Book of Fables better than you do, and who sees the absolute human-bashing that has been the result of its venom. Like all works, this one contains plenty of good stuff. Unfortunately, UNLIKE all works, it also demands adherence though ultimatums disguised as "free will."

Jon I did not leave out Christianity. You obviously did not read my whole post. In fact to even say that Constantine was a Christian is another subject for discussion. You are an Ex Atheist Pastor. I am a Called Anointed Preacher of the Gospel. I do not believe in this Pagan Form of Christianity that so many here practice. They worship the Sun God and His minions. They allow Pagan Holidays to become Christian Holidays and call them Holy. Yeah right. Take a false god and say you can make it Holy by allowing the practice of its customs in the Church of Christ. Jesus would rebuke this current so called Christian Church. You tell me what is of God and what is not. Like Constantine had a vision and heard a voice tell him to go out and conquer in this Sign. The Cross, anyone who knows their history knows that it was an insult and slap in the face to the practicing Jew to be hung on a tree. It was also the sign of a Pagan god.

IndieParty

Best of luck with those wishes... you'll get as many answers as people answering, of that I can guarantee you.

Usually, that number is 'zero'. Or, they leap to the nearest apologist website (I used to write for one) in order to dig up an answer that... surprise... is usually full of lies or holes... or both.

My entire motivation here, other than killing a day stuck in bed with a knee brace, is for people to stop bullying others in the name of their religion. If you want to believe in a Jewish Zombie God/Man Messiah, knock yourself out. And yes, I can understand why you would ALSO proclaim his teachings in the process.

However, if you dare to do so, you best prepare for others, like me, who have not only stood in your shoes, but ministered to others in them as well... and who can see 'both' sides of the story with a bit more clarity.

This is a humanist thing for me: I.E. rights, liberties, etc. Christians by and large have no clue what it means to accept their own genetic failings, let alone accept the obvious "failings" of their deity's genetic code... unless you want to argue that tails on infants, ebola, flesh-eating bacteria, etc. are the design elements used by Yahweh.

They should be expelled as an example for the rest of those who would rather have homosexuality than follow Christ

And here I thought Jesus preached "forgiveness"... silly me.

I guess I read the wrong story... I thought he said "yet he who is without sin cast the first stone". Apparently, he actually said: "Yet he who follows me stone these mother f***ers for their sins. Die, DIE, DIE you abominations. Ignore your own sins, my children, and cast judgement upon all those around you. Bath in their blood as you enact my vengeance."

I think I finally understand which version of Jesus all you Christians follow.

TheSwordNPen79

Jon I did not leave out Christianity. You obviously did not read my whole post.

You are correct, and I apologize. I clearly missed it, so thanks for bringing that to my attention. I was copying/pasting just that segment... poor reading on my part. : )

In fact to even say that Constantine was a Christian is another subject for discussion.

I agree... but his minions most certainly were. Constantine was a confusing chap, to be sure. Of course those days are a bit sketchy, but i would tend to agree with you strongly. In fact, I side with most scholars on the fact that he instituted Christianity as a method of CONTROL, as well as from sheer ignorance of how strongly it would spread.

You are an Ex Atheist Pastor. I am a Called Anointed Preacher of the Gospel. I do not believe in this Pagan Form of Christianity that so many here practice.

I would be interested in hearing more about your beliefs, Sword. I find it interesting that you refer to most Christians (at least on the vine) as being "pagan" -- and I take it that you mean more than the fact that they celebrate former pagan holidays. So if you would be so kind, please do elaborate.

They worship the Sun God and His minions. They allow Pagan Holidays to become Christian Holidays and call them Holy. Yeah right.

Ah, well, I'm responding as I read, so perhaps you DO only mean Easter, Christmas, etc... and the "sun god." How do they worship Horus? I'm assuming Horus, but there were numerous "sun gods" prior to Horus. That one just happens to be the most influential among the Babylonians, where most Israelites gleaned their theology.

Take a false god and say you can make it Holy by allowing the practice of its customs in the Church of Christ. Jesus would rebuke this current so called Christian Church. You tell me what is of God and what is not. Like Constantine had a vision and heard a voice tell him to go out and conquer in this Sign. The Cross, anyone who knows their history knows that it was an insult and slap in the face to the practicing Jew to be hung on a tree. It was also the sign of a Pagan god.

Very interesting indeed.

OF course, Christians will claim that the 'insult' was part of the 'sacrifice' (although this was hardly the worst of sacrifices, as cancer is far more painful, lasts for years, and you don't get to come back and be God. ; )

I know there were many 'gods' or saviors crucified, Chrishna being one of them, but what method are you using to determine "pagan" from "the real article"?

Boy have people gotten off on tangents with this story. The basic problem, as I see it, is that some Gay and Lesbian students/staff want to force the school to abandon its policy against those who PRACTICE homosexuality.

I'm not sure how one "practices" homosexuality. People are gay, or they aren't. If you are using the words "practice homosexuality" as a euphemism for "having gay sex," I don't think that's what they are saying at all, as the school prohibits pre-martial sex for all students. I think what these students are saying is they would be kicked out of school for admitting homosexuality, even if they abstained from any homosexual relationship.

Jon

I know I won't get any answers... I never do. But it's fun to see these religious nuts tuck their tail between their legs and run, anytime a logical or fact based question is asked. Or they ignore it all together and continue their preaching with closed ears.

Like you, I was once an adamant Christian, learning as much as I could about my religion. Historical facts, timelines, etc. However, that learning led to the inevitable truth that this religion is more a product of man than any God.

For instance, the fact that original Christianity, in the time of Jesus, consisted of people gathering in small rooms to worship the life of Jesus. It was not until many years after his death that a hierarchy of power was created, and a group of men in power decided what would be considered "holy doctrine" and allowed inclusion into the Bible that they were creating.

Or the fact that hell and the "deadly sins" were actually a fictional manifestation from a 14-th century poem. And the actual Biblical transcripts refereed to the "hell" translation as a different place, a burning pile of garbage outside the city, if I remember correctly. And who can forget the field day King James had with his creative freedoms.

It is ironic that the more you learn of the religion, the history, the facts, the historical truth... the more you are pushed away from modern Christianity. The truth shall set you free, as it were.

For instance, the fact that original Christianity, in the time of Jesus, consisted of people gathering in small rooms to worship the life of Jesus. It was not until many years after his death that a hierarchy of power was created, and a group of men in power decided what would be considered "holy doctrine" and allowed inclusion into the Bible that they were creating.

Or the fact that hell and the "deadly sins" were actually a fictional manifestation from a 14-th century poem. And the actual Biblical transcripts refereed to the "hell" translation as a different place, a burning pile of garbage outside the city, if I remember correctly. And who can forget the field day King James had with his creative freedoms.

True, and true... sorta. Hell was brought into the picture long before then, by (what's attributed to) Jesus himself. Hell was never mentioned as a place of eternal torment in the OT. Ironic that Yahweh would leave that bit out... even worse, give clear indications of men who took possessions with them into the grave (and they say you can't do that!)

Yeah, the 7 Deadly Sins, to my knowledge, is not doctrine in any church except for some off-shoot inbred Catholic churches (or inbred 'any' church, I suppose.) It was just a convenient way to put things into a hierarchy. How I wish these were the ONLY problems with Christianity and its adherents, but just look at the fuc*king mess the GOP is in -- well, politics in general, just the GOP in particular -- and you'll see the damage this nonsense has created.

My masters thesis was on Jefferson. He would never be elected today in a million years, yet he was arguably the smartest, most important President we have ever had the pleasure to experience. Who knows where we'd be without his hand on the Declaration, and Franklin's instead.

One can only shudder to think how Chimpy McNumbnuts (G.W. Bush) would have penned that wonderful document:

"Dear Mr. Britain,

Jesus told me that you're bad, and we're not going to take it any more.

Mission Accomplished,

GWB

P.S. Say hello to your president the Queen.

@Roy
Exactly!

@IndieParty,
Whenever I hear any homosexual boast they “schooled” anyone I know it basically means they're an arrogant fool too proud to concede their own defeat. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, which shows you've never actually taken the time to genuinely read the bible. First, There aren't many translations of the bible. Different versions of the bible come from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. If by rules, you're referring to the letters of the apostle, I will remind you that Jesus personally converted Saul, who later became Paul, and peter, James, and John, all spend time with Jesus personally, over a three year period. Arguing that the works of scribe are in no way indicative of the original speaker, is about the same as saying “if we read president Obama's written speech, he didn't actually say it.” The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have been passed down with 99.9999999% accuracy. As God is the author, and men are the scribes, I'm sure He could have easily determined what did and did not go into His book. Considering the incredible struggle the bible has taken to find it's way into written form, it would be a considerable stretch not to note some divine intervention.
Note: none of my sentences include anything on beliefs, but you keep writing that script, as you've thouroughly convinced yourself of the superiority of your own bias. Narcism doesn't trump fact, except when it's people with their fingers in their ears going. “Nah...Nah...Na...Nah...nah..love the sound of my own voice.”

@Jon

If you can't legislate sex, then can you tell me why 39 states have a constitutional ban on
same sex marriage, and perhaps you can explain some strange sex laws still on the books

In Oblong, Illinois, it's punishable by law to make love while hunting or fishing on your
wedding day.
In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse with a live fish.

No man is allowed to make love to his wife with the smell of garlic, onions, or sardines on his breath in Alexandria, Minnesota. If his wife so requests, law
mandates that he must brush his teeth.

Apparently, you can. What do you have to substantiate that the bible is a book of fables? Any
harm attributed to the misappropriation of the bible pales in comparison to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Jon, I like your perspective, it reminds me of another gentleman by the name of Dan Barker. What I find a little bit amazing is that Christians don't seem to realize that their churches have been using sex and marriage for centuries to control them. Can't have sex before marriage. Can't get married unless the church approves. Fail to do what the church tells you and you'll never have sex. Can't use birth control or have sex just for pleasure, because we want to you have children who will learn obediance by your example. It astounds me that people think God gave them the desire for sex just so it could be used to control them or used as a tool to make them feel guilt. I think a lot of the fight over the gay equality issue is that it's seen as undermining church control over people's lives. I know some would mention free will and original sin, but I'm not going there. It just seems strange that God would create a broken being (a sinner) and then blame the creation for being flawed. The religious people claim that homosexuals are flawed, but then refuse to acknoweldge that regardless of homosexuality being nature or choice, their God made those people that way.

@oskar, If what you put into print holds water than Lesbians haven't anything to worry about.

@dave, I agree with you on the students fears.

Cowardly perverts, with persecution complexes, steeped in paronoia, projected on the world around them.

Now are you talking about Christians or homosexuals here? Because you really describe a lot of Christians to the tee; they love talking about how persecuted they are when it suits them and you have so many child molesters in the priesthood.

@ItIsWhat!t!s

If by rules, you're referring to the letters of the apostle, I will remind you that Jesus personally converted Saul, who later became Paul, and peter, James, and John, all spend time with Jesus personally, over a three year period. Arguing that the works of scribe are in no way indicative of the original speaker, is about the same as saying “if we read president Obama's written speech, he didn't actually say it.”

I don't pretend to be a biblical scholar, but even I know those books of the apostles weren't written by the men they are named after. If memory serves, they started to be written 70 years or so later, after all the people with first hand knowledge would have been long dead.

To use your example would be like me telling my grandchildren about a Ronald Regan speech, and then after I'm dead, they'll write it down and claim it's exactly what he said.

ItIsWhatItIs

Whenever I hear any homosexual boast they “schooled” anyone I know it basically means they're an arrogant

Oh, I'm a homosexual now? My girlfriend will be so disappointed... LOL. Really? That's the best you've got?

First, There aren't many translations of the bible

So do you fail at all of history? Or just Biblical history?

If by rules, you're referring to the letters of the apostle

No, that is NOT what I was referring to. I mean the rules... do this, don't do that, do this, don't do that. Many of which were NOT specified by Jesus himself.

I will remind you that Jesus personally converted Saul, who later became Paul, and peter, James, and John, all spend time with Jesus personally, over a three year period

Ignoring the point that those gospels were written months, years, and sometimes decades apart... what of the other gospels? Look at that. Like a typical Christian you IGNORE the question. So now I am calling you out for it, in front of everyone. What's wrong? Too scared to answer?

I will ask again: Why were only four gospels included in the Bible when over a dozen were written by people who spent time with Jesus? Who made the decision? What gave them the right? What of the gospel of Judas? Or Mary? (Oh, I forgot... she's just a woman, with a brain half the size of man.)

As God is the author, and men are the scribes, I'm sure He could have easily determined what did and did not go into His book

So God decided not to include the other gospels, even though they were arranged together in the Bible HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Jesus? Let me guess, he "spoke" to the men putting the Bible together, right? And if someone says that God speaks to them... we need to believe them. I know this homeless guy you should talk to.

If you can't legislate sex, then can you tell me why 39 states have a constitutional ban on
same sex marriage,

What does sex have to do with a government contract dealing with property rights, asset allocation, hospital visitation, and inheritance? Yes, you can legislate a government contract (marriage). You can not legislate sex.

Guess what, buddy boy... I am not married. I dare you to try and legislate my sex life. Go ahead, try to stop me from getting it on. Just try and legislate. I'm ready to laugh in your face.

The Catholic Church has been trying to legislate sex for over a THOUSAND YEARS. The most influential organization on the planet has tried to stop people from having sex, for over a thousand years. How has that worked out?

Horseman, "religious liberty" doesn't mean "the liberty to persecute based on my religion."

@Dave-2550157

Thank you. I know Dan, and he's a good man. Excellent points in your post as well, so many thanks.

Now on to the schooling...

ItIsWhat!t!s

@IndieParty,
Whenever I hear any homosexual boast they “schooled” anyone I know it basically means they're an arrogant fool too proud to concede their own defeat.

Indie's first post tells a story about him on "a date with a girl." The language of the post sounds quite male to me. Now, Indie may BE a lesbian, but we have no evidence of that.

So where do you get off using logical fallacies and skipping over this massive non-evidential conclusion and the introduction of a red herring at the very best?

Faith? I'll just assume that's your answer.

Oh, btw: Jesus did warn you about calling another person "a fool"... may want to look that one up.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, which shows you've never actually taken the time to genuinely read the bible.

Oh, I agree... and something tells me you've never taken the time to go to seminary. So, let's proceed...

First, There aren't many translations of the bible. Different versions of the bible come from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

If by 'many', you mean the Vulgate, the various versions of the Septuagint, etc., you are somewhat correct. If you want to toss in the 500 or so post-KJV versions, you are grossly incorrect.

However, I think Indie was referring to the well-documented imperfections in the older to newer texts. Bart Ehrman, surely a man way up on your Christmas list, and who knows NOTHING about textual criticism, I'm sure, clearly points these issues out in terms even a layman can understand. Feel free to read any of his books on the subject, or if you're wanting something more scholarly, I can turn you on to some more heady reading.

This goes WAY behind the addition of, say, the end of Mark 16 and the woman caught in adultery. There are rather 'major' changes in story lines, in particular certain post-facto prophecies added in. Nifty. Wait until the event happens, then tack it on. We'll no doubt find more if there are older versions of Hebrew manuscripts to still be located.

If by rules, you're referring to the letters of the apostle, I will remind you that Jesus personally converted Saul, who later became Paul, and peter, James, and John, all spend time with Jesus personally, over a three year period.

First, prove it.

You have ONE BOOK with these facts; ONE. Not a single contemporary historian even mentioned them, let alone Jesus, or masses of zombies walking the earth after his death (Matt. 27) -- yeah, you'd think that would get a passing glance, eh?

Second, re: Saul's conversion... you only have Saul/Paul's account. You wholeheartedly accept this account, yet reject Muhammad's account of...well, everything. You would reject ME if I said, "I met Jesus and he said you have it all wrong," and went on to write volumes of letters on the subject.

Yet, you blindly (pardon the pun, as I know the story) accept Saul/Paul. Interesting.

Then you take Paul's letters and accept them as literal gospel, despite the fact he never once read a word Jesus ever uttered, assuming Jesus even existed as one person to begin with.

Arguing that the works of scribe are in no way indicative of the original speaker, is about the same as saying “if we read president Obama's written speech, he didn't actually say it.”

This could not be more wrong, even if wrong didn't exist.

First, many additions (including literally hundreds and thousands of what we would call "typos") were documented as scribal... far MORE documented that the original works themselves...

of which there are ZERO.

NO original manuscripts... NONE. No autographs. All word of mouth; often for centuries, at best for more than 40 years. Fantastico.

Second, unlike your rather inept analogy, a scriptwriter prepares something for the speaker to say. You have it backwards; scribes take down verbal hearsay of what someone else supposedly said.

If you don't see the difference, then you're too clueless to debate with anyway... but hopefully you do, and you'll admit it was a blatantly stupid thing to say.

The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts have been passed down with 99.9999999% accuracy.

First, cite your source. I'll wait.

Second, we have no idea if the original words were these words or not. That's ENTIRELY an issue of BLIND FAITH. Nothing more. You have to assume that generations remembered exact words, or that the "spirit" inspired these writers, along with their myriad of mistakes (the fall of Tyre, Jesus' impending second coming, demons cause illness, Genesis 1:2 stating water was present in a hydrogen-less universe, etc., etc., etc.)

Third, even if your number IS true, then by your own admission the bible is not inerrant.

As God is the author, and men are the scribes, I'm sure He could have easily determined what did and did not go into His book.

So... wait.

You really believe that God wanted to "write a book" -- and to do so, he chose a time in human history where 99% of all living beings were illiterate and overtly superstitious to do so.

What impeccable timing! What design!

What an MORONIC way of communicating anything to ANYONE.

Second, this "book" that God wanted to write... he decided to oversee 70-some-odd monks and scribes as they tossed out one letter, kept another, and STILL got the authorship issues wrong. Nifty again.

Third, and again, this is nothing but a gross leap of blind faith. Rather than analyze the facts of how, in particular, the Vulgate was rushed as if it was on a 3-week deadline, or how political factions influenced what men were chosen to DO the translation, is just too much work, I suppose.

Facts annoy faith.

Considering the incredible struggle the bible has taken to find it's way into written form, it would be a considerable stretch not to note some divine intervention.

Ah, then you must be a HUGE fan of the Code of Hammurabi, which pre-dates ANY biblical text by at least 700 years. Also the Hindu texts, especially those teaching Yogic principles, which are almost as old as the earliest Chinese writings... of which you must also assume were "divinely controlled", eh?

No? Why not?

Are you suggesting these far-older texts, with equally improbable chances of surviving, COULD survive without divine intervention? Then your argument fails.

Or, are you suggesting they DID? Then your exclusivity of Biblical truth fails.

Take your pick... I'll wait....

Narcism doesn't trump fact, except when it's people with their fingers in their ears going. “Nah...Nah...Na...Nah...nah..love the sound of my own voice.”

I DO think that would be you, right about now... unless of course you consider brining up facts as an act of narcism. That would be a hoot.

@Jon

If you can't legislate sex, then can you tell me why 39 states have a constitutional ban on
same sex marriage, and perhaps you can explain some strange sex laws still on the books

In Oblong, Illinois, it's punishable by law to make love while hunting or fishing on your
wedding day.
In Minnesota, it is illegal for any man to have sexual intercourse with a live fish.

No man is allowed to make love to his wife with the smell of garlic, onions, or sardines on his breath in Alexandria, Minnesota. If his wife so requests, law
mandates that he must brush his teeth.

Apparently, you can.

No, you cannot.

You can attempt to, but I promise that no one in ANY of these states have been put in jail for these offenses... and sodomy, which is still on the law books as well in many states, is practiced despite the laws and legislation.

You're confusing LITERAL legislation (i.e. paper, law, etc.) with ACTUAL (my intent) legislation.

Just get over it -- men will do men; women will do women; and men will do just about any woman. It's been that way forever, and it will never change because some holier-than-piss bureaucrat decides to attempt it.

What do you have to substantiate that the bible is a book of fables?

Oh, let's start with GENESIS, shall we?

Explain Genesis 1:2.

We're JUST 2 verses in, so this should be a snap for you. Please understand that your answer will, unfortunately, have to exclude the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. It will also be put to that nasty thing called a "Fact check".

But have at it. We'll work our way down past the reference to El (let US), to the science that supports a 14 B-ish year old universe... to a boat full of critters... to a tower that Yahweh feared "could succeed" in its effort to reach "heaven"... to the slaughter of the first born (not recorded in ANY historical text other than the Bible)...

Yeah, I've unfortunately got all day. Better bring a small army, as from the looks of your arguments in THIS thread, you'll need it.

But like I said, start by explaining Genesis 1:2.

Any harm attributed to the misappropriation of the bible pales in comparison to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Well, as an evolutionary scientist, I'd LOVE to hear what harm you are referring to.

I won't even bother you with the facts behind evolution, or the fact that you're inoculated with a different flu shot every year for a damn good reason... or that we have multiple endogenous retroviruses in common with the great apes... you know, all that "science stuff" may just bore you, and Buddha forbid I do that. We don't want to confuse you with the facts, as your mind is made up already.

OR: Are you going to tread down the tiresome path of Stalin or Hitler, despite Hitler clearly being Catholic?

Or is this more of a "it's so wrong, despite the evidence, that it's corrupting our youth" angle?

And EVEN if you could provide this evidence, which you cannot, are you going to stand by and say atrocities in the millions and millions were NOT the result of religiously-inspired wars?

If so, you have zero respect for history, or the truth.

You're about to overstep your bounds, but I welcome it with open arms.

Wow, Jon, where do I begin?  For an ex-pastor you are spreading quite a bit of misinformation.  I guess I'll start with Solomon. There's no need to try to "justify" him.

1 Kings 11
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
Solomon's Wives

11 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech[a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.

7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.

9 The Lord became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the Lord's command. 11 So the Lord said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen."

Please note that the fact that Solomon had all those wives was not condoned by God and that the nation was punished for it. Also note this from the New Testament:

1 Timothy 3:12-13
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

12 A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13 Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Deacons were servant leaders in the Christian church. As time went on, the standard was changing, if you will-it was getting tighter in some ways. Women were much more free in the Christian church than they had been in Judaism.

I explain this by saying that God had not changed from the Old Testament to the New, but the covenants had changed. The old covenant was given at Mt. Sinai and was the Jewish law. The Israelites voluntarily accepted this entire law as their own and fully agreed to follow it just as Americans accepted the Constitution and agreed to follow it. In the Torah there were certain trespasses that called for the death penalty just as there are in our law-the Israelites fully agreed to those laws just as we agree to ours. For example, they agreed to the death penalty for sons who cursed their parents. We in America would certainly not agree with that, but they did. (Please note that the "disobedient son" passage that is normally cited is rather involved and includes bringing the son before a council and proving that the son is a drunk and a complete reprobate-if you look up the Hebrew words that are used-before he can actually be killed-the son is not killed simply for one act of disobedience.)

The New Covenant was given by Jesus at the Last Supper when he said that the cup of wine represented his blood shed for the forgiveness of sin. What he meant was that he was going to die the next day and that while he was dying and bleeding the wrongs of everyone in the world would be placed on him and he would be punished instead of everyone else-for the punishment for sin was always death. After he paid the full punishment he came back to life-according to the Bible and the Christian faith, that is. (I'm not trying to prove this scientifically.) Now that the New Covenant was in force, Christians were not obligated to obey all of the old specific laws of the Torah-many of which had applied specifically to desert living; however, the Ten Commandments did still apply. Jesus made it clear what parts of the law were important:

Matthew 22:36-40
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This agreed with the Torah one hundred percent. When a child inherits an estate he has a slightly different status from when he becomes an adult and owns the same estate, right? He doesn't have the same knowledge or the same priviledges as a child. I think of the Old and New Testaments and the Old and New Covenants sort of that way-not that I consider the Jewish people are any less knowledgable or important, only for analogy sake. Actually, the Jewish people are more like the biological children and the Gentiles are the adopted ones who didn't really enter the picture until the New Testament!

Oh, I await your response... in fact, I'm licking my chops. Idiot Christians who believe the OT doesn't apply to them in the least are either Paulineans, or ignorant of the words of their own savior. But it's fun to watch Paul jump through hoops to describe this 'new law' when he never even met or READ the words of Christ himself.

Please provide references as to this. I have provided references for what I have stated-it's the least you can do. However, I think I can give my own answer for this.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

I Corinthians is generally accepted to have been written by Paul to the believers in Corinth. But, of course, you don't believe in any of that supernatural stuff like Jesus appearing to people-do you? Well, how about this?

Galatians 1:13-24
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[b] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.

Paul went to Arabia and then spent three years in Damascus. That was plenty of time for him to have read the words of Jesus. After that he introduced himself to Peter, one of the men who had known Jesus best of all. It sounds to me like he did a lot of research-three years' worth, in fact-and looked very carefully into what had happened to him before he acted on it. How much of the Bible did you actually read when you were a pastor, anyway, Jon?

This science is routinely contradictory to the biblical explanations, from demons causing disease, to the creation of the universe.

Since when have scientists agreed on how the universe began or even if it had a beginning at all? There's actually some evidence for the Big Bang, which sounds a heck of a lot like creation-first there was a lot of nothing, then BANG-a huge universe began expanding! And, yes, I know about particle physics and quantum mechanics-also the multiverse. There are still many diseases which are not understood, not that I am attributing them to demons-just saying that we haven't come as far as you might like to imply that we have in that area either. And many illnesses seem to be linked to stress and the mind in some way. I'm in the medical field, by the way-traditional medicine at that.

Several of you have made a very good point in saying that it is odd that Christians highlight the sins of homosexuality while tolerating divorce and greed, etc, without saying a word. I agree with you one hundred percent on that. If they/we are going to enforce discipline, it should be enforced equally and there should be no discrimination. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Really you people don't get it. You are saying the greedy won't go to heaven or the slanderer or the reviler, or the covetous or the "abusers of themselves" will ever get to heaven. So that means, no person who has ever been greedy-fat people, slanderer-gossips,reviler-gossips and shi$-talkers,covetous- jealous of somebody else ,the self abusers-masturbators: according to you everybody is going to hell. YES! EVERYBODY!

Christians aren't saying it-the Bible says it. This is the part everyone hates about Christianity, and this is where the walls always go up and people stop listening and fail to hear the good news-that no one HAS to go there. "Good" people want to believe that they are good enough to get themselves into God's graces, but that is not what Christianity teaches. Other religions teach that. Even Judaism doesn't teach that.

Genesis 15:4-6
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir. " 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars —if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

Abram's righteousness was through faith, not by doing good works-just like in the New Testament.

Romans 8:1-4
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
Life Through the Spirit

8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Here it is in the New Testament. Believe in Jesus, and live through him; and you avoid hell-plus your life is more peaceful, fulfilling, and joyful. I've tried it both ways. I'm NOT saying that nothing bad will happen because many bad things have happened to me-I am saying that God gave me strength and the ability to get through the bad things.

Isaiah 53:4-6
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Here it was in a prophesy about the Jewish Messiah written by the prophet Isaiah hundreds of years before the birth of Christ. This is known to have existed historically at least 200 years before the birth of Christ in the form of the Septuagint.

Please excuse the long post. There was a lot to cover. Let me say in closing that I hate the way the church has treated gays and Lesbians as a whole. They should have been welcomed and should be welcomed just as Jesus welcomed all who came to him in sincerity. However, no one can expect to encounter Jesus and not be changed-it just isn't possible. That goes for me and everyone else. Many people don't want to be changed, and I respect that.

seen too much

I'll try to keep my response to you short, as these are easy to answer...

seen too much

Wow, Jon, where do I begin? For an ex-pastor you are spreading quite a bit of misinformation. I guess I'll start with Solomon. There's no need to try to "justify" him.

(Various scripture here)

Please note that the fact that Solomon had all those wives was not condoned by God and that the nation was punished for it.

Wrong.

Solomon was punished for marrying wives of other nations, not for being a polygamist. See Genesis 4:19 and the story of Lamech. See Nathan's prophecy from Yahweh to David, saying if the number of WIVES he had (and concubines) were not enough, "The Lord will supply more." (II Sam 12:8)... Moses... I could go on.

My friend, it is YOU who do not know your holy book... or who merely chooses to cherry-pick it. I won't let you get by with it.

Also note this from the New Testament:

Irrelevant. The argument that Yahweh changes his moral compass is one I'm MORE than willing to have, and one you MUST take on as truth to accept the NT "overrules" the OT, especially when your lord went out of his way to be a Torah-practicing Jew, and to mention that whole "not one tittle" remark.

And please -- do save me from the theology/scripture quoting I know so well. I understand WHY you think this is valid... WHY you believe a new covenant is "just fine", and how many hoops you jump through to justify it... just don't act as if I haven't read it (or, for that matter, preached it) for decades. It will save time in replies.

Please provide references as to this. I have provided references for what I have stated-it's the least you can do. However, I think I can give my own answer for this.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Let's just dismiss the fact that the Flying Zombie version of Jesus that wowed hundreds was never recorded in ANY of the Gospels.

Wait... let's NOT.

Let's instead look at the facts. ALL of Paul's letters predate Mark. Paul had NO copies of the Gospels; he did have hearsay, which would explain the typical myth-creating lingo he uses to describe Jesus' resurrection.

Now, have a look at Mark -- the 'original' gospel, by virtually every scholar's account. Do you see mention of anyone seeing Jesus at all after his resurrection?

No, you do not. And you certainly don't see the Flying Zombie Jesus in ANY of the synoptics or John. Hmm...

And NOW we begin the post-facto additions to the legend. Of course, this makes sense to a critical scholar, but to one of 'faith', you'll take the stance of "different people, different perspectives." Unfortunately this on fails utterly, as to have left out the one bit of evidence required for the story, assuming the author of Mark even KNEW that version, would be beyond stupid.

The rest of my proof is rather self-evident: Paul never quotes Jesus. If he had a copy of a gospel lying about, you'd think he would have used it.

Finally, Paul clearly says he "received" what he was sharing (i.e. someone told him the story.)

Paul went to Arabia and then spent three years in Damascus. That was plenty of time for him to have read the words of Jesus.

Are you kidding me?? What, do you believe the first (or any) gospel accounts even EXISTED in that day?

You do realize that Paul went to Arabia 35 years prior to the earliest possible authorship of Mark... do you not?

There are still many diseases which are not understood, not that I am attributing them to demons-just saying that we haven't come as far as you might like to imply that we have in that area either. And many illnesses seem to be linked to stress and the mind in some way. I'm in the medical field, by the way-traditional medicine at that.

Look, if you want to connect mental stress to "demons"... well, you're not, by your own words... but the implication is there. But you're reaching... big time.

As for the "big bang", that wasn't even a part of my original argument.

I said, "Explain Genesis 1:2." No circular reasoning allowed.

Let's start there, THEN we can delve into singularities, multiverse theory, a zero-sum energy universe, etc.

Here it is in the New Testament. Believe in Jesus, and live through him; and you avoid hell-plus your life is more peaceful, fulfilling, and joyful.

Or, in another manner of speaking:

Love and accept me, or I will kill you forever. But I love you... so much I sacrificed myself to myself in order to appease myself... just accept it or die.

But I love you.

It's utterly preposterous, but you're welcome to believe whatever you wish.

Just try not to delve into theology by cherry-picking, deal?

** P.S. Addition: I just caught your comment re: the Big Bang and how "it sure looks like creation to you." Really now?

"In the beginning God created the heavens (not SPACE, mind you, but the SKY) and the Earth." No sun, no explosion, no nothing.

Second, I question your knowledge of physics if you believe "there was a lot of nothing." First, nothing IS SOMETHING (Read Krauss on that; great stuff.) Second, the BB was a singularity, not 'nothing'.

But feel free to posit your thoughts on this.

ROY WILSON: I stand corrected. It's hard to remember everything in a 1K+ page document.

Selective faith in only the parts that you like does not remove the rest of it, obviously this collage does not follow their (the students) interpretation of the scripture, IMO attending it is hypocrisy, why would they attend a school that teaches against what they believe.

So Jim, I take it you don't eat shellfish? You don't eat meat on Fridays? You beat your slaves? You don't wear cotton and polyester at the same time? Never been divorced? Never eat pork? No tattoos? Need I go on or do you follow everything the bible says like you state?

Why doesn't your god smote the intolerant and the sinner? He must be too busy watching priests molest little boys I guess.

First, There aren't many translations of the bible. Different versions of the bible come from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

If by 'many', you mean the Vulgate, the various versions of the Septuagint, etc., you are somewhat correct. If you want to toss in the 500 or so post-KJV versions, you are grossly incorrect.

Jon, I'm surprised at you! An ex-pastor indulging in deliberate misinformation? First of all, the Vulgate is Latin, as you know very well. Second of all, there ARE numerous ancient Greek papyrii and codexes (perhaps you are splitting hairs?) of the New Testament other than the Septuagint and post-KJV versions.

But of course Ehrman knows (p 87) that the vast number of textual variants we have is a blessing not a curse, because his books for a scholarly audience spend every page using those variants to reconstruct the original text. In comparison, we can do no such thing with the works of Plato: our earliest manuscript comes 1200 years after Plato lived! We have no hope of reconstructing Plato's original text, but when it comes to the New Testament we have thousands of copies, and dozens of manuscripts from within just two centuries of the originals.
Compare the pessimism of Misquoting Jesus with the optimism expressed in Ehrman and Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, page 126:
Besides textual evidence derived from New Testament Greek manuscripts and from early versions, the textual critic compares numerous scriptural quotations used in commentaries, sermons, and other treatises written by early church fathers. Indeed, so extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament...

The fact is, there are a lot of variants in our manuscripts – but that's because we have so many manuscripts, each of which helps us reconstruct the original text. If only we had so many early, variant manuscripts for Plato...

If one wants to undermine the reliability of the New Testament, one better not do it through textual criticism. The New Testament contains by far the best-attested and most reliably reconstructed5 texts of the ancient world.6
It is much easier to undermine the reliability of the New Testament using its own numerous contradictions and inherent implausibility. Everyone outright rejects the many other claims of god-men who come to earth, perform some magic, die, and rise from the dead. Why treat Jesus any different?

from commonsenseatheism.org emphasis mine

Please note that the source of my quote is an atheist, not a Christian; however, at least he is honest enough to admit that the volume of texts of the New Testament and the fact that many of them are so ancient give much more validity to that document than to many other ancient documents.

Well, as an evolutionary scientist, I'd LOVE to hear what harm you are referring to.

I won't even bother you with the facts behind evolution, or the fact that you're inoculated with a different flu shot every year for a damn good reason... or that we have multiple endogenous retroviruses in common with the great apes... you know, all that "science stuff" may just bore you, and Buddha forbid I do that. We don't want to confuse you with the facts, as your mind is made up already.

I don't know about any "harm" done to the Bible, as I don't think the Bible was meant to be a science book anyway; however, I would say to you, Jon, that you know as well as I do that you are referring to evolution within a genus, which very few people dispute. You also know as well as I do that evolution from one class to another has not been proven, and you can save your intellectual bullying for someone else if you intend to try that on me.

And-are you going to try to convince me that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were responsible for the deaths of millions in one century alone because of religion? And don't try to tell me Stalin was a catholic!

seen too much

Here it is in the New Testament. Believe in Jesus, and live through him; and you avoid hell-plus your life is more peaceful, fulfilling, and joyful.

And here is perhaps the largest flaw in Christian logic... the part where it all unravels.

Believe in Jesus, and live through him

There is a problem with this logic, but first we must start with God himself. Do you believe that God is good? Do you believe that God put all his "children" (us) here? Do you believe that God wants all his children to return to him? Do you believe that God is all-knowing?

I am guessing your answer to these questions is a resounding "yes"... otherwise we have studied a different God.

Now, if salvation and avoiding hell is granted to those that "believe in Jesus and live through him"... then what of the millions upon millions of people that an "all-knowing" God put on this earth, in a time period and location where he knew the word of Jesus would never spread?

The native Americans, before Christianity spread across the ocean? An "all knowing" God would know that the word of Jesus had not crossed the ocean... yet he still put people there, knowing they would never hear of Jesus and thus not be able to "believe" in him. According to YOUR Christian logic, he knowingly damned all those children to hell.

What of those is war-torn countries, children born in horrific areas where Christians are not allowed. God puts them there, knowing that Christians will never reach them with the word of Jesus. Many die never even hearing the name. God is all knowing, he knew they would never hear about him. So now, not only has he knowingly damned them to hell, but he also put them on the earth in a horrific, war-torn location where they know only pain. Is that a "good God"?

So this logical conclusion begs the questions: (1) Can a God be considered "good" and loving when he knowingly places his children in a time and place where they will never hear his name and thus be damned to eternal hell? And (2) is it faith or luck that earns you eternal salvation? Is it "faith" that you were born in America, in a time where Christianity is the leading religion, and you are almost guaranteed to hear of Jesus? Or is it luck that you were not born to a native tribe, in a time and area that Christianity had not spread?

You were lucky, and were born in the time and place where you now exist. What of the unlucky men, women and children in African tribes, who will die before hearing of Jesus? The unlucky native Americans, before Christianity spread across the ocean.

Now Catholics have created a loop-hole for this question. Not based on the Bible, but some guy in a funny hat decided to declare that those who have never, and will never hear of Jesus, get a free pass into heaven.

Unfortunately, this creates a whole new problem. If Catholics truly believe that those who will never hear of Jesus automatically get into heaven, and their goal is to save as many souls as possible... then there is only one logical conclusion. Completely remove all references to Jesus and Christianity from the world. This would place everyone into the "never hear of Jesus" bucket, and thus save every soul. Of course, that only works if you believe the Catholics.

So, as you can see, your entire religious structure of "belief in Jesus, and follow his life, to get into heaven" contradicts the notion of a good, loving, all-knowing God. It unravels your entire faith premise, unless you believe that God is NOT good, loving and all-knowing... which is also a center-piece of Christianity.

seen too much

Jon, I'm surprised at you! An ex-pastor indulging in deliberate misinformation?

I'm equally shocked! An MD who cannot read?

First of all, the Vulgate is Latin, as you know very well.

Ah, so that means it's NOT a translation... ??? Would you care to explain that?

Second of all, there ARE numerous ancient Greek papyrii and codexes (perhaps you are splitting hairs?) of the New Testament other than the Septuagint and post-KJV versions.

Oh, you bet... but that was not the subject of conversation. The subject of conversation was translations of the bible. Of course there are dozens, if not hundred of fragments, but these are NOT translations of entire swaths of texts; they are bits and fragments by and large.

And I'm am still waiting for your response to my first reply.

Please note that the source of my quote is an atheist, not a Christian; however, at least he is honest enough to admit that the volume of texts of the New Testament and the fact that many of them are so ancient give much more validity to that document than to many other ancient documents.

What this man is saying is partially true, but you're missing the bigger piece of the puzzle: we have zero autographs. None. Nada.

While the manuscripts may have been copied with a fair degree of reliability, we have NO IDEA as to the originals because there are no originals. Decades, even hundreds of years of verbal... nothing written.

I don't know about any "harm" done to the Bible, as I don't think the Bible was meant to be a science book anyway; however, I would say to you, Jon, that you know as well as I do that you are referring to evolution within a genus, which very few people dispute. You also know as well as I do that evolution from one class to another has not been proven, and you can save your intellectual bullying for someone else if you intend to try that on me.

Apologies -- my original text here was wrong, as I misread your reply. I'll respond to your evolution quote in another reply.

However, this bit about the Bible "never being intended as a science book" must be addressed.

Are you suggesting that the God of the Universe could not get SIMPLE FACTS correct? Facts that, in his infinite wisdom, he would well know would make non-believers out of anyone who read them?

I did an experiment once and re-wrote Genesis 1 in the original dialect of the time. I was able to do so without breaking any of the known (or accepted) scientific facts/theories of the day.

I did it in 45 minutes.

Tell me that your deity is smarter than this... please, tell me.

And-are you going to try to convince me that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were responsible for the deaths of millions in one century alone because of religion? And don't try to tell me Stalin was a catholic!

All three are examples of the next worst thing to religion: Political figures given the power of a deity. Mao, in particular, was and still IS literally worshiped. Stalin's motives were greed.

And I never said Stalin was a Catholic... please DO try to read more carefully. I said Hitler was a professed Catholic. If you need quotes from Mein Kampf, let me know. OR just look at the German soldier's belt buckles.

Look, if you want to connect mental stress to "demons"... well, you're not, by your own words

I'm not. Don't imply things that clearly aren't true.

said, "Explain Genesis 1:2." No circular reasoning allowed.

The Bible is not a science book and was never meant to be one. Otherwise it wouldn't have verses like

Psalm 19:4
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

4 Their voice[a] goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun,

Finally, Paul clearly says he "received" what he was sharing (i.e. someone told him the story.)

And according to your logic, if someone TOLD him, it couldn't possibly be true? Did you ever learn while you were a pastor that the Jewish people had something called an "oral tradition"? They would not have gotten something this important wrong-something regarding their God. Otherwise it would be blasphemy. Don't forget that all the early Christians were Jewish.

The oral tradition interpreted the written Torah, adapted its precepts to ever-changing political and social circumstances, and supplemented it with new legislation. Thus, the oral tradition added a dynamic dimension to the written code, making it a perpetual process rather than a closed system. The vitality of this tradition is fully demonstrated in the way the ancient laws were adapted after the destruction of the Temple in 70 ce and by the role played by the Talmud in the survival of the Jewish people in exile. By the 11th century, Diaspora Jews lived in a Talmudic culture that united them and that superseded geographical boundaries and language differences. Jewish communities governed themselves according to Talmudic law, and individuals regulated the smallest details of their lives by it.

from britannica.com

"In the beginning God created the heavens (not SPACE, mind you, but the SKY) and the Earth." No sun, no explosion, no nothing.

Second, I question your knowledge of physics if you believe "there was a lot of nothing." First, nothing IS SOMETHING (Read Krauss on that; great stuff.) Second, the BB was a singularity, not 'nothing'.

But feel free to posit your thoughts on this.

Again, since when are scientists united on what happened? Some say there was a Big Bang, some speak of bubble universes, some attempt to describe what existed BEFORE the Big Bang. The fact is that no one knows, not even you.

Oh where to begin? I know, fear of death. that's where religion starts. 'I can tell you what happens when you die but you have to do what I say' The next thing you know, the knowers are all dressed up with fancy robes, cute red pumps and a fancy hat and every thing that you do becomes a sin and if you do not pony up and atone properly, then when you die, you go straight to hell.

Really? Death is mankind's last great suprise and NO ONE KNOWS what that surprise will be. And hedging your bets is no defence.

No one knows what happens when you die. Anyone who KNOWS is basing this knowledge on idle speculation.

Get over it. It's what humans do!

If you allow others to define what sin is for you, you are a greater fool that they are.

seen too much

Here is the reply to your question re: evolution between 'classes' (assume you mean speciation?)...

First, this is a great article that will save me hours of re-quoting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

What I'd like you to do, as a fellow scientist, is consider how theories work.

This is the only theory I can personally think of where even intelligent people demand physical evidence that would, in essence, betray the theory itself.

Nonetheless, apart from the myriad of fossil evidence, and everything else on the /comdesc website, I'll toss this into the equation:

Do you believe in gravity?

Germs?

Why?

We have no physical evidence of either — rather, no tangible evidence that we can point to. Yet, modern physics and medicine are constructed around both. Why? Because of the same principles by which we know evolution to be true: nothing else fits nor works as well in practicality.

You do not need to see a murder to deduct there was one IF the evidence is plentiful. And, this is the case with evolution.

For example, please give me another hypothesis for the existence of multiple ERVs in the same exact spots in the genomes of humans and apes.

Let's start there, shall we, as that is one of the strongest bits of evidence ever presented for speciation as fact.

Jon, now you are the one who can't read. I said very few people deny evolution WITHIN a genus. Sheesh! And I'm not a doctor, I'm a PT. So you can smirk or feel superior or whatever scientists like you do regarding that. I still went to one of the top schools in the country-both in my field and for MD, as we were considered part of the medical school-and I know how to do research.

seen to much

So, the Bible was never intended to be a science book.

It's okay for you to accept the raising of the dead, mind you, but reject the tent theory of cosmology? You do realize that there is a clear and obvious difference within the wording of scripture to denote the comparative/analogous from the literal, correct?

Well, Genesis was not written in hyperbolic tense.

And, if you claim that, I'll suggest that you tell me which parts are literal, and why. Perhaps God didn't literally create man. Perhaps Adam wasn't the first man, and all of Jesus' genealogies are completely in error?

Where do you want to being on this slippery slope?

I've already laid down the argument that your deity could have easily gotten the facts straight without deviation from the language of the day... but he didn't bother, did he?

So, you cannot address Genesis 1:2 except to say, "metaphor"? Or "fictional narrative of actual events" perhaps?

And according to your logic, if someone TOLD him, it couldn't possibly be true?

Please feel free to point out where I said that.

Stick to the facts of the discussion.

I said Paul never had access to any of Jesus' written words. Period.

He also grossly exaggerated the resurrection myth. Do you care to deal with that bit of trivia?

What I AM saying is that hearsay is not allowed in court for very good reason—it's the most unreliable form of evidence.

COULD it be true? Sure. So could a trillion other beliefs for that matter.

Did you ever learn while you were a pastor that the Jewish people had something called an "oral tradition"? They would not have gotten something this important wrong-something regarding their God. Otherwise it would be blasphemy. Don't forget that all the early Christians were Jewish.

The next time you decide to speak to me with such condescension, I'll return the favor in spades.

But to answer your rather pathetic question, "Yes, as a pastor I was taught all about oral tradition."

For f*cks sake.

Were you taught how to use a stethoscope?

We were also taught about the construct of Person 1. Person 1 begins the tale. Person 1 MUST be relied upon to understand every word, every fact, every detail. Even if every person in a line of a thousand got every word correct, which despite being "punished" is a massive leap of faith, if Person 1 was WRONG, it is irrelevant.

And, by all indications, multiple "persons 1" were wrong.

All gospels contradict each other concerning BOTH the birth narrative and the crucifixion narrative of Jesus. The two gospels with genealogies both contradict each other.

Yet, you want me to believe that Person 1 had it perfectly correct, and because they were Jewish, they managed to never screw it up?

That's something only religion can make an otherwise intelligent person buy into.

Again, since when are scientists united on what happened? Some say there was a Big Bang, some speak of bubble universes, some attempt to describe what existed BEFORE the Big Bang. The fact is that no one knows, not even you.

Wow... just wow.

The BB is by far the most accepted theory of the expansion of a singularity that formed this universe. There are a lot of "we don't know"s out there, and no one is claiming otherwise.

I merely refuse to use "magic fairy dust" as a plausible explanation... but knock yourself out with it.

But I'll turn that right around:

What happened before God?

Who created God?

How can God be SURE that he himself wasn't created by a higher God, and merely kept in the dark about it?

How can God be SURE his ways are always correct, as he didn't create his own ways?

I could go on and on...

but I'll tell you what: You stick with your superstitions and theological comforts, just as long as you don't drop bombs in the name of your god. I'll stick with my pursuit of evidence.

No harm, no foul.

seen too much

Jon, now you are the one who can't read. I said very few people deny evolution WITHIN a genus. Sheesh! And I'm not a doctor, I'm a PT. So you can smirk or feel superior or whatever scientists like you do regarding that. I still went to one of the top schools in the country-both in my field and for MD, as we were considered part of the medical school-and I know how to do research.

Refresh your screen pal.

I caught that right after I published it... I edited it... and even apologized for it.

You see, we atheists CAN admit when we're mistaken. Give that a shot.

So, you think a PT is in the "medical field"? Don't get me wrong... PTs serve a fantastic need, but you're not in the medical field, nor do PTs require a PhD/MD unless you're DPT, and even then it's nothing compared to med school. The only reason I know this is that my girlfriend went through both, ironically. So, at least according to her, the paths of study are quite different. That's not to say you can't do research, aren't intelligent, etc.

The rest is your own projections -- smirking, superiority, or whatever you wish to spew in this direction. I am not smirking, I do not feel superior (with the exception that I clearly know more about this ONE topic than you), and scientists cannot be lumped into categories like that.

seen too much

I said very few people deny evolution WITHIN a genus.

So, does ape to man count?

Or, how about speciation?

I want to see exactly how f*cked up your understand of evolution IS.

Let's start from the beginning: What part of the tree of life (the REAL one, not the mythological trick-or-treat Yahweh version) do you deny, if any... and why?

@Dave
Which men were the epistles named after again? I know, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippian, and Colossians? The epistles were written to churches in those cities, which I'm sure you would know if you read them -- It normally says so in the first few verses. I think you're confusing the gospel of mark with the epistles. 70 years is not bad considering the first biography of Alexander the great was written 400 years after his death. Long dead, after 70 years? Up until recently, we had people who were alive during the titanic. You're right, you're not a bible scholar, but you can try reading the books before you attack them.

@IndieParty

Oh, I'm a homosexual now? My girlfriend will be so disappointed... LOL. Really? That's the best you've got?

I have no way of knowing she isn't disappointed already; that's probably what she said. I haven't failed to account for history, I am mainly pointing out that the bible translated into English is from original manuscripts. You fail to take into account that Jesus was crucified, and lived, not just in the presence of his disciples, but at least 500 people saw him after His resurrection. Consequently, any of those people could have pointed out any errors.

Contrary to the popular suggestion of "gospel" rivalry during the growth of the early church, no other gospels were even suggested by first-hand authors for inclusion in the canon, or even by followers of such supposed authors. Only two gospels were mentioned in a favorable light during the time prior to the establishment of the canon, though not judged for canonicity.

Like a typical atheist, you tend to ignore the facts in favor of your own confirmation bias. (Keep writing that script) Judas betrayed Jesus and hanged himself. He wasn't even a church father. To imply the bible is misogynous fails to account for the book of Ruth, Esther, or the story of Deborah, all involving females in the lead role. Let's not forget the story of Jael, who stole the victory from Barak....I read the bible too :)

Well, gays can't procreate for one thing, so the government has no pressing need to recognized same sex marriage. The question, as it pertains to this article is what sex has to do with a Christian university...Nothing at all. Per the bible. You can legislate sex, you can't legislate desire, which is why we have sex laws in the first place. Not all sexual desire is beneficial or healthy. Just cause you want to stick it someplace, doesn't mean it needs to be stuck there. You speak about yourself as though sex was a guarantee, and on the assumption your girlfriend won't leave you or will always have sex with you. She better not ever go on a trip, or be on her period, or else you + your hand = entertainment tonight. Don't forget the tissues. Please sex is a luxury which requires time, opportunity, and generally consent and or another person. Sex isn't an absolute necessity, and simply because a majority of folks lack self control, doesn't mean people can't
control their sexual urges.

@Lepere

Death is the instantaneous translation from one life to the next. Many don't fear death, but pain in dying. Religion doesn't deal with the subject of death, as much as what comes after it. It's not that no one knows, as there are many accounts of the afterlife, it's that there are those who refuse to accept any validity of those accounts in favor of their “Burger king” I want it my way version of the afterlife. Humans aren't what defines sin, or Judgement, God is the one who defines it. Humans attest to God's judgement, and your conscious is what bears witness to it.

ItIsWhat!t!s

Well, since you don't have the balls to answer MY posts, I'll answer one of yours to Dave:

@Dave

Which men were the epistles named after again? I know, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippian, and Colossians? The epistles were written to churches in those cities, which I'm sure you would know if you read them -- It normally says so in the first few verses.

Yes, I'm sure Dave meant the Gospels, and yes this is a rather sophomoric mistake on his part.

I think you're confusing the gospel of mark with the epistles. 70 years is not bad considering the first biography of Alexander the great was written 400 years after his death.

Well, unlike ANY of the books of the bible, we at least have fragments and pieces of text from the time OF Alexander. Also, Alexander never claimed to be god, demanded that you believe in him or die for eternity in hell, etc. etc. So the absolute NEED for validation is simply not there. It's interesting, and I'd wager there are fewer lies than are in the Bible, simply because there was less to prove, but that's about it.

I have NO DOUBT that many of the stories of Alexander are exaggerated, perhaps even false. That's the difference between me and you—I apply my reasoning to 'all' areas, and never relegate one as "sacred."

Be it 70 years or 700 years, the fact of the matter is that for your deity to choose THIS method of data transmission is the height of absurdity. What brilliant timing—multiple messianic figures, coming out of occupation, hardly anyone literate... brilliance I say.

Long dead, after 70 years? Up until recently, we had people who were alive during the titanic. You're right, you're not a bible scholar, but you can try reading the books before you attack them.

Oh, and I can tell, neither are you... but it's fun watching the dog and pony show. Laughter helps take the pain in my knee away.

Like a typical atheist, you tend to ignore the facts in favor of your own confirmation bias. (Keep writing that script) Judas betrayed Jesus and hanged himself. He wasn't even a church father.

Define "typical atheist", as I didn't know there was one.

Conformational bias?? Exactly how much MORE confirming can you get than to pre-draw a conclusion and seek to prove it post facto? That's exactly what you've done with your deity.

Nonetheless... you are correct re: Judas.

To imply the bible is misogynous fails to account for the book of Ruth, Esther, or the story of Deborah, all involving females in the lead role. Let's not forget the story of Jael, who stole the victory from Barak....I read the bible too :)

So, let me get this straight:

You want Ruth, Esther, and Deborah to be your proof that the Bible is not misogynistic?

So, you want to ignore those passages that define wives as property, per the 10th commandment? Or do you want to supply another reading of that passage? How about those instructions about how to sell your daughter (not your son) into slavery? Read Deut. 21:10-13 and justify THAT with anything but misogyny.

There are literally hundreds of examples I can post, yet you can only think of THREE examples that say, "You go get 'em, girl!"

Our own history, much of it based on your insipid little book of myths, is littered with its fingerprints. Women were given the right to vote IN THIS CENTURY, for example. Geez, just look around. "Know a tree by its fruit" ring a bell?

Let's see.. "Women, keep silent in the church..." Nice equality there.

"Adam was made 'to rule over' Eve"... nifty non-misogeny there.

Well, I could keep going, but facts seem to annoy you.

Well, gays can't procreate for one thing, so the government has no pressing need to recognized same sex marriage.

Wow, well, I know about a dozen heterosexual couples who cannot procreate, either. I'll let the government know ASAP as obviously their marriages are not legal.

Also, you may want to have a chat with Jesus (or, as the gay little song says, "A little talk with Jesus") as he seems to be under the impression that polygamy is an okay example to use in a parable. (Matt. 25) So, either Jesus was okay with polygamy, much like his Father Self was, or... well, I'll let the government know about that too. After all, despite what Jefferson and Adams said, this IS a Christian nation.

Sex isn't an absolute necessity, and simply because a majority of folks lack self control, doesn't mean people can't
control their sexual urges.

Ah... sex isn't a necessity... says the man who proclaims a marriage that cannot produce offspring needs no recognition from the government.

Sex may not be 'necessary' from a personhood point of view, but from a species point of view, obviously it is. What you're wanting to do is define what sex means and with whom we can have it. The irony is that you use the Bible -- a book chalk full of examples of polygamy, concubines, sleeping with handmaidens, and marrying off children as your example we should follow.

Or, do you just skip all that nasty stuff and dive right into Paul?

ItIsWhatItIs

You can legislate sex, you can't legislate desire

You go ahead and try that, buddy.

Make a law that says "no sex before marriage" or a "no sex" law for certain people... let me know how that works out for you.

Pro tip: The Catholic Church has been trying to legislate sex for over a thousand years... how is that working out? Oh, that's right... FAILING MISERABLY. Hell, they can't even stop their own priests from f***ing little boys.

But don't let that little FACT dissuade you. I'm sure YOU will have much more success legislating sex than the most powerful religious organization on the planet. When everyone else starts laughing in your face for even attempting to do so, I will be sitting here with a smug smile and a witty insult ready to throw your way.

Make a law that says "no sex before marriage" or a "no sex" law for certain people... let me know how that works out for you.

I made that argument as well.

For some reason, ItIsWhatItAin't doesn't want to come into my sandbox to play.

Could it be that he cannot address the issues presented to him?

Nah... : )

The next time you decide to speak to me with such condescension, I'll return the favor in spades.

You mean you haven't been speaking with condescension already? Wow! I'd hate to see your condescension!

The rest is your own projections -- smirking, superiority, or whatever you wish to spew in this direction. I am not smirking, I do not feel superior (with the exception that I clearly know more about this ONE topic than you), and scientists cannot be lumped into categories like that.

Forgive me for projecting. You are quite correct to stop me in this.

And according to your logic, if someone TOLD him, it couldn't possibly be true?

Please feel free to point out where I said that.

Stick to the facts of the discussion.

Note that my comment was a question.

So, you think a PT is in the "medical field"? Don't get me wrong... PTs serve a fantastic need, but you're not in the medical field, nor do PTs require a PhD/MD unless you're DPT, and even then it's nothing compared to med school.

You might want to tell my university since we were actually part of the MEDICAL SCHOOL. I still get mail and literature from the MEDICAL SCHOOL. Etc. Exactly what field do you think I'm in if it's not the medical field? BTW, I never said a PT degree was comparable to a medical degree-it's quite different, and I don't have a doctorate. Exactly who is condescending here?

Listen, it's been great; but I really don't have time for a discussion like this with someone who is clearly twisting my words, presenting misinformation, and condescending at every turn. Every time I have pointed out your twisting of the facts you have immediately gone on the offensive and have tried to bully me. Care for an example?

You said:

I said very few people deny evolution WITHIN a genus. (quoting me)

So, does ape to man count?

Or, how about speciation?

I want to see exactly how f*cked up your understand of evolution IS.

What part did I mess up, Jon?

Chimpanzee, often shortened to chimp, is the common name for the two extant species in the genus Pan.

from sciencedaily.com

GORILLAS
Scientific Classification

TAXONOMY

• KINGDOM
Animalia
° PHYLUM Chordata
• CLASS Mammalia
° ORDER Primates
• FAMILY Hominidae
° GENUS Gorilla
• SPECIES gorilla & beringei

from seaworld.org

So, obviously apes and humans AREN'T in the same genus! Therefore, ape to human evolution still would not be evolution within a genus. And you know as well as I do that it hasn't been proven-I know about your transitional forms from ape to man, and I know that they are still controversial even within the evolutionary community. If it's been proven, please tell me who got the Nobel Prize for proving it.

spe·ci·a·tion
   [spee-shee-ey-shuhn, -see-ey-] Show IPA

noun Biology .
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

from dictionary.reference.com
Once again, very few people deny evolution WITHIN A GENUS. Evolution from one species to another is still within a genus. Sheesh, Jon. Aren't you listening? I told you to save your intellectual bullying.

Sorry, but as I said, I'm ending this twisted conversation. I have other things to do.

Sorry, some of my blockquotes got mixed up in the above post. Hopefully you can figure it out.

@Jon

Well, since you don't have the balls to answer MY posts, I'll answer one of yours to Dave:

Dave may have made a sophomoric mistake, a majority of your comments are sophomoric period. Really, I'm surprised you're able to take anything in considering how full of yourself you are. Facts don't bother me, your arrogance is annoying. The claims of Alexander the great are not in question, but the time frame of the historical narrative. That's also not taking into account Pliny the younger and josephus, the secular historians who mention Jesus. If Alexander's are considered to be reliable at almost seven times the length of the accounts concerning Jesus Christ, how are Jesus Christ more questionable when there would have been people alive at the time prior to the writing of the gospels to discredit the apostles.

A closer examination of the timeline of the gospel of mark puts it within 30 years of Jesus Death, so arguably the gospels are more reliable than the story of Alexander, yet you question them because possibly exaggerated accounts, almost seven times the length, are more reliable than ones written, within possibly 30 years of Jesus crucifixion. Alexander was not deity, nor even a saint, he was a drunken, intemperate, murdering, overambitious, skitzo who died of an STD, never came back to life, and consequently never completed his conquest, but basically demanded loyalty on the grounds of not sending unregenerate subjects to an eternity in Hell. On what do you substantiate there are any lies in the bible?

Oops, I smell an atheist. If it's a historical figure, perceived to be great, we'll let it slide, but if it's deity...No, that will never do. Caught in limbo between believing yourself too good to go to hell or dismissing the idea as folly, on the grounds science can't substantiate a place of eternal torment, and therefore eternal law doesn't apply to you. So, rather than accept the means of escaping hell, you claim it doesn't exist, on the basis you don't believe in it. Denial of existence doesn't count as reasoning. It doesn't work that way in the real world, and you can't negotiate your sentence with any natural judge after sentence has been passed, but somehow God, as the righteous Judge, will overlook all your misdeeds out of the kindness of His heart.

Typical atheist: a mental plebeian masquerading as an intellectual, fortified with the mental ore of rationalizing defense mechanisms, poor in logic but always begging questions they'll never
find the answers to while stuck in a never ending dialog with themselves regurgitating and consuming the skeward evidence substantiating their own confirmation bias. At least Jesus was smart enough to have his followers start shortly after His resurrection. Alexander's didn't come till waaaaaaaaaaaay after he was dead.

Exactly how much MORE confirming can you get than to pre-draw a conclusion and
seek to prove it post facto?

Proving a pre-drawn theory is the basis of every scientific hypothesis. Confirmation bias, is
reading into it. It amazes me how many atheist read into the bible, but never actually study it out. Consequently, they seem to have trouble getting passed the first five books. Esther, Ruth,
and Jael would have never been recorded in the bible, had it been misogynist, because those are three books where females are the star of the show. More to the point, misrepresenting scriptures, to poison the well, is extremely sophomoric.

You fail to account for the length of captivity, the feelings of the captives, or anything other than your hated of God. Let's see, instead of treating a captive woman as the spoils of war and ravishing her immediately, God made the Israeli soldiers actually marry the women before they could have sex with them. The bible doesn't explicitly say they had to be shaved bald. Given the fact that a considerable amount of time could have elapsed, God also instructed them to shave or trim their hair and nails. In addition to that, she was also given a month to grieve for the loss of parents and put away the garment she was wearing at the time of captivity...Very anti-female.

There are literally hundreds of examples I can post,

Please don't. While a lot of Christian may never have read the bible as thoroughly as you've
misread it, a hundred misinterpretations will only result in you looking that much more ignorant. You might want to consult your optometrist as ten virgins do not equal ten brides. Although they were allowed to attend the banquet, where does the bible say the groom married any of them?

Women were given the right to vote IN THIS CENTURY

To include illegal immigrants? Where is that at as the 19^th amendment doesn't explicitly give women the right to vote. It simply says that no citizen can be denied the right to vote on the bases of sex. Something about "taking a fool to school..."ringing a bell? Yes, women were prohibited from speaking in church, because they had the annoying habit of starting side-bar conversations as the pastor was delivering his sermon. Eve was taken out of Adam, and men are commanded to love their wives as their own body....Real misogyny there.

Wow, well, I know about a dozen heterosexual couples who cannot procreate, either

Yada...Yada...Yada... Infertile couples are allowed to marry because they fit the federal definition of marriage, but how does that help that help adults with fully functional reproductive systems who simply refuse to use them the right way?

Sex may not be 'necessary'from a personhood point of view, but from a species point of view, obviously it is.

With or without contraceptives? Natural childbirth is essential to the perpetuation of the species. That's not even touching on homosexuals who aren't trying to reproduce and can't
reproduce no matter how hard they try.

What you're wanting to do is define what sex means and with whom we can have it.

Begging the question by assuming you can have sex whenever and wherever with whomever immediately as you please. I guess if you can't do that then sex regulations have already been defined.

The irony is that you use the Bible -- a book chalk full of examples of polygamy, concubines,sleeping with handmaidens, and marrying off children as your example we should follow.

Historical narratives aren't indicative of the bible as a whole, although your confimation bias is acting up again, you might want to try the new testament.

@Jon

Get over yourself.

@IndieParty

Wow, Indie, could you be anymore the little brat, wrapped around the legs of the proverbial
bigger brother sticking your tongue out?

Make a law that says "no sex before marriage" or a "no sex" law for certain people... let me know how that works out for you.

Obesity, bad breath, body odor, and headaches are a “no sex” law for a lot of people, but
you can keep on begging the question by assuming that sex occurs regardless of any restriction or that all sexual behavior is unrestrained. If the catholic church is indicative of social sexual
morality, everyone would be seeking out little boys? Don't let that little tidbit dissuade you, I'm sure you're having too much fun with yourself already and I am sure that's what she said.

Since I've ended my conversation with Jon, I'll address this to the group. I never said anything about the universe beginning with magic fairy dust or anything of the sort. In fact, if you will read my posts, you will see that I said much earlier that there was evidence for the Big Bang Theory, which happens to be a fact (the evidence, that is). I have no problem with the search for scientific evidence about any topic-in fact, I welcome it. Why should I fear science? However, science has not definitively proven how the universe began; and any honest scientist will admit that. One can say what a majority of scientists believe, but not that one theory has been proven.

Though there are Christians who have a problem with science, I am not one of them. That is why I don't accept Young Earth Theory-the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old. The science doesn't fit. As far as Genesis is concerned, the word "day" in the creation story is "yowm" in Hebrew, which can mean a literal twenty-four hour period or just "a period of time." I looked it up for myself. Despite what many may believe, I check out everything for myself-I never take the word of others for anything if I can help it.

seen too much: Again, since when are scientists united on what happened? Some say there was a Big Bang, some speak of bubble universes, some attempt to describe what existed BEFORE the Big Bang. The fact is that no one knows, not even you.

Science doesn't claim to know all the answers. Its job is to pose hyotheses and test them, investigate our environment and our universe for answers, and continually ask questions -- including asking questions about things we think we already know. Science is desigend to ask question about our surroundings as well as about the conclusions we've already drawn.

The tired, blathering moronic people who claim to know all the answers, and know everything about everything, are the ignorant, BuyBull-thumping christians!

Jon-2730330

Holy sh17 Jon (pun intended) you're too angry man! You don't have to argue with everyone! Take a break and listen to some classical music and calm down. If you are an ex-pastor then you know that arguing with someone on their faith won't change or prove a thing! Also, if you are an ex-pastor, then you know that most Christians are good people and not the evil that you seem to be trying to make them. (Don't flame me... I've never claimed to be a Christian. I just get tired of people accusing Christians of bigotry while making their own bigoted statements.)

You guys get so bent out of shape when the "creationists" force their philosophies on you (think "creation science" being taught in public schools) but you want to force your philosophies on Christians in the same manner (think forcing acceptance of homosexual philosophies in Christian private schools). If you can't see the hypocrisy in that then there's no need to try to explain it to you.

As for the question of legality... it is a PRIVATE school and SHOULD have the right to limit its membership to those that subscribe to similar philosophy. That is called FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, and surely you don't think that should be impinged by the government! I think you should start fighting to stop the erosion of EVERYONE'S rights, including those with whom you disagree, because the way we're headed, one day EVERYONE'S rights will be lost, and that will include yours.

Perhaps these gay students should go find a Christian college that has similar beliefs to theirs. If they can't find one, then maybe that tells them that the consensus of opinion about those scriptures is different than theirs and they could be wrong. Or maybe they should just say, "Okay, I won't be a member of organized religion, but I still believe in God/Jesus and they can't take THAT away from me!"

As long as they aren't engaging in sex, I don't see how they could be expelled.

As long as they aren't engaging in sex, I don't see how they could be expelled.

That's kind of a hard thing to prove either way isn't it?

Double post deleted.

Just like its hard to prove the hetero students doing it. It is going on, only blind people would refuse to believe it is. Then again most pastors in power are blind, and they teach others to be blind.

The group probably doesn't exist, but if they do their expulsion is 100% their own fault. No one askedthem to apply. No one asked them to enroll. No one asked them to attend. No one saidf they'd change their rules. Is any group on earth more narcissistic than gays?

Boy the powers that be at that college must be seething with the knowledge that they have heathens amongst their ranks. What a brilliant move on the part of the gay group to remain anonymous.

Anyone care to start a pool on how long it takes for this school to start a Salem-like hunt? Of course many "soft-mannered" dudes and "tomboy" chicks will "drown" when the heavy rocks of scrutiny are tied to their ankles and tossed into the "lake of public opinion". Wonder if the prosecutors will say something like "I guess he/she wasn't one of them, but at least he/she went out like a good christian."

Funny how little we've changed in the last 300 years.

TNRebel,

I'm not religious and I couldn't care less what body part people care to insert into any of their orifices. To each their own.

i actually agree with your statement above - whether our agreement comes from the same perspective is open to debate. There are at least two groups I don't understand: gay christians and gay republicans. I certainly wouldn't want to belong to a club that wouldn't have me as a member.

JM - not to detract from your post but I beleive the quote goes "I wouldnt want to belong to a club that would have me as a member"

Jonathan,

I get the Groucho Marx reference. Thanks.

But I actually meant I wouldn't insist on inserting myself into a group that wants nothing to do with me - which is the case with gays and the two groups I mentioned.

I bet there are some hot hetro girls at that college...

*road trip?

As long as they aren't engaging in sex, I don't see how they could be expelled.

That's kind of a hard thing to prove either way isn't it?

Prove? Since when are christians interested in proof or evidence? Their whole world-view is based upon conjecture, BuyBull nonsense, mythology and their unprovable cultism that has Zero Evidence.

And no surprise to blame it on being in California.

Do you non-sequitor this much normally?

All you morons can vote him up all you want but it still remains a non-sequitor statement and shows only the IQ of the poster and his cronies. :)

California has the largest Mormon population outside of Utah. Have you ever been to Orange County? You can't throw a hat box without hitting an evangelical there. California has 32 million people. Only 2% of them live in San Francisco.

Stereotypes - so much easier than actually thinking..... just like religion!

My guess RJ, they are just first group of gays, lesbians, bi's, transgenders at a christian(lol) school to come out.

There will be more and more to come out now. It just takes people of courage to lead others.

The christian(lol) world is about to be rocked.

@Jeff - your using big & complicated words for this audience. Whatever your point you were trying to make was outvoted because no one understood it.

It's a good thing they are not "Colered" and Queer !! There is not much to learn at this place except close mindedness, I think the President should have someone walk him through his Bible so his interpretation can be put back on course........

tempus - queer is "in your face"?

epic face palm. in your face naturally.

The Bible can only be "interpreted" one way regarding homosexuality, fornication and since this is a Christian college, it is not unreasonable for them to expect their students to adhere to Bible principles. These students should know that as they are very familiar with the Bible. This is not a secular institution and every reference to homosexuality in the Bible is negative.

Romans 1:26-27 "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men alos abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and recieved in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "do you not know that the wicked will not inherith the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."(NIV)

People always suggest that the Bible is all about love but isn't discipline love? Didn't your parents, while loving you, provide rules and boundaries for you? Were there consequences when you didn't follow these rules? If we believe that God is the Father of us all, wouldn't a loving parent provide rules and boundaries for his children?

I am a Christian and know that the Bible which is God's word, as well as his instructions on how to live our lives. Homosexuality is clearly defined in numerous places in the Bible as sinful and wrong. If you believe that it is not wrong why would knowingly attend a school where they are against it? Those students who are making the complaints may believe alot of the doctrine taught at Biola, but you cannot pick and choose which parts you will go along with and those that you wont. I have a nephew who is gay, I love him the same way that I did before he told us. I dont agree with his lifestyle, but that is between God and himself. As Christains we are taught not to judge, that is for God. But these people cannot expect others to conform to thier beliefs. They have put themselves in a place where they teach against homosexuality, Im not saying they should leave this school. I do urge them to look at the situation, do they feel they are sinning? If not then they do not believe what the Bible tells in that aspect, and should probably go to a school that isnt Christian based. But it is not for us to decide whether they are Christians or not, again that is between them and our Lord and Savior. If they do think they are sinning then they should seek guidance from a spiritual leader. It is unfair of them though that believe the school's doctrine be changed to suit them. What about all the students who are heterosexual? They chose to go there because of its doctrine. They deserve to be taught and to live what they expected to. "Gay issues" are constantly being shoved in our faces. There is a movement and my belief is that is fueled by Satan himself. He is confusing our youth with these things. No one is forcing these gay students to believe what is in the BIble (although they should) but yet they are trying to force others to thier belief that it is ok. That doesnt seem fair to me.

The Bible can only be "interpreted" one way regarding homosexuality...

Then why do so many of you interpret it incorrectly? And, why do so many of you assume a scripture is anti-gay, and CRUSADE CRUSADE CRUSADE about it -- meanwhile ignoring all the other tenets all around that scripture, simply because adhering to the rest of them would make your own life inconvenient? You all act as if the only thing the BuyBull requires is that you not be gay. For example -- at least three times the jesus-myth prohibits divorce in the NT. Yet you all ignore that regularly.

I am a Christian and know that the Bible which is God's word, as well as his instructions on how to live our lives.

Rubbish. You can't even prove that your god-creature exists. Let alone that the cult book, BuyBull, is "his" word. Grow up.

Homosexuality is clearly defined in numerous places in the Bible as sinful and wrong...

Oh baloney. And, despite the fact that you're WRONG, mainstream christians ignore all sorts of BuyBull tenets that surround the silly, obscure scriptures that they twist into meaning something anti-gay. You all ignore every other goddam rule/tenet in leviticus, saying they are all outdated and not meant for all people, OH -- except the one scripture you think is anti-gay.

Just read all of the NT scriptures that prohibit divorce, that suggest that women shouldn't speak in church -- OH, those aren't meant for all people, those are outdated! WAIT! Except for that scripture THERE, that anti-gay scripture. It is meant to be anti-gay, it applies to all people, and for all time.

Nothing but a goddam LIE and a FRAUD.

How is following what the Bible teaches Un-Christian?

How is following what the Bible teaches Un-Christian?

I do believe the students had the choice of which college to attend. Perhaps they should have chosen a school that agreed with their choice of a lifestyle? Again, isn't it precious that gays want the entire world to bend to their viewpoint?

@TriTam:

Read 1 Samuel 15:3-- the part where God commands the Israelites to commit wholesale genocide against women and children-- and then come back and ask that question again.

Did Jesus say "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they are gay"? Did Jesus say "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they are Muslim"? Did Jesus say "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they are of a Christian denomination that you think is 'not really Christian' "? Did Jesus say "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they are of a country you don't like"?

Did Jesus say "love thy neighbor as thyself, unless...."? Was there an "unless" in that commandment?

No. To all of the above questions, no. The way in which Christians treat homosexuals, and people in other groups they don't like, is a clear violation of "love thy neighbor as thyself". If you try to rationalize how hatred, persecution, bigotry, and other forms of evil disguised as goodness are not a violation of this commandment, then you do not understand what love is.

oh the christian love...it's just so overwhelming.

Everyone - im thinking GOD wont be happy that you cant follow his directions to love one another. I have no sympathy for you, but im already going to hell so I need not have sympathy for anyone...you on the other hand, oh boy...are you trying to screw yourself?

Marla, mockery? isnt that precious...did you learn that at church?

Not condoning sin, is not the same as hating someone. I don't like when people I know smoke, but I still love them. I don't like when people I know cheat on their spouse, but I still love them. I don't like when people I know get divorced, but I still love them. It's the same with people who are gay. I don't like that one part of them, but I don't hate them. You can disapprove of one part of a person's makeup and NOT hate them.

Jessica, I don't go to church-- too much hypocrisy there, too. I love how your view of love is so twisted. You're not showing ME love, for example, are you? I can love my child and not accept their actions. It is the same for gays. I have a family member who is gay. I love him. I don't accept his lifestyle. I don't want it around my children, viewed as the norm. He knows it is not to ever be discussed, and out of love for me, it has never been around my children.

Let's try to keep this issue to the one in the article. These young people joined this college, knowing its views. Now they want to force the college to change. Gee-- not very "loving" to use your word. There are plenty of colleges who endorse homosexuality where they could have gone.

Shandril: You are plucking one thing out of a scripture. You need to read at least the surrounding scriptures to understand why Jehovah, which is God's name, wanted the Amalekites exterminated. After all, he is God, the Supreme One, who made all of us and the earth we inhabit. He has the right to set the rules we all live by, even if a lot of people ignore Him and His rules. He plans to clean house eventually. So, before that happens you need to get to know Him and His Son, Jesus: John 17:3

Not condoning sin, is not the same as hating someone.

No, but people have an almost impossible time telling the difference? Ever heard the saying "God hates queers?" Ever heard of Christian evangelicals beating the crap out of gay people just for being gay (it's been in the news). Ever heard of Christian evangelicals changing secular law to prohibit civil unions between homosexuals (I'm looking at you, North Carolina)?

Christians DO persecute gays even though gays haven't done anything evil to the Christian community. Don't try to pretend like it doesn't happen.