Many suffered from anti-gay violence in 2008

johnny

you are so full of yourself, everytime i read your posts..carly simon sings in my head

Johnny-

1/ The peer review research was conducted using industry accepted standards; 

2/ Not my problem that there is only one definitive study but it defies your claim of 'universality;' and

3/ No one is wanting to lay claim to a self-sustaining homosexual culture; but in a world populated with enough people that resources cannot sustain that population, perhaps the human family would like to re-think its current 'breeding' levels. 

Face it man; you have a real problem with the idea of a well adjusted, tax paying, law abiding gay man or woman and it was reflected in the same old stereotypical, name calling diatribe.  For some reason, you find us a threat.  Find out what that reason is, and your opinions masquerading as "facts" will vanish, along with your fear that cloaks itself as "compassion."

And by the way:  I am a human being first, a man second... beyond that I occupy roles just as you do.

Brad, I think the only way to go with Johnny is Motivational Interviewing. Help him see the what isn't working for him...

Cynthia, I was thinking more along the lines of Operant Conditioning, to wit:  "Touch the nice doggy.... he doesn't bite."  Hehe!

These are the facts.  Between 1969 and 1972, the APA conducted more than 30 studies.  These looked at all facets of adjustment related to behavior, thought processes, perception, sensorium, the ability to hold a job, to handle the stress of a program of training or education, sustainment of a variety of relationships.  There simply was not any correlation between sexual orientation and maladjustment in any area.  Hence, homosexuality was dropped from the list of Diagnostic and Statistical Mental Disorders; in the days before they added "Manual" to the name, which is now the DSM-IV.

Whether or not most involved in the industry are pathological, certainly it is something we joke about frequently.  It may well take someone who has been pushed to the edge of his or her sanity to be able to satisfactorily relate to one who has a thin grasp on his own.

It's estimated that there were 60-million Native Americans in North America in 1492, no small population, whose sustainability over time we will never know because, well, the rest is history.  Dr. Williams' study, though small, is significant in that the entire approach to the matter among some of those cultures was incredibly different than our own.  The Indian attitude was, "The Great Spirit sent it; we need to find a place for it."  And they did; certainly in a much healthier way than our culture.  Our culture reduces it to a single act.... in the bedroom.  The Native way was to see the essence or intrinsic value of a person or thing and make room for it; it was valid because of its very existence. 

Williams' book is interesting in that there was joking and laughter about gay individuals and couples of both genders, but those jokes were of the same substance as which made light of the majority.  In the end, it was much more inclusive and "sustaining" in a way that defies any argument over its survival for centuries to come had not there been the clash with European culture.

Right ON! Operant Conditioning it is...not necessarily strength based, but it does get one's attention. Anyone for ECT?

Are you hiding behind religion as your reason for not liking homosexuals? You so bluntly stated in your post that you are a christian after all??

florida guy, i think responses like yours are part of the problem on here. you cannot expect everyone to agree with homosexuality, you have the right to equality and for people to accept you but you dont have the right to make everyone like you. robert has simply been honest by admitting that he does not like homosexuals but also that he would never attack them and i suspect he accepts you in society but will never like you and for you to challenge him in the way you did is what gets peoples backs up, you know not everyone likes goths, or rednecks, or mixed race couples, or people with disabilities, or gay people etc etc but they dont have to like them, as long as we can get on in society we have the rights to our own opinions and should not be judged on honesty opinions such as roberts.

As long as there are public figures who continue to spout anti-gay rhetoric, we're going to see the level of hate crimes against gays and lesbians keep rising. The gay bashers are going to feel that it's alright to attack gays as long as elected politicians make them feel it's allowed. Once you begin to dehumanize a segment of the population and make it appear that they are really no better than animals, then the attacke will escalate. It was done with the blacks in the 19th century and again in the 1950's, the Jews during the 1930's and 1940's, and now the gays. We're just about the last group left that it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against.

I've never been physically attracted to an animal.  Have you?  And I dont expect anyone's acceptance.  I've gone without it for the most part for half a century.  But I do expect to  have the same rights as you and be free from the threat of violence.  It isn't too much to ask in a society that touts itself as having been founded on Christian Values and which has a Constitution that guarantees we are equal before the law.

It is also about consenting adults. I'm not asking that rider or any one else to like or agree with me. I am asking for the same right afforded to the rest of the US population...such as the right to pursue their choice of religion or not follow a religion.

Rider, just because you call it "deviant behavior" does not make it so. You have the right, under our constitution to live as you want to. I should have that right, too.

Rider-83 do you believe that overweight people should be denied their basic civil rights because their over-eating lifestyle is somehow immoral or perverse?

Maybe it will dawn on some of you that you cannot legislate peoples acts or feelings!!  You can pass all the laws you want but you cannot force people to like what they believe is  perverted or immoral behavior!!!  You can be as politically correct or stupid as much as you want but you cant force others to believe your way!!  Deviant behavior will never be accepted by all people no matter how many laws you pass or how loud you whine!!  What behavior will be try to force on people next, those who have sex with animals???

Did you ever stop to think that your argument can also be applied to those who want to legislate morality by wanting to try and pass laws that re-criminalize homosexuality? If the far-right evangelicals had their way, we'd be an Iranian-style theocracy where it's a criminal offence to be gay, punishable by imprisonment or even death! 

a dangerously heterosexual man

What does this mean? Are you into raping women?

As you are not gay, you will never understand...and you don't need to. BUT you do not have the right to tell others how to be.

Weird - From the Old High German wurd, roughly translated "To have the weirding way."  They were healers and midwives, herbalists and Pagans.  Their knowledge in a general kind of way was the forerunner to medicine and the Scientific Method.  They were persecuted by the church which may have held up the development of Western Civilization by as much as 500 years. 

Heteroman - It has been my life long experience that anyone who has to emphasize a point has a severe doubt about it.  I don't want you to do anything except leave me and my kind alone.   Case closed.

homosexuality is wrong , not because of religion , but because a man wanting to felate another man is just plain F#$%ing wrong, how can a man not like a woman?

Take that same argument and change woman to man and apply it to yourself. How can you not like a man? Or maybe you do, and you're trying to repress those feelings. For me as a gay man, I find heterosexual sex to be as repulsive as you find homosexual sex.

Why would you want to include the last two letters in the acronym GLBT? I think their inclusion hurts the credibility of the organization.

When white slave owners raped their black female slaves, the bi-racial children were accepted into the black community because they had nowhere else to go. The same holds true for the Bisexual and Transgender community. Unless of course you're willing to accept them into your community without trying to change who they are.

Anyone believing that their life style is one that they have chosen for themselves is typically an uneducated, ignorant, overly-zealous, religiously fanatical, close-minded, hateful bigot rotting away in a cesspool of their own self-righteousness.

If one doesn't choose his/her lifestyle for him- / herself, then who does the choosing?  And no, both sides aren't necessary discriminatory of one another.  One side clearly discriminates AGAINST the other; in violation of its oft-stated Christian Values and a Constitution that proclaims that we're all equal before the law.

Read through these blogs and you'll get an idea where hate originates and how much influence it exerts in our society.  But I'll address this one final time and it's time to move on.... I've given far more energy to it than what it deserves or respects. 

From street bashings in Seattle to the baseball bat murder of an Ecuadorean immigrant in New York, episodes of anti-gay violence punctuated a year ending with police investigating the alleged gang rape of a lesbian near San Francisco.

It is entirely possible that I've pulled a Rip Van Winkle and been in a deep sleep the past two decades.  I don't see these crimes perpetrated by gay men and women.  Not that there are no gay criminals.  There are.   In fact, gay men and women are everywhere.  They are your parents, your brothers and sisters, your best friends, your co-workers.

But on the question of violence toward a minority, the road to Auschwicz was paved by average men and women in Germany in the 1930's who said nothing or did nothing or who encouraged their neighbors by not simply standing up and doing the right thing when they had the opportunity to do so.

It begins with name calling and progresses to slurs written on someone's doorstep or the window of their business.  From there it evolves to physical battery and violence until hate, unchallenged, raises its full ugly Evil head and consumes all of society. 

The conditions for this to occur where we never thought it could - right here in America - are ripe.  A sour economy, unemployment, people living hand to mouth, uncertain of the future.  Just cast around for a scapegoat and it's right here among us, "Those damn faggots.... no kids to raise... plenty of money to spend on their parties and drugs... they're  so different..."  The rest is history. 

If forewarned is fore-armed, we've had plenty of warning. Where in the hell is The Church and its moral authority in all this?

My best to you all, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, and lets hope that God, indeed, blesses America and keeps us from our darkest natures.

Equalnox: That's a silly comparison, but whatever makes you happy.

Brad Melton:

Your comparisons have a more logical thought process behind them but I am still not inclined to agree. It's your right to protest against laws and statutes that you feel are unfair. Nobody will stop you from doing so. I do not see us heading toward fascist society where those who disagree are sent away to death camps. That just isn't going to happen. I'm sure there are those out there claiming to be christian who wouldn't mind seeing something like that occur but the majority of us are content with just diagreeing with your choice of lifestyle and protecting the sanctity of marriage (I'm sure that's going to piss some of you off, sorry bout that, just a personal opinion). Violence against homosexuals cannot be tolerated. Those perpetrators contributing to that violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, I hope you're not insinuating that homosexuals are the only targets of discriminatory violence. Malicious people look for individuals that are different from them to hurt, regardless of whether or not thos differences are sexuality. Even us dreaded christians have a long history of being persecuted. Real christians would never lay a hand on another human being in a violent manner. They for damn sure wouldn't rape a woman. Anyways, I wish you a very merry christmas.

Equalnox: That's a silly comparison, but whatever makes you happy.

What makes the comparison silly? Please explain.

And once again are you willing to take the bisexual and transgender community under your wing without trying to change who they are so you can feel comfortable?

having to do with the homosexual agenda

Can someone please tell me where I can find a copy of the this Homosexual Agenda? My local library doesn't have it, and non of my gay friends have a copy either. Perhaps I should check my local Mega-Bible-Hate-The-Gay Church! They all seem to have copies lying around all over the place!

can't help ya there, sorry

The link didn't show up in my post.  I'm trying again - go to and contribute.  Thanks.

I wasn't sure what part of their website you were wanting to link to, but here is a link to their home page:

http://cvsolutions.org/

You need to be a member for awhile, with a number of posts before you can add links. Helps stop spamming.

She was not "stomped flat.' Her cross was knocked out of her hands. That was ALL that happened.  Not our best moment, but somehow that episode does not even CLOSE to the same as what happened to this poor woman.

We are not asking for "MORE" rights, just the same rights.

You do share the same rights; life, libery and the pursuit of hapiness. If you want to get married, pursue your happiness right to a state that allows it (as decided by the majority of the people in that state). The power should remain with the states on whether to honor same sex marriages or not.

We don't have the same rights until we have them in all states.

By the way, those states where we do have rights...those rights were given to us by the courts...just like the right for women and African American to vote...and all the other civil rights. It is in the Constitution that the rights of the minority will not be decided by the majority.

That opens up a whole other topic for debate. You say minority and I think our definitions are similar but our application of the word differs greatly. If by minority you mean a small percent of a greater population possessing a discernably different characteristic than the majority then I do agree with your definition. However, my interpretation of the Constitution is that the rights of the minority will not be decided by the majority when that minority group has been made a minority through circumstances beyond their control. (i.e. race, ethnicity, gender, religion) I'm of the opinion that homosexuality is a choice. Of course, there is the argument that religion is also a choice but my rebuttal to that is that I am of the opinion that my God chose me, not the other way around. Holds more water than someone claiming to be born gay (debatable).

You know what would be a fun experiment. Ok so here it is. I'm going to make a choice to start behaving in a specific manner that is not illeagal but still highly shunned by people of our society. I will amass a following of people to follow me in my behavior. We will develop an organization that is dedicated to acquiring rights that will only be given to people who participate in this behavior. If someone disagrees with our behavior publicly we wil proclaim them to be hateful bigots and scum of our society. We will infiltrate Hollywood and spread our message through media outlets by turning our fight into a charity case. We will boycott and protest any company or prominent individual that speaks against us. Not only will we be tolerated, but we will be accepted and loved whether people like it or not damn it. I just have to figure out what the behavior will be. See to me, I feel homosexuality is just a behavior, a choice. I would never condone violence against any person partaking in this behavior but don't expect me to jump on gay band wagon. I just fundamentally disagree with you.

Don't really get your point there Smitty. Go back, think it over, run it by me again, and maybe, just maybe you can sit at the big people table. Just because you think that you came up with a clever little comment doesn't mean you can infuse (copy & paste) it into every conversation on your screen there buddy. Try again

JQ

you answered you very own question regarding minority status

assuming your opinion that homosexuality is a choice (not that this has any bearing in fact but just for argument sake) and given the fact that religion most definitely is a choice so how according to you should religion be on the list of circumstances beyond a persons control... that is just contradictory everyone has the ability and right to choose their own religion period not my opinion plain and simply FACT... because you tack on some ooga booga nonsense about being chosen by your god is an absurdity you are probably hanging on to what ever religion you were indoctrinated with by your parents, nothing to do with any god choosing you but rather a complete luck of the draw fro if you were born to muslim parents you would be muslim or the same for scientology, etc etc definitely nothing but chance and choice so lets not twist facts too much already gave you the homosexual choice

Then you use nonse and attempt to compare homosexual identity with ridiculous illegal behavior, this is not an experiment it is just you trying to make useless attempts at making you feel better about your ridiculous twisted view.

As long as religion remains on your list of minorities then homosexuality must also be on the list thereby making you initial assertion for equal civil rights applicable to homosexuals

Happy Holidays

You know what would be a fun experiment. Ok so here it is. I'm going to make a choice to start behaving in a specific manner that is not illeagal but still highly shunned by people of our society. I will amass a following of people to follow me in my behavior. We will develop an organization that is dedicated to acquiring rights that will only be given to people who participate in this behavior. If someone disagrees with our behavior publicly we wil proclaim them to be hateful bigots and scum of our society. We will infiltrate Hollywood and spread our message through media outlets by turning our fight into a charity case. We will boycott and protest any company or prominent individual that speaks against us. Not only will we be tolerated, but we will be accepted and loved whether people like it or not damn it. I just have to figure out what the behavior will be.

Overweight people fall into this category. It's a behavior shunned by the majority. There are activist groups that call for the acceptance of fat people. They're asking for special rights. People who disagree with their lifestyle are labeled as bigots. They're trying to infiltrate Hollywood with their message of fat acceptance. They've boycotted and protested businesses and prominent people who have spoken out against them. They don't just want to be tolerated, they want to be loved, damn it.

So, now that we have a new target audience to deal with, let's continue with your experiment.

See to me, I feel homosexuality is just a behavior, a choice. I would never condone violence against any person partaking in this behavior but don't expect me to jump on gay band wagon. I just fundamentally disagree with you.

Do you believe that being overweight is a choice?

Do you believe that overweight people should be denied their basic civil rights because their over-eating lifestyle is somehow immoral or perverse? It's been scientifically proven that obesity leads to diabetes, high blood pressure, and a host of other ailments.

Should overweight people be denied the right to marry? Once again it's been proven scientifically that overweight parents produce overweight kids. So for the sake of the children, should overweight people be allowed to reproduce?

If overweight people refuse to lose weight, should we jail them? fine them? beat them up (fat-bash)? Should we execute them like the Muslims executed those teenage boys accussed of homosexuality?

the apologist

interesting walk you took....

let me try and get a bit of clarification... when you say you are a Christian, does that mean you believe in and follow the teaching of Christ? If this is true give me one statement that Christ made regarding homosexuals in his 33 years living as a man on this planet. Please include chapter and verse.

Do you realize just because you believe thing written in the bible does not mean everyone else believes it? Did you also realize the bible has many hundreds of inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions and that doesn't even touch all the "quotes" that are totally ignored by "christians"

So given the fact we live in the USA and given the fact we are all guaranteed freedom of religion which conversely means we all have freedom FROM religion, what gives any of these "christian pastors" the right to spew hate speech from the pulpit that incites violence towards a group of people, just because the pastor is cherry picking and misquoting from the book called the bible? Is there any difference between the pastors who spew this hate, intolerance, bigotry from the pulpit any different from the muslim clerics who incite the suicide bombers?

When I say that I am a Christian, I do indeed say that I follow the teachings of Christ. I quite willingly concede that Christ himself did not encounter a homosexual in the gospels, and thusly cannot site such a verse. But I never claimed he did.

I refer to the book of Deuteronomy and other books of the law. While I do not recall specifically the verse, there is clear condemnation of homosexuality there. As a Christian, I follow the whole Bible, not only the New Testament. What must be understood about the books of the Law is that there are two kinds of rules set down in them: moral codes, and rules used to separate the Jewish people from other cultures. God wanted the Jewish people to be set aside and different from all other people; eventually, He wanted all believers to be a part of this Jewish nation. It is not ethnicity which makes one a part of God's family. Of course, the Jewish people do not believe Christ was their promised Messiah, and that is why the two religions are considered separate.

Returning to the two kinds of rules, it is important to note that the moral codes were to apply to everyone, Jewish or Gentile. The "culture codes", such as the necessity of animal sacrifice, were all broken (because they were not needed) upon Christ's death. Eating pork, too, is included here. In Acts, when God speaks to Peter, He tells Peter "call no thing God has made unclean" (I again need the verse reference). Thus, the OT may be viewed as a history, with those specific and nit-picky laws being unnecessary, invalidated due to Christ. But the moral codes, including those set down in Exodus (the Ten Commandments) always apply. The reason I have explained this at length is to demonstrate why it appears that Christians "pick and choose" from the OT laws; it is not because we are creating our own version, but rather keeping that which is necessary (morality) and not following what God Himself has declared outdated. These things are kept in the OT, however, to demonstrate the history and interaction of God and His people.

I certainly realize that because I believe what is written in the Bible doesn't mean everyone else believes it. Nor do I believe that everyone should be forced to follow it. But quite frankly, universal morality is to be propagated. If half the country started declaring that theft was morally permissable, you would hear just as great an outcry from the Christian community as there is against homosexuality. Whether one realizes it or not, Natural Law binds us all to a code of morality (I haven't the time nor the desire to explain its derivation; for this, read Thomas Hobbes and other such philosophers). When anyone transgresses this universal law, they know they have done wrong. Bascially, when you steal, whether or not you want to, you know it is wrong. Furthermore, anyone who commits a crime such as murder or rape is often regarded as abnormal--why, if there is no universal standard, should this be the case? In fact, why should one tolerate and not judge? If there is indeed no morality which applies to all, then I am quite offended that you would push such a thing on me.

Yes, we have freedom of religion. But freedom from religion is in fact unconstitutional. We are all allowed the "free exercise thereof", and when we publicly display our faith you cannot prohibit it, just as we may not prohibit your contention of the morality of homosexuality. But we may indeed speak against it.

I also have heard of these Biblical "inconsistencies". All of these are things taken out of context; I assure you that every single one is explainable. I concede I have not yet read the entire book, but Biblical scholars--both secular and believers--have shown that no such inconsistencies exist. I fear now that you may accuse me of rationalization; unfortunately, I have no way to defend against that accusation. I myself cannot address each and every single "error" in the Bible; it is up to the individual to research this. And furthermore, I understand that many Christians are hypocrites and focus too greatly on the sins of others while ignoring their own, which Christ indeed warned against in Matthew. But it is ridiculous for anyone, Chrisitian or not, to expect perfection. God Himself does not; He expects only that we do our best, whatever that may be.

Again, I cannot see why we are accused of hatred. Since when has disagreement been construed as hatred? I understand fully that there do exist people who hate homosexuals, and who are racist, etc., but anyone who follows the true Christian faith should not. I do not. But I do disagree. One must note that tolerance, in and of itself, implies disagreement. I do indeed tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. I will never hurt or kill anyone because of their beliefs. But that does not mean I will accept it as valid. I expect the same from you.

Lastly (forgive my lack of brevity), I, a Christian, will defend Muslims. This may be shocking to some. Islam is ultimately a religion of peace. Those extremists who preach murder and terrorism are the furthest thing from being true Muslims, much in the same way that Christians who would beat and rape homosexuals are the furthest thing from true Christianity. The majority of Muslims do not in any way condone the actions of those like Osama Bin Laden. I recently read "Three Cups of Tea", by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin, which tells of Mortenson's humanitarian efforts to build schools for Muslim children, particularly girls. Surprisingly, most Muslims encouraged the education of women; this indeed may shake many faulty assumptions Americans have concerning Muslims. My point here is that there are always extremists who deviate from their true faith or set of beliefs; it is far from fair to use them as the example for the majority, much in the same way it would be unfair to judge all atheists by one who encourages the murder of Christians. Sweeping generalizations are logical fallacies, friend.

I hope that clears some of your questions up; please, I enjoy answering them and gladly will do so if you or anyone has more.

The Apologist

Apologist

I will reply in a few posts since your were very wordy and I don't want to miss anything

this reply will focus on your writing

When I say that I am a Christian, I do indeed say that I follow the teachings of Christ. I quite willingly concede that Christ himself did not encounter a homosexual in the gospels, and thusly cannot site such a verse. But I never claimed he did.

I refer to the book of Deuteronomy and other books of the law. While I do not recall specifically the verse, there is clear condemnation of homosexuality there. As a Christian, I follow the whole Bible, not only the New Testament. What must be understood about the books of the Law is that there are two kinds of rules set down in them: moral codes, and rules used to separate the Jewish people from other cultures. God wanted the Jewish people to be set aside and different from all other people; eventually, He wanted all believers to be a part of this Jewish nation. It is not ethnicity which makes one a part of God's family. Of course, the Jewish people do not believe Christ was their promised Messiah, and that is why the two religions are considered separate.

before I continue let me assure you after reading your post I could never accuse you of rationalizing

My simple logical point regarding Christ and any talk from him regarding homosexuals (using your bible to put forth homosexuality was mentioned in the old testament so obviously was existing while Christ was living as man) If Christ had any issue with homosexuality it would follow there would be some mention in his 33 years on the planet, since again using your philosophy that god is all knowing then something would have been mentioned by Christ about it... but nope nadda not a word also since quite evident from Christ speaking out on things that he considered problematic to mankind he had no issue speaking out against anything that he viewed as wrong... simply from a logic perspective the assumption can easily be made Christ did not have any issue with homosexuals...

So now you must go to the old testament to search and find quotes you want to support your view of homosexuality being imoral  but you cannot find a quote that is not intermixed with other quotes you know the ones you try to explain away... just not acceptable it is the same stuff I hear over and over and makes no sense you or someone decides these 3 quotes are to be taken literally exactly as written and then the next 50 or so quotes need to have some interpretation because they do not fit your view of things... tough either take the entire book literally or none of it literally just doesn't work when the mix and matching occurs

There are hundreds and hundres of inconsistencies, inaccuracie and contradictions in the bible (nothing out of context they are exact quotes discussing the same thing) I have included chapter and verse so you can read each one and see there is zero manipulation just pointing you to but a few of the many inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions. Again I have no issue with you believing anything written in your bible that is your right BUT do not through out quotes out of context and use the bible to somehow give any credit to your view of keeping equal rights from any group of people... you know the same way they used the bible to fight to keep slavery, the same way they used the bible to keep women from equal rights

1. An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
   A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.
2. Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3,4.
   Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.

3. Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
   Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.

4. After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
   After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
   After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.

5. Mary first saw Jesus at the tomb. Jn.20:11-15.
   Mary first saw Jesus on her way home. Mt.28:8-10.

6. The women entered the tomb. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:3.
   The women stayed outside the tomb. Jn.20:11.

7. The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36,37.
   The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.

8. Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
   Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16,17; Jn.20:19-25.

9. The disciples doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead. Mt.28:17.
   The Pharisees and chief priests believed it possible. Mt.27:62-66.

10. Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21,50,51.
    Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
    Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts 1:3,9.

11. At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts 1:15.
    At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.

12. The moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11,12.
    The moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.

13. Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr.24:20.
    Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)

14. The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
    It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20,21.

15. The kingdom was prepared from the beginning. Mt.25:34.
    Jesus said that he was going to go and prepare the kingdom. Jn.14:2,3.

16. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
    All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.

17. The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
    The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50,51.
    The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts 1:9-12.

18. The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41.
    The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
    The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
    The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
    The holy spirit is obtained by asking. Lk.11:13.
    The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8.

Returning to the two kinds of rules, it is important to note that the moral codes were to apply to everyone, Jewish or Gentile. The "culture codes", such as the necessity of animal sacrifice, were all broken (because they were not needed) upon Christ's death. Eating pork, too, is included here. In Acts, when God speaks to Peter, He tells Peter "call no thing God has made unclean" (I again need the verse reference). Thus, the OT may be viewed as a history, with those specific and nit-picky laws being unnecessary, invalidated due to Christ. But the moral codes, including those set down in Exodus (the Ten Commandments) always apply. The reason I have explained this at length is to demonstrate why it appears that Christians "pick and choose" from the OT laws; it is not because we are creating our own version, but rather keeping that which is necessary (morality) and not following what God Himself has declared outdated. These things are kept in the OT, however, to demonstrate the history and interaction of God and His people.

Reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy, there truly are not "two kinds of rules". What is written in those books were the LAW that the Hebrews were to live by. They were not cultural suggestions.

I have read the Bible several times, and at one time even contemplated entering a Convent to devote my life to the study. I don't remember reading anywhere about certain law were only cultural and others were not. They were all considered Laws. If the Christ invalidated one of them in the Old Testament, it happened to all the Laws when His new covenant with the people was established.

apologist round two

you posted

Yes, we have freedom of religion. But freedom from religion is in fact unconstitutional. We are all allowed the "free exercise thereof", and when we publicly display our faith you cannot prohibit it, just as we may not prohibit your contention of the morality of homosexuality. But we may indeed speak against it.

I say you are 100% wrong in thinking I do not have the right of freedom from your religion. I most certainly do we live in the USA not in a theocracy. You are free to have your meetings in your churches, private homes of the willing and to a public forum only with the proper permits just like everyone else it is called equality. You do not have the freedom to come onto public property or private property to perform your services without said permission I would never give such permission so I do have freedom from your religion. There is also a small technicality that gives separation of church and state which limits a religion from involvement in states issues so again I have freedom from your religion.

I also have heard of these Biblical "inconsistencies". All of these are things taken out of context; I assure you that every single one is explainable. I concede I have not yet read the entire book, but Biblical scholars--both secular and believers--have shown that no such inconsistencies exist. I fear now that you may accuse me of rationalization; unfortunately, I have no way to defend against that accusation. I myself cannot address each and every single "error" in the Bible; it is up to the individual to research this. And furthermore, I understand that many Christians are hypocrites and focus too greatly on the sins of others while ignoring their own, which Christ indeed warned against in Matthew. But it is ridiculous for anyone, Chrisitian or not, to expect perfection. God Himself does not; He expects only that we do our best, whatever that may be.

I alluded to this in my last post complete with chapters and verse of the existing in context quotes with chapter and verse. I do this for all those who thump their bible to justify keeping equal civil rights from any group of people Since the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions all work to prove the bible is with flaws so it cannot be used to somehow force one persons belief onto anyone else

I have people from many religions as friends and I make a solid distinction between Christians (those who actually practice the teachings of Christ in their lives's and "christians" who merely hide their hate, bigotry, intolerance and judgement of all others who do not believe as they do. Yes indeed there are hypocrites in every religion , I guess it is more prevalent in the "christians" since there are more of them in this country.

Again, I cannot see why we are accused of hatred. Since when has disagreement been construed as hatred? I understand fully that there do exist people who hate homosexuals, and who are racist, etc., but anyone who follows the true Christian faith should not. I do not. But I do disagree. One must note that tolerance, in and of itself, implies disagreement. I do indeed tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. I will never hurt or kill anyone because of their beliefs. But that does not mean I will accept it as valid. I expect the same from you.

Why do "christians" get accused of being hateful, intolerant and bigoted??? Have you listened to some of the speeches from the pulpit of some prominent "christian" leaders? Falwell, Haggard, Warren, Hagee just to name a small few. For each of these men are guilty of violence against gays by spewing their hateful messages to the masses landing on the minds of the "christian extremist" who then believe their "christian leader" is condoning violence and murder against gays on a lesser scale when any group of people work to remove equal civil rights from any other group of people it is indeed hate, intolerance and bigotry. There are many Christians who did not/are not working to remove/keep equal rights from anyone but the majority of the "christians" are indeed working very hard to keep people from getting equal rights. I know of no one in the gay marriage movement that is looking for any acceptance from any religion that is not the issue. I do not share many views with people but can still tolerate them, I think sharing ideas with those of different views is a good thing and keeps this life from being boring. I have never attempted to keep anyone from becoming or practising any religious belief and do have tolerance for all. I do not accept the teachings of many religions but do tolerate them until they spill out to harm or hurt those who believe differently then we should all be intolerant of that action.

There is a lot here to address, so I ask for your patience as I address each of these responses; I'm not sure if I will have the time required tonight to answer everything, but I will do my best for a timely response.

First, let me address the "errors" you pointed out:

1. "Man" and "angel" are clearly referencing the same entity. Obviously, the angel looks human--what better way to appear to men? Whatever the "true" form of an angel looks like, it seems quite logical to take the shape of a being us humans can recognize. As for the location of sitting, it doesn't state that the act of sitting occured at precisely the same time. In other words, the angel may have sat on the stone, then moved inside. Granted, I can't be sure of the precise sequence of events (when he sat), but it is quite ridiculous to call this an error or inconsistency.

2. This is almost identical to the first; "men" and "angels" are interchangeable, and there is never stated when it was observed that they were sitting and standing.

3. In Luke, it never stated that Peter did not enter the tomb. It just says he bent over and saw the linen. In John, it does say that he entered it and looked at the linen. That is not an inconsistency, just a skipping over of what would be obvious (he obviously needed to enter the tomb to see the linen). The fact that the other disciple was not mentioned in Luke again is not an inconsistency, just the leaving out of what is generally an irrelevant fact.

4. Absolutely none of this was a contradiction. The first two actions of touching were at different times. When Christ said "do not hold onto me" (I'm using NIV here) he essentially means "don't stand here and gawk, go tell the others". An important note about translations: the different usage of words, like 'touch' and 'hold' imply the same thing. What you are doing is not allowing any meaning for the word at all. Touching does explicitly not mean "a gentle, quick contact", but could mean slapping as well. I hate to direct my argument towards you, but clearly you are interpreting it to suit your purposes. Which brings up an interesting counter-argument--am I not doing the same? This, friend, is where faith comes in--I know that if God is the God of the Bible, He would not mislead us, and thus such nit-pickiness is really wishful thinking than fair interpretation.

5. Again, hardly a contradiction. Each of the gospel writers wrote down the story as the knew it. It is distinctly possible that Matthew did not know Jesus appeared to Mary at the tomb, and thus did not write it down. That is precisely why there is more than one account of Jesus life; while each story has much of the same miracles and parables, each one has unique events--not because they contradict, but because of what each author knew about or simply decided to include.

6. Again, you seem to confuse sequence of events. The women did enter the tomb. In John, it merely points out that Mary waited while the rest left. John never claims that Mary did not enter the tomb, only that she waited outside of it instead of leaving with the rest of them.

7. Still not an inconsistency. Have you never felt two emotions simultaneously before? Besides, it mentions that they felt these emotions when they first saw Jesus, not that fear or happiness were the first emotions they felt. It is very clear that when the first saw the being, they were afraid, but when it was revealed to them that it was Jesus, they were joyful.

8. 1 Cor 15:5 says that "he appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve". This is not indicative that Christ appeared to the twelve at the same time. The point of this verse shows that He appeared to Peter before the others. Thomas indeed was not there when the rest first saw Christ, but he did eventually see Christ and thus Christ "appeared to the twelve". If you were relaying a such a story, would you say that Christ first appeared to Peter, than the rest except Thomas, then Thomas, or would you simply say that Christ first appeared to Peter then the rest? This is what Paul is doing here--it is for convenience, because the only point Paul is making is that it was Peter who first saw Jesus.

9. You twist the words here. Indeed some disciples did doubt, but the Pharisees only acted because they thought the disciples would steal the body and claim Christ had resurrected. It never states they believed he actually had; they were only trying to prevent the possibiltiy of such a claim.

10.  Here, you very much have twisted the words. In Luke 23, Christ states to his fellow cross-victim that he will be in paradise with Him. Remember that God shows Himself in three persons. God is still in heaven while Jesus is on earth. Thus, when the prisoner died, he will be with God in heaven. In Luke 24, it is mentioned that it has been three days since the crucifixion, not the resurrection, and mentions absolutely nothing about His ascendence. Acts 1 indeed does say that Christ ascended at that time, but obviously it is not an inconsistency because it does not contradict the other two verses you cited.

11. I am beginning to see a pattern here. I sincerely apologize for bringing my argument to focus on you, but you are severly twisting and manipulating the words and taking them out of context. Neither of these state "at the time of the ascension", not do they state the total number of believers in existence. Acts 1:15 states that Peter stood up among the brethren and spoke--He spoke to a group of believers that numbered about 120; this does not imply that this was all there was, and besides, this was some time after the acension (he traveled a "Sabbath days' walk"). Cor 15:6 states that Jesus appeared in total to about 500 brethren in that period of forty days he was with them after his resurrection; this again does not imply total number of believers in existence at that time.

12. What we have here is another sequence of events issue. In Matthew, it states that it happened after the triumphal entry. In John, it skips over this and simply mentions the temple incident, which also occured when Christ turned water into wine. There are no dates, and certainly no mention that it was near the end of His career when He did this. John also skips over Christ's birth, which Matthew mentions, but you would not construe this as an error, would you? Each Gospel writer told Christ's story mentioning what they though was important. Matthew wanted to show Jesus' lineage show that the Jews would believe He is the Messiah, while John merely jumps to what Jesus is doing--and it never indicates at what point in Jesus' life that was. The fact that it is towards the end of Matthew and at the beginning of John only shows that each writer focused more on one thing rather than everything; Matthew had more to say in between Christ's birth and this moneychanger incident, while John had significantly less to say.

13. This one is a little more interesting. Indeed it does say in 2 Chronicles that he is the son of the priest Jehoida, whilst in Matthew it says he was the son of Barachiah. This is easy to address, however. People throughout the Bible had several names, including God Himself. Jacob was also called Israel, Saul was also called Paul, Simon was also called Peter. While it never metions that there was a name change, one cannot assume that the man only had one name. I'm no expert on ancient names, but it is quite clear that there were several names and titles for people. This is one that a scholar would have to clear up for certain. It is also possible, though I would consider this a stretch myself, that Christ is not refering to the same person as the Chronicler did; two people have the same name is not uncommon. I apologize for a less than certain answer, but even scholars do not understand every reference in the Bible (take the sorcerors of Pharoah in Exodus; I regret to say I can't remember where but elsewhere names are stated which may or may not refer to these two men; scholars simply can't say for sure).

14. Another simple one to address: the two "oppositions" you cite actually refer to very different times. Matthew and Mark refer to the actual time when Christ returns to earth--you'll know when it happens. But Luke points out that Christ taught that we will never know when that moment is going to happen. Altogether, it reads: You will never know when Christ's Second Coming will be, but when it happens, you will certainly know, evidenced by many signs and miracles.

15. Here, you are over-analyzing the use of the word prepare. From the Biblical account of Creation, we know that the Kingdom was prepared already. Christ is merely explaining that He will have to leave the earth for some time before He comes back. I doubt that Christ literally meant "Okay, I've got to go make up your beds and prepare dinner before you are invited". He means that His death (which the disciples do not know is coming, despite His many allusions) will prepare our way into heaven. "No one may get to the Father except through me"

16. Here is a very simple one. All sins are forgivable indeed. All we must do is repent. But if we refuse to accept God as God, if we refuse to believe in Him, we are blaspheming Him. We cannot, therefore, be forgiven if we do not do this. It is illogical to think that we can be forgiven of our sins by Christ if we don't accept Christ. Literally saying "I hate the Holy Spirit" can be forgiven if you repent. But firstly, why would you say that if you actually were a Christian? And if you were not a Christian, you wouldn't be forgiven, because you do not accept Christ. I feel like I'm being redundant here, but the point is that not believing in God will not earn you forgiveness (this is blaspheming the Spirit), while believing in Him will (which is consequently not blaspheming Him).

17. Mark is only mentioning that Christ appeared to the eleven here. It is not implicit that immediately afterwards Christ ascended. Obviously, Christ ascended after He appeared to them, but Mark never states when--Acts does: 40 days after the resurrection. Luke says the ascension happened within the vicinity of Bethany, not in Bethany itself. Acts says that they walked from Mt. Olive after the ascension; cannot Mt. Olive be in the vicinity of Bethany? Careful reading will correct such errors.

18. Very, very simple. The Holy Spirit definitely existed from the beginning. God sent His Spirit to earth to influence the people in it. "Being filled with the Holy Spirit" also means that they were motivated by God--you could say they felt spiritual, motivated by God--this is, after all, why He sent His Spirit to earth. This all happened before Christ's death. Christ's death changed everything; now, the Holy Spirit is sent to live amongst the people in earth, not merely influence them. The difference is that The Spirit was sent every now and then, and then returned. But after Christ's death, The Spirit came to live among us, to guide us. And now indeed He does come into our hearts by asking--that is what is meant by "ask Christ into our heart". Remember that the three are all one God.

I mentioned before that I do not have the time nor the capability to address every single last challenge that you bring before me. I am not a scholar, I am an apologist. I choose to defend the faith; my expertise lies with logical inference and other such argumentation, rather than trying to argue from the Bible itself. After all, you will not believe there is a God because the Bible says so; that is illogical reasoning. So, being human, I cannot sit here and defend every minor thing you point out. But this brings me to an important question: are disputes over such minor details really that significant? Whether or not the women were sitting outside or inside the tomb at one time or another, does that change the message of Christ? Certainly not! All historians debate the accuracy of all of history; all of them dispute such minor details. But that does not prevent them from presenting the story as a whole, even though it lacks all of the precise details we want.

The Apologist

Now I return to address your other contentions.

The fact that Christ did not mention or encounter homosexuality in no way means he condones it. This is an absurd conclusion! Are Christians to assume that anything Christ did not mention was therefore morally permissable? No, not at all. Do you realize how long it would take (and how pointless it would be) for Christ to sit there and actually address every single sin that a human can possibly commit? It simply wasn't practical. That is precisely why we use the Bible, not merely the gospels. Each part has something else to say and teach. Leviticus and Deuterononmy are therefore very applicable.

I also have an immense issue with the Bible must be taken absolutely literally or not at all. Jesus told many parables; these were not meant to be taken as literal accounts of actual events but stories that proved a point. The Psalms, too, are poetic. We must take them literally as poetry; look at Song of Songs--is it reasonable to assume that it must be taken literally, or that it was written as poetry, to show us the value of love? I think that if God created the universe, He must certainly have created poetry along with it. Why not, therefore, use it? Take for example when Jesus claims in Matthew that you must "remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from your brother's"? Are we to take that as a literal account of someone having a log of wood in their eye? Certainly not--it is a reference to sin.

As for picking and choosing, you ought to be careful of whom you accuse--you yourself manipulated many of the verses you claimed were errors. When you pull out a single verse and remove it from its context, you can change it to mean anything you want. There is no place in the Bible which claims homosexuality is moral, either. Look at Romans 1:18-26. This is very much a condemnation of homosexuality, claiming that it is unnatural and perverted. And I assure you, I took nothing out of context; the words are there, plain and clear. Friend, the Bible, in more places than one, condems this lifestyle.

Again with the inconsistencies, I cannot address all of them, but you have failed to bring one so evident, so contradictory that it absolutely invalidates the message of Christ. Sitting inside or outside does not change the meaning, or validity, of the text (besides, I explained that these were at different times, not at the same moment). Scholars whose job it is to address these "errors" have ultimately found that there are absolutely no contradictions once context is added. You must also allow for idioms--everyone may not refer to every single person in the world, but rather a large group of people. You accuse Christians of taking things out of context, but you have empirically proven that you are quite guilty of this.

Maybe I am misinterpreting your words, but as far as the Constitution is concerned freedom from religion is not a right. You are absolutely free to choose not to follow any faith. But freedom from religion implies that no one around you may practice it. No, I am not allowed to post a sign on your property or even public property. But I have heard of many cases where people are offended because someone else is wearing some sign of religious expression. There even was a case in which an atheist was offended at a Church, which was functioning as a voting center, having posted up "Christ is Lord" (or something to that effect) inside the church. Just because you live in America does not mean that you are guarenteed to never see another's religious expression.

I return to the "spewing of hate" accusations. Those public religious leaders are in no way representative of all Christians. I thought I was clear on that. I am honestly convinced that 90% of people who call themselves Christian could care less about living their life for Christ. Indeed it is fair to blame the individual who does such a thing, but sweeping generalizations are unfair. The true message of Christ does not teach hate or bigotry. It is a message of love, but also a message of obedience to God (note that it is not obedience to some other Christian; God is my authority, not my fellow believer, whom I seek help, but not orders from).

Next, I beseech you to point out a single Constitutional right Christians are trying to deny homosexuals of. I am not talking about some wild interpretation, I want verbatim the rights that are denied when we fight against marriage. I know the Constitution, and I know that there is no express right to marriage. Rather, it is left to the states--California decided, and that is not a Constitutional infringement. The state decided that homosexual marriage was not recongnized. What is unconstitutional is the fact that the judges decided to legislate.

I now turn my attention to Lady Saidy.

The books of the Law were indeed laws. Breaking them was punishable by, of course, law. But what is important is their basis. God wanted the Israelites to be notably different in appearance and action from the surrounding cultures. Therefore, He declared that pork shall not be eaten, and the like. But other laws were based on morality. Take murder--it was never condoned. Now here is where it gets important, and also explains the difference between Judaism and Christianity:

God required many things of His people, which lived before Christ came. Obviously, if God is a loving God He would have provided a way for people to achieve salvation before Christ came. Thus was the point of sacrifice; but it had to be done over and over again. When Christ came, acting as that sacrifice, He destroyed the necessity of animal sacrifice for salvation. That is why Christians don't do it--they do not need to. But when Christ arrived, everything else changed. Now, all these practices (like circumcision) were unecessary--all one needs to do is believe in Christ. Anyone could become a believer, Jewish or not. Thus all of these cultural boundaries were broken.

But God never broke morality--the moral code had to be set down. When God commanded them not to eat pork, it was not because pork in and of itself was immoral. It was only immoral to break God's commands--that is why it was punishable by law. It is highly evident that there is a difference between the consumption of pork and murder. The former was immoral because God said not to eat it (to distinguish them from the other cultures); the later was intrinsicly immoral, and holds true today. Now, the punishments for them are thusly broken--since we do not follow the law as set down in the books of the Law, we do not punish as they command. That is why we do not stone homosexuals and the like. But the moral code remains eternal--and we are now directly accountable to God for our judgment. He will punish us as we deserve. Do not take this to mean any governmental authority is immoral; God sets down the government (whether or not it respects Him) and expects it to be obeyed, unless it transgresses God's own commands. Hopefully that clarifies my meaning.

The Apologist

Apologist

I do not have time to reply  now but wanted to say I was very impressed with your knowledge of the bible but there is no difference from me picking and choosing exact quotes to prove my point than there is for anyone to pick and choose quotes to prove their point. I have some knowledge of the bible and do not accept it as my law and do not have issue with those to accept it for them  just an issue with those "cristians" who have a need to force the bible as law onto others who believe differently

You do a twist on the marriage right  as being constitutional... good try and suppose that suits your purpose of keeping rights from a goup of people. There are over 1000 rights and proviledges from the states and federal government automatically bestowed on married couples, we are talking the secular, civil institution of marriage the same secular institution that the government gives churches permission to officiate. no one is attempting to change any views or beliefs of what any religion does in their church.

Will replay later today

Apologist

I agree with you that the bible CAN be a useful tool to help individuals to bolster their faith and help them with their beliefs and spirituality but when it is used by "christians" that pick and choose portions to bolster their hate, intolerance, bigotry and judgement onto others then I have a need to show the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions that make the bible an unfit tool for picking and choosing bits and pieces to harm those who believe differently.

As you say if individuals read the bible as an entire story and practice principals laid out to better themselves I have no issue and actually applaud them for their strive to be the best they can be.

UT then you go on with the following excerpt from your post 44.7

The fact that Christ did not mention or encounter homosexuality in no way means he condones it. This is an absurd conclusion! Are Christians to assume that anything Christ did not mention was therefore morally permissable? No, not at all. Do you realize how long it would take (and how pointless it would be) for Christ to sit there and actually address every single sin that a human can possibly commit? It simply wasn't practical. That is precisely why we use the Bible, not merely the gospels. Each part has something else to say and teach. Leviticus and Deuterononmy are therefore very applicable.

I never said that Christ condoned homosexuality, it is you who says Christ does not condone homosexuality and just as there being zero discussion from Christ in 33 years regarding homosexuality does not mean he condones it , also does not mean he doesn't condone it. Most all sins can fit into a handful of categories although there are many thousands of details as to how a person can commit the sins, So no I in no way alluded to Christ discussing every possible detail on how sins can be committed. I will say outright the fact Christ said nothing regarding homosexuality in 33 years speaks volumes about the importance this issue was to Him. Yet so very many "christians" and their leaders have this as their priority number one... this also speaks volumes for just how "christian" they are.

Then you say how leviticus and deuterononmy are so applicable, YET what's the deal on shell fish? What's the deal on mixed fibers? What's the deal with selling daughters into slavery? this is where the "christians" do most of their picking and choosing, they totally ignore one passage and fully except the next very hypocritical to any biased, thinking person.

I never said I did not take any quotes out of context, and the thumpers who use their quotes to persecute others never said they take their quotes out of context either... just using the very same technique to make my point

You then referred me to romans 1:18-26 as proof that the bible says homosexuality is immoral and perverted, I will say if that is how you choose to interpret that verse for you to live by, fine and dandy, if you are choosing to force your interpretations of that verse onto me or others then I refer you to Romans 2:1-24

I replied to the civil rights that is the issue of gay marriage in my previous post

Regarding my view of my freedom from religion; I am free to go to any government office and not be accosted by any religious matter; I am free to not have religious services performed on publicly owned property; I am free from religions to not; I am free from any religion putting their ideology into my government.

I view your practise of religion to be your freedom as well as long as it is not pushed, forced, thrown into public places. In general I believe what you said regarding people wearing shirts, bumper stickers, displays on their property or church property etc they fall under freedom of expression/speech. I do take issue and side with the Atheist voter regarding any religious postings in the area being used for government voting, I am not even keen to the idea any church property should be used as a voting place. There exist rules for separation of church and state and in many areas of this country those rules are bent to the breaking point and no one should speak out against them unless it be a non-christian religion bending the rules then the wing nuts would be out in full force siding with the ACLU

I make an effort to distinguish between Christian and "christian" so I have never inted to say all when I point a finger of blame. Seams we agree mostly on this issue

My view is faith, beliefs, spirituality and religion are 4 distinct entities and they can be mutually exclusive or intertwined. There are many, many religious folks who have zero spirituality and the reverse is also a truth. In any event when a person uses their faith, beliefs, spirituality (although not sure how they can do this) or religion to hurt any group of people who do not have the same faith, beliefs, spiritually or religion then that MUST be spoken out against and not accepted or tolerated by any decent human.

rbach,

I actually must say that I do agree with your main premise--these are my beliefs, and thus I will always have some sort of bias towards them. I do not wish to debate any further, and I don't think you do either. You have been remarkably reasonable in your argumentation, and I thank you for that--I above all consider myself a man of reason. Ultimately, I do believe that everyone has the right to believe as they wish--my only purpose here was not to convince you that I was correct, but only to correct some of the misconceptions that many have--I tried not to direct my argument solely towards you. I fear that I have gotten very far away from the topic of this article, and I apologize for that; I merely wanted to show that not all Christians are unreasonable and ignorant--unfortunately, many of my brothers and sisters in Christ barely think about what they believe. It is my philosophy that if one is to believe something, one must think deeply about it, reason with it, and never fear to challenge it. And thus I truly thank you for providing your opinions--if I cannot defend my faith with any amount of reason or civility, then I ought not believe it. God bless.

The Apologist

Apologist

Thank you for your reasoned civil debate

I at no time intended to question your faith and I have the utmost respect for true Christians or any other religion. I do take issue with the blind followers of hate regardless of whether they be the muslim extremists or the "christians" extremists, to me they are all terrorists and need to be defended against

I think we agree that everyone has an absolute right to the faith of their choosing , perhaps we differ slightly when it comes to imposing ones belief onto others for that I take a stand and must say no this crosses the line and impinges on society as a whole

I look forward to future discussions with you on other topics

 have put in a friend request to possibly jump into other topics

May The Spirit bless you too

Officially, yes. But how do you enforce that?