Welcome to Fundies Say the Darndest Things

You’re looking at an archive of the most hilarious, bizarre, ignorant, bigoted, and terrifying quotes from fundies all over the internet.

Random quoteTop quotesLatest commentsFAQ

Friends of FSTDT: The Brick TestamentThe Church of the Flying Spaghetti MonsterThe Cult Education InstituteDeath of ExpertiseFeministingThe Friendly AtheistMetabunkRationalWikiReligious ToleranceRight Wing WatchThe Skeptic’s Annotated BibleSnopesThe Southern Poverty Law CenterTalk OriginsThink ProgressThe United States Humane SocietyWe Hunted the MammothWonkette
Show post

Bishop Neophytos Masouras #fundie #homophobia patheos.com

Homosexuality is usually a problem transferred to a foetus, when a pregnant woman has anal sex and enjoys it.

It happens during the parent's intercourse or pregnancy.

It follows an abnormal sexual act between the parents. To be more clear, anal sex.

[Saint Porphyrios] says that when the woman likes that, a desire is born, and then the desire is passed on to the child.

Show post

Brittney Kara #fundie #quack patheos.com

I just decided to just Google aaah… what the Bible says about vaccinations. There’s nothing in the Bible that talks about vaccines. So I just want you guys to think about that. So if God knew in the future that he was gonna create these amazing things that were gonna just change our health and be the best, you know, scientific advancement, it’s just “Oh my Gosh, they’re so great, it’s like wow,” why isn’t there any thing, any inkling, of talk about these things called vaccinations coming into being later to save people? If that was really God’s plan and they’re so amazing, they why isn’t it in there at all? Maybe there’s a chapter where they talk about something like it like injection, like this health injection, right, like why didn’t God talk about that if he knew it was gonna come and save the world?

I really believe that believing in vaccines is a mental disorder.

Show post

Salvator Anthony Luiso, Patheos #fundie patheos.com

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Thank you for this article, which was difficult for you to write. I respectfully disagree with the notion that "the one without a true conception of God cannot genuinely love". I would say that no one, other than God, can love perfectly, and that the better one's conception of God, the better one can love--although not necessarily the better one will love. Although I agree that "God is the One Scripture declares is love", I do not agree that "love is God". That said, I much appreciate your willingness to criticize Rachel Held Evans and her teachings so soon after her death, and to warn about them. Despite the fact that she died only a few days ago, I do not believe it is improper to criticize her and her teachings now. To the contrary: With so much undue respect and praise flooding out for her, the time calls for standing for the truth amid the flood. Whatever her intentions, however good they may have been, Evans was a dangerous, deceitful, and destructive author. However good her personality, character, and skills may have been, they do nothing to mitigate this fact. The fact that her writings were so highly regarded, admired, loved, and influential during her life should have been troubling to anyone who was familiar with them and who regarded and loved the Scriptures as God's word. One should be saddened by her death, and yet still abhor the dangerous falsehoods about God, sin, sexuality, and salvation which she spread. One should be sympathetic toward her family, friends, and followers, and yet deplore the popularity and pernicious influence of those falsehood. One should be sympathetic, too, toward those who are and will be deceived by them. I'm surprised and dismayed by the number of positive assessments of her that have been published in the so-called "Evangelical" section of Patheos since she was put into a medically-induced coma last month--although I know that one need not be an evangelical to have a blog there. I'm not surprised, but dismayed, to see that Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today, ended his apology for the publication of John Stonestreet's tribute by referring to Evans as "this dynamic sister in Christ". These are signs of the confusion and carelessness about sound doctrine among self-identified evangelicals in America.

Sarah Flood: If Evans was deceitful (and that would assume you know her motives and that they were bad; one may be unintentionally mistaken, but deceit is intentional), how exactly could she have "good character"? Do you have evidence of this deceit or are you just assuming she actually thought differently than what she said and lied to people intentionally? I didn't agree with Evans on everything (for different reasons than you), but she never struck me as anything but honest. Honestly mistaken, perhaps, but honest.

Salvatore Anthony Luiso: Among Merriam-Webster's definitions of the word "deceive", this is the first: "to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid". I believe an honestly mistaken person can unintentionally deceive others. Regardless as to whether Evans was honestly mistaken, or dishonest, I believe she deceived others through her writings. I do not need to know her motives to believe this: I can simply know that she promoted falsehoods which misled her readers

Show post

Redboyds, Patheos #fundie #wingnut patheos.com

(=The death of Rachel Held Evans=)

It's very telling that the Friendly Atheist website posted an effusive eulogy for Evans, in particular praising her hostility to "right-wing evangelicals." After reading the article, I asked myself: When I die, do I want to be praised by atheists? Would the apostles have been pleased to know that they were praised by people who openly despise the religion they sacrificed their lives for? Would a "good and faith servant" who had 'fought the good fight" take any pleasure in being lauded by atheists? Had the apostles conformed to the pagan culture, there would have been no martyrs, and Christianity would not even exist today. Had Paul written "Do your best to fit in with unbelievers and make them like you" instead of "Be not conformed to this world," Christianity would not exit.

One thing we know about progressive Christianity: it has never attracted or converted atheists. C. S. Lewis made the astute observation that when an atheist or agnostic converts, he "goes all the way" to traditional, orthodox Christianity, not to the progressive variety. Lewis, an ex-atheist himself, had no use for the Christian left and was pained to see the growing liberalism in the Church of England of his day. As the Friendly Atheist article shows, atheists have a favorable view of the Christian left for the obvious reason that they see such people as Evans as being on their team, not the Christian team. I have never yet heard of any atheist who was converted by the writings of Evans - or of anyone on the Christian left. Her fans are people like herself - people raised in conservative Christianity but no longer comfortable with it, but not quite ready to let go of the Christian label. There are no converts from atheism joining the liberal churches today - just people like Evans, disgruntled ex-evangelicals. They are far outnumbered by people moving in the opposite direction - members of liberal churches who finally had enough of their trendy, post-Christian, world-conforming churches and left to find a traditional, Christ-centered, Bible-believing church home.
"If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:19).

Show post

Ginny Bain Allen #fundie patheos.com

[in reply to an opinion article, "Brett Kavanaugh is an Entitled Narcissist in Opening Statement", about the Senate hearing where he was accused of molesting three women]

Kavanaugh was authentic in his opening speech. He is a human being with feelings -not a zombie - and rightly outraged over the unfathomable way he and his family have been egregiously treated. It’s exceedingly shameful, unconscionable and yes, evil, how he’s been maliciously slandered, and his life has been devastated.

Show post

Rick Wiles #fundie patheos.com

… If you don’t serve Jesus Christ, you’re automatically Satan’s child. If you’re not a Christian, then Satan is your father. Whether you like that or not, that’s just the facts. The only way to get away from him is to renounce the works of the Devil…

Show post

Ray Myers #racist patheos.com

Another openly racist Republican: Ray Myers, a member of the powerful Texas GOP platform committee, says he’s proud to be a white nationalist.

Myers, a prominent Texas Republican and former delegate for Senator Ted Cruz’s presidential run, publicly announced that he was an out and proud white nationalist via social media last week, declaring:

Damn right, I’m a WHITE NATIONALIST and very proud of it.

And while Myers is proud to be a white nationalist, he doesn’t want you to think he is a racist. Myers told the Texas Observer:

I am Anglo and I’m very proud of it, just like black people and brown people are proud of their race. I am a patriot. I am very proud of my country. And white nationalist, all that means is America first. That’s exactly what that means. That’s where the president’s at. That’s where I’m at and that’s where every solid patriotic American is. It doesn’t have anything to do with race or anything else.

Show post

John Beckett #fundie patheos.com

The high strangeness continues. The rational world – if such a thing ever existed except in the minds of a few intellectuals and atheists – is in tatters. Whether our current political and environmental disasters are its cause or its symptom is a matter of debate, but what is not up for debate – except by those who refuse to see what’s plainly there – is that we are experiencing Otherworldly phenomena at a rate and intensity not seen in generations and possibly in millennia.

I’ve experienced some of this myself. And because I write publicly about this and related issues in a respectful manner, I get comments and questions from others who’ve experienced it too, or who want to experience it for themselves.

Lately I’m getting questions about the fae.

The fae, the sidhe, the fair folk, the gentry, the good neighbors, the Aos Sí – there are many names for them. Some say they’re nature spirits, some say they’re lesser Gods, some say they’re the people who occupied these lands (especially the lands of Northwestern Europe) before our ancestors arrived. I see them as a wide range of spiritual beings who mostly keep to themselves but occasionally wander into the ordinary world for one reason or another.

The Fair Folk are not my area of expertise. If you have any interest in them at all I strongly, strongly encourage you to do some deeper reading.

Start with The Fairy-Faith in Celtic Countries by Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz. It’s a survey of encounters with a variety of fae in the Celtic lands. It was first published in 1911 – most of the stories in it are from the 19th century. It’s a book that likely could not be written today, in part because most of the believers in the Otherfolk have died off, and in part because no serious academic today could dare write a book so sympathetic to the supernatural without killing their career.

A quote:

The great majority of men in cities are apt to pride themselves on their own exemption from ‘superstition’ and to smile pityingly at the poor countrymen and countrywomen who believe in fairies. But when they do so they forget that, with all their own admirable progress in material invention, with all the far-reaching data of their acquired science, with all the vast extent of their commercial and economic conquests, they themselves have ceased to be natural.

After that, get Morgan Daimler’s book Fairycraft: Following The Path Of Fairy Witchcraft, particularly if you think you want to “work with the faeries.” I did a brief review of it last September and I highly recommend it.

This is not a “what are the fae?” post, but I will say this: everything Disney taught you about faeries is wrong, and dangerous. They are not small, cute, and harmless. They range in size from tiny to giants, and while some are creatures of amazing beauty, others are the stuff of nightmares. As with humans, outward appearance is no guide to inner qualities. Some see us as occasionally useful simpletons, some as entertaining playthings, and some as lunch.

Almost all the legends and tales say they either cannot lie or will not lie, but they can and will twist the truth so grotesquely you’ll think up is down. If you deal with them, pay careful attention and be scrupulous with your word. Do not promise what you cannot, will not, or do not want to do.

I say the Fair Folk are re-emerging in the ordinary world (do not call it “our world” for it was once theirs, and they have not forgotten this), but they never really went away, not entirely. Perhaps they came into this world less often, but mainly we stopped noticing them, and we ridiculed those who did.

Now we’re seeing them, hearing them, and feeling the impact of their presence on an increasingly frequent basis. Maybe it’s because the Veil Between the Worlds isn’t what it once was. Maybe it’s because there are too many open portals. Maybe the Good Neighbors themselves are opening them. I don’t know why, I just know this is what we’re experiencing.

We’d best pay attention.

Given what our ancestors thought of the fae, why should we deal with them at all? Why not just ignore them when we can and placate them with whiskey and cream when we can’t?

Because there is much we can learn from them. Now, do not think for a minute they are here to be our teachers. If they are in this world, they are here for their own reasons, not to “help us learn and grow in love and light” or anything naïve and self-centered like that. That’s one of the things we can learn from them – to remember that life isn’t all about us and to respect the sovereignty of all beings. We can learn to be true to our word, and we can learn to be so precise in our language that our magic improves because we’re always working for exactly what we want.

We should interact with the Fair Folk because we have common interests. Again, do not think for a minute they are “on our side.” They are on no one’s side but their own – forget that at your peril. While certain fae would be quite happy if we drove ourselves to extinction, we share this world with them, or at least parts of it. And if the Earth becomes inhospitable for us, it is likely to become inhospitable for them as well. We have a common interest in caring for the Earth, or at least not screwing it up even worse than we already have.

Mainly, though, we should deal honestly with the Good Neighbors because they are our neighbors. If we treat them like good neighbors, then good neighbors they will be. If we treat them condescendingly, dismissively, or aggressively, then they will be our enemies and they will make our lives far more difficult and unpleasant than they need to be.

The virtues of hospitality and reciprocity apply to all our neighbors.

I cannot tell you how to see the fae or how to contact them and I would not if I could. Too many people have too many silly Disneyfied misconceptions about who they are and what they want and I will not be responsible for you getting yourself locked in a fairy ring to dance until you die.

But our world is changing rapidly and not for the better. We need the help of all our allies, which means we need to be allies worthy of help. The Fair Folk are re-emerging in the ordinary world. Take the time to learn a thing or two about them so they will be more likely to see you as an honorable person who they can deal with honorably.

Show post

CruisingTroll #fundie patheos.com

So, the notion that there can't be any link between race and intelligence is about as anti-scientific as one can get. But hey, once they were willing to throw up that wall, then moving to the current gender madness was almost inevitable.

btw, I think one reason why the science community was so quick and willing to go along to with the "disfavoring" of research on race and intelligence isn't even a case of anti-intellectualism OR knuckling under to the attacks of "anti-racists." No, I think it was fundamentally more personal than that. For scientists and most within the "science community", intelligence is a core component of personal worth. It is an oft noted flaw among scientists, being jerks to the "less intelligent" simply because they're less intelligent. They, understandably, didn't want to consciously be party to something that would potentially cast vast swaths of humanity as "inferior." For most secular, hard core materialist scientists, it was even more difficult, because engaging the question of "human value" is mighty difficult when there is no soul of infinite worth. Best to avoid the matter entirely, which also means enforcing the avoidance upon others. The distinction between generalizations of race based on statistical aggregations versus the discrete characteristics of a single individual is cold comfort to those who with any awareness of history.

After all, the eugenics movement was "based in science."

This is why almost invariably the first and most frequent line of attack that the anti-intellectuals on the Left take against science that raises uncomfortable questions about humans and human nature is "you're attempting to dehumanize them, to denigrate them, etc". They take that line because that's what the possible conclusions say to THEM. Less intelligent = less of a person. Mentally ill (transgender) = less of a person. They KNOW this is the "logic" of their worldview, because they'll ardently articulate it when it comes to aborting a child with Down's Syndrome or some other birth defect. Combine that with their having gone all in on collectivism, and they recoil at the implications of research that would indicate any of their "favored" groups is flawed. This is why you'll see plenty of research, both real science and more commonly pseudo-science, into the collective flaws of men (toxic masculinity, anyone?) or "whites" or Christians, but rarely other groups.

For society, the continued rejection of reality is going to come at a high cost. For Christians, the foundation of scientific inquiry should be the fact that God created it all, and that each human soul is of infinite value.

Show post

Christopher Hubbard #fundie patheos.com

(Context:This is from a lengthy conversation that has since been deleted because of how bad it got. Highlighted talking points are brought up by this fundie in an attempt to avoid TLDR)

No! We shouldn't be encouraging others to follow sin, we are supposed to help them and educate them...properly...

(*show pictures of raunchy gay stereotypes, namely from pride parades*)

This is unhealthy.

(*Shows picture of a happy strait couple*)

This is healthy.

(*Shows pic of another raunchy gay stereotype*)

Unhealthy.

(*Another pic of a strait couple*)

Healthy.

(*Extremely raunchy gay picture from a pride festival*)

Unhealthy.

(*Shows a pic of an outgoing*)

Healthy...and happy.

(*Another commenter shows a pic of gay parents raising children, saying they are also happy and healthy*)

Where's mommy ? (*Another pic of that same variety*) Where's daddy ? You are proving my point for me.

(*Gets asked hypothetically if it would be better for a lesbian to raise a child with her rapist or a man that abuses her and the children, than female lover*)

The studies at Focus on the Family show that children are better in stable homes...raised by biological parents.

(*Gets a link of studies that show gay families are just as good as strait families*)

All this is nonsense that has been completely debunked by experts

(*links several Focus on the Family pages, and other such studies*)

Men cannot mother...race doesn't matter. Gender does.

(*Gets asked a question that implies of he would try to abduct a child raised by gay parents if they moved near him*)

Uh huh.

(*Gets asked what motivates them and is informed one of the people he's talking to is gay*)

Peace and serenity my friend *smile emoji* peace and serenity...if you are struggling with this, I suggest you work under the care of Dr. Nicolossi.

(*Is informed of what he's endorsing*)

No, it doesn't torture people. On the contrary it fixes them. Getting over our orientation is just a part of growing up.

(*Gets asked if he'd rather children of be orphaned if it meant that gay couples couldn't raise them*)

No there's also adoption, and grandparents. Bless grandparents.

(*Is told that the children of gay parents are just fine and don't care who raises them/aren't agonizing over separation of a surrogate parents/the surrogate isn't agonizing over letting their child be raised, etc*)

Like hell they don't care! I can't help but imagine them crying themselves to sleep over night over separation from their parent or child, it's absolutely heartbreaking!...I want you to do something; go to YOUR parents and ask them if they could do the same job raising you with a partner of the same sex. I'm sure you would offended them or break their hearts! You are such a delusional mess I can't believe it! #TheEnd

Show post

Dan Carollo #fundie patheos.com

Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon practiced polygamy because that was part of the ancient, near-east culture they came out of. God chose a people, with their in-grained culture -- warts and all -- but that doesn't mean God actually endorsed it. In fact, every place this polygamy occurs, there are always consequential problems with it.

Show post

Chris Schene #fundie patheos.com

Chris Schene: Progressive churches, such as the Episcopal and Methodist, are nothing more than friends of common culture and all its perversions,
They are enemies of Jesus Christ and of His church.
Progressive "Christian" churches are more dangerous than Satanism to people: Satanism is obviously not Christian but the progressive and emerging churches present their Pagan idolatry as Christianity and the unchurched would not know any better.
Hey, many of these Churches are great social clubs and places where fellow Pagans get together, enjoy each others' company, enjoy good food and make great friends. Most members are just not followers of Jesus.

Theodore A. Jones: Since there are only a few that find the gate to become a Christian, according to Jesus, actually encountering a Christian is slim.

Chris Schene: I my local company office of 175 or so people, only 5 self-identify as Christian----roughly 3%. They have "gay pride" celebrations from time to time, which I excuse myself from. I was somewhat encouraged that only a few people attended and the attendance was so bad, they had to reschedule it 3 times.
In the churches I have attended, they would defrock a pastor or leader for so much as attending a gay pride celebration or wedding.
If a propagandist lie, such as "gays are born that way", over a period of time those with no moral framework will start to repeat it and believe it In the same way they say they are born that way, a very lustful man could offer that same reason for "sleeping around" with many women.
It's nonsense: The behavior is a choice and inappropriate for a Christian: repent, ask for forgiveness and stop.
And so I know what the classical response will be "What about greed, divorce, etc". Sins of the spirit (Greed, lust, pride, covetousness, ...) are really hard to identify and know for a certainty and often even unknown by the person guilty of them. Sins of behavior are the only things that were even punished in the OT or disciplined in the NT because they are obvious: you know if you are committing adultery or having sex with member of the opposite sex you are not married to. In most cases we know if a divorce is unscriptural, and some churches will expel a member for such sin.

Show post

Bob Shiloh #fundie patheos.com

wullaj: From the video description: "Progressive churches demand that we accept refugees with open arms..." No. Jesus commanded that. Sorry if that sucks but maybe you should find another religion?

Bob Shiloh: No he did not.

Show post

Maxximiliann #fundie patheos.com

"It appears you missed the thrust of my rejoinder. Consider, then, the following-

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Evil exists.

(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.

(7) Atheists insist God does not nor cannot exist.
(8) Therefore Atheists are amoral."

image


Others point out that most atheists are not serial killers, he answers

"A better question is, why do atheists murder while Christians don't?"

Others site examples of Christians murdering people

"Really? Can you take a moment and prove how these are compatible with murder?
1 Peter 3:11
Colossians 3:8,9, 12-14
Matthew 6:34
Matthew 5:43-46
Proverbs 20:11

Show post

Michael Snow #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding the World Vison regarding homophobia and sponsors dropping, the title being "When We’d Rather Let Kids Go Hungry Than Be Reasonable On Gay Marriage"=)

How do you characterize a headline that is not true? World Vision does not have a monopoly on helping hungry children. I read many comments there. No one was saying they were stopping feeding children, they were just changing the charity through which they will do it. And there are better choices, e.g.

Show post

Mark Jones #fundie patheos.com

Sophotros is completely wrong about atheists winning the culture war and recent setbacks not indicating a long term trend. I say that due to the powerful demographic trends (and other trends} atheists activists (especially secular leftists) are up against. Please see my recent post above as I provide additional data.
Secular leftists have used the power of the state to get their way - particularly the courts. But now religionists and right-wing populists are sweeping them out of power around the globe. And the power of the state is decreasing due to: overburdened welfare states facing aging populations, the internet making it difficult for governments to control the political narrative, etc. etc.
Consider:
According to the University of Cambridge, historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power." source: http://web.archive.org/web/...
Could a WWIII happen? Of course. Yet that doesn't negate the powerful demographic, political and other trends that face atheist activists both now and in the future.

Show post

Mark Shea #fundie patheos.com

Oh, and let me add…

People who say, “Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned, not for homosexual acts, but for lack of hospitality” really need to retire that ridiculous meme. The biblical text is pretty obvious. When the angels come to visit Lot in Sodom, he takes them in. “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”

“Know” is the Hebraism for sexual intercourse. The story crackles with the menace of gay rape. The mob (whom the writer repeatedly emphasizes were men) “pressed hard against *the man* Lot”.
As Scott Hahn points out, the threat of homosexual rape is a particularly acute form of “inhospitality”.

So don’t kid yourself. Homosexual intercourse was regarded as gravely sinful in the Old Testament and Christianity receives that from the Jewish tradition. Few things are more tortured than the attempt to make the Bible a document in support of gay sex. It just ain’t. Tertullian, who had his own issues, was at least perceptive on this score when he said “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” Like it or not, the Christian tradition teaches that homosex is a grave sin.

Show post

CL #fundie patheos.com

1. Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court
Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent
New York Times Ignores Children of Gay Parents Who Want a Mom and Dad
(especially before you go calling people uneducated, bigoted, or hateful.... I have no hate, I am well educated, and I won't even talk about the way the word bigoted is thrown around)

2. Greetings Kim, Just because it occurs in the animal kingdom does not make it natural does it? and we are not animals are we?
even if there is unnatural attraction in the animal kingdom, animals do not find a way to act on those unnatural attractions do they? other than dry humping the wrong sex
The aberration remains an aberration.

3. I'm not 'putting anyone down'.... I am trying to lift them up.... up to where they belong.... with their Creator. Ignoring His will and His design is not going to get them there.... that is Truth with Love. <3

Show post

Rick Wiles #conspiracy patheos.com

Christian broadcaster Rick Wiles is really going all in on this idea that Democrats are going to murder Republicans.

A couple of weeks ago, he claimed the purge would occur before 2020 to stop the GOP from voting. This week, he used the “extermination” conspiracy to get money from his followers.

Now he says that MSNBC host Rachel Maddow has given the instructions for an all-out decapitation of Donald Trump and his family.

Here’s what Wiles said Tuesday night on his TruNews show:

… Wiles declared that a recent segment in which Maddow argued that this nation must begin to prepare for “the worst case scenario that Trump is compromised by Russia” was really a signal that a leftist revolution is imminent.

“She was spewing out, last night, calls for revolution,” Wiles said. “She was telling the left, ‘Take a deep breath, we’re at the moment, it’s coming, we’re almost there, we’re going to remove him from the White House.’”

“We’re about 72 hours — possibly 72 hours — from a coup,” Wiles warned. “Be prepared that you’re going to turn on the television and see helicopters hovering over the roof of the White House with men clad in black repelling down ropes, entering into the White House. Be prepared for a shootout in the White House as Secret Service agents shoot commandos coming in to arrest President Trump. That is how close we are to a revolution. Be prepared for a mob — a leftist mob — to tear down the gates, the fence at the White House and to go into the White House and to drag him out with his family and decapitate them on the lawn of the White House.

Show post

Mo #fundie patheos.com

Benson: Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people
of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed interracial marriage. Also, could you people stop pretending that private "pretend" ceremonies equal equality? There have been several absolutely
heartbreaking stories of same-sex couples in which a partner was forbidden from standing at their beloved's deathbed because they were
not married -- the tip of the iceberg. Willfully short-sighted creatures, you folk.

Mo: "Have fun going down in the wrong side of history and have the people of tomorrow mocking you, just as we do now with the people who opposed interracial marriage." Can you tell me what equality there is between skin color/race and deviant sexual acts? How dare you compare my race or anyone else to deviant sexual behaviors.

Show post

Houseman #fundie patheos.com

(=A respone to a homosexual interpretation of the centurion and his servant=)

he account takes all the things stated by the comments into account, but all forget one thing..Jesus! Jesus knew what he was doing, not snookered by the elders or the centurion. He knew the Mosaic law about homosexuality he knew the authority behind it, his Father. so if what is being said he healed a gay man, this is incorrect. In each example during his 3 and a half year ministry Jesus never once was in accomplice in ones sins but told never to do it again. forgave them and directed them toward another path. Never to keep something sinful going. Jesus knew the heart of the centurion and if what is being said, Jesus would not have healed the 'pais', it would have been against everything he stood for, even the love his own Father is. Ones want love to continue to cover all sins, even while we keep doing them, but the time will come when God will not cover us with mercy and love but remove evil, wickedness and sin from this earth. That is love, not keep picking us up, but truly teaching us how to walk without falling. Not feeding us crumbs, but teaching us how to feed ourselves fully. This is true love!

Show post

In His Service #fundie patheos.com

(=Response to a Progressive Christians's post about homosexuality, specifically the following paragraph=)

John Shore: "But you take the Bible out of the equation, and what grounds is there for determining that homosexuality is wrong? Whom does such love hurt? When two men are affectionately holding hands, who is getting hurt? When two women are snuggling together on their couch, who is getting hurt?"

In His Service: Who does it hurt? It hurts the ones who love you the most and it hurts God who created you for His predestined purpose.
I cannot pretend to understand what sin everyone is born with, but no one is perfect. This Earth is a testing ground to see where we will spend eternity. If it weren't for the Bible telling me that we are all sinners ( no matter which sin we are assigned on Earth) and we all need a Savior, then I would agree with you that it is ok to continue to sin. Bottom line, we are all sinners, we are all tested, we all need a Savior.

Show post

Laura Lowder #fundie patheos.com

(=Additional qoutes against Chuck McKnight and his support for Polygamy=)

Laura Lowder: This is where I want to take a DEEEEP breath and deliver a lecture on the Theology of the Body and the profound significance of monogamy --- heterosexual monogamy. But it would fall on deaf ears.
BUT there is no such thing as a "Faithful Christian" who practices polyamory. Theologically impossible

Mike Spencer: What a tragic and sickening betrayal of Christ. You are going to hell and taking others with you. Just buying millstones for your neck at the moment.

Matt Kellon Robinson: What a tragic and sickening betrayal of Christ. You are going to hell and taking others with you. Just buying millstones for your neck at the moment..

Richard Williams: It's time for the writer of this article to realize that their beliefs and the true Christian Church can not coexist as one because they are advocating for sin to be accepted.

Ray D: This is great satire. Oh, wait, it's not satire. Someone actually believes this load of B.S.

Show post

Paul Abeyta #fundie patheos.com

(=A response to the article "Broken Promise of Biblical Innerancy"=)

Paul Abeyta: The fact that people are their interpretations of Scripture are not inerrant, has nothing to do with the nature of Scripture and it's inerrancy. As God is without error, and Scripture comes from him (verbal plenary inspiration), it is of necessity that Scripture is inerrant. The author here advocates for a low view of God in claiming in that inerrancy is farce.

Button: So what does it mean for Christians, from a practical perspective, if Scripture is inerrant but no man can be trusted to interpret its meaning correctly? How does the distinction between potentially-errant, and inerrant-but-we-cannot-inerrantly-understand-it, change the ways in which we apply Scripture to our lives?

Paul Abeyta: No man can be trusted to interpret it's meaning correctly? Only the progressivists are saying that. I'm not. I'd argue that men have long been able to interpret it correctly and when false interpretations have risen, right ones have been maintained against them - sometimes in the minority even. Man can certainly interpret it correctly. He can also interpret it incorrectly of course. But we have a rich history of people in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit who have pursued God and Godliness and we can compare conclusions along those lines. The authors of the NT even warn us of people who would twist Scripture. To me the distinction seems clear. If the text is potentially errant, than it doesn't even matter. It holds absolutely no authority and every person's hunch is equal to it. To say that we cannot inerrantly understand it is a bit of an over statement. We can get all of it, we must simply remain humble and able to weigh evidence against our position and be willing to change it should we be made to see that our position is in error. This though is not a bleak position. As I said earlier - we have over nearly 2000 years of saints who have worked with the text.

Button: "people [and] their interpretations of Scripture are not inerrant" Sounds like you saying no one can be trusted to interpret it correctly. Though perhaps the lack of clarity was on my part: in this context "guaranteed" would have been clearer than "trusted."

Paul Abeyta: In general, I trust many, but at the same time, I know that I am responsible myself and so it's not a total trust that I have in any person to rightly handle God's Word. In Acts 17, the Apostle Paul commends the Berean's for testing what he was saying against that which they considered special revelation from God - the OT. Interestingly enough - we can do the same with every claim from the NT. So, as people, we trust the Scriptures and they have shown themselves trustworthy

Show post

Mo #fundie patheos.com

(= Regarding a pastor and his support for polygamy=)

"The Holy Trinity is a polyamorous relationship. "

Nonsense. Where does the Bible remotely hint at the idea that the members of the Trinity are sexually involved? How truly sick and twisted such an idea is.

"JH: The only people who have responded negatively are church assholes that have no knowledge of God. "

Oh, you mean like Jesus, who affirmed the exclusivity of man/woman marriage?

That's as far as I read of this blasphemous article.

Oh, you mean like Jesus, who affirmed the exclusivity of man/woman marriage?

That's as far as I read of this blasphemous article.

Show post

Pluther #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding LGBT Christians and LGBT affirming Christians=)

Sad. People want to want God, or at least heaven (with or without him), but don't want to deny their flesh, or the temptations of Satan (who only wants to kill and destroy them). Being "saved" or a Christian is not about the Law at all, ceremonial or otherwise. It's about giving your life over to God in Jesus Christ and letting him decide what is right or wrong for you. It's about a relationship of love, where you want what he wants for you, not what you want or think you want or what your flesh hungers for. The joy of a real relationship with Jesus far, far outweighs any sensual pleasure or sexual experience or relationship. You people who want God and also your homosexual lives don't really know God, and you are settling for hay and straw when he wants to give you gold.

Show post

Christopher Thomas #fundie patheos.com

(=Regarding the homohpbic backlash of the World Vison fiasco back in 2014=)

Shall we compare and contrast the two articles?

This:

"...those bullies...bullies...latest convulsion of evangelihate...the whole hideous white evangelical army of hate they lead...gleefully reject 90 percent of what Jesus was about...bullying crusade that deliberately takes money away from starving children...the armies of hate...Muslim-hating, gay-hating, crusade of contempt for the poor...the sanctimonious contempt of the white evangelical bullies...the armies of hate are on the march..."

Versus this:

"As Christians, we believe with deepest sincerity that the embrace of homosexual practice, along with other sins, keeps people out of the kingdom of God. And if our society celebrates it, we can’t both be caring and not say anything....it is an oversimplification to say that Christians — or conservative evangelicals — are simply against homosexuality. We are against any sin that restrains people from everlasting joy in God....The issue is sin. That’s what we’re against...."

And this:

"Some would like to see this whole issue of homosexuality divided into two camps: those who celebrate it and those who hate it. Both of these groups exist in our society. There are the growing numbers, under great societal pressure, who praise homosexuality. We might call them the left. And there are people who hate homosexuality, with the most bigoted rationale and apart from any Christian concern. We might call them the right.

The current debate is plagued by this binary lens. Those on the left try to lump everyone who disagrees with them into that right side. If you don’t support, you hate. Meanwhile, those on the right see compromise and spinelessness in anyone who doesn’t get red-faced and militant. If you don’t hate, you support.

But true followers of Christ will walk neither path. We have something to say that no one else is saying, or can say."

And this:

"Distancing ourselves from both the left and the right, we don’t celebrate homosexual practice, we acknowledge God’s clear revealed word that it is sin; and we don’t hate those who embrace homosexuality, we love them enough to not just collapse under the societal pressure. We speak the truth in love into this confusion, saying, simultaneously, “That’s wrong” and “I love you.” We’re not the left; we say, this is wrong. And we’re not the right; we say, you’re loved. We speak good news, with those sweetest, deepest, most glorious words of the cross — the same words that God spoke us — “You’re wrong, and you’re loved.”"

And this:

"You’re wrong and you’re loved — that’s the unique voice of the Christian. That’s what we say, speaking from our own experience, as Tim Keller so well puts it, “we’re far worse than we ever imagined, and far more loved than we could ever dream.”"

And this:

"That’s our message in this debate, when society’s elites despise us, when pop songs vilify us, when no one else has the resources to say anything outside of two extremes, we have this incomparable opportunity to let the gospel shine, to reach out in grace: you’re wrong and you’re loved. We get to say this."

Show post

Bowie1 #fundie patheos.com

God's design for marriage is still one man and one woman no matter what people are tempted to do. I suppose you could call this wife swapping which I heard about when I was a younger man but it is still sin no matter what people may feel. Naturally I would assume there could still be jealousy that their wife is with another man even if they agree to an "open marriage". That's the natural response in most cases and the cause of many divorces.

Show post

Michael Gleason #fundie patheos.com

Here is my problem with this whole issue theologically. Biblical Marriage is picture of of how Christ loves the Church. Christ is monogamous to the Church and so the Biblical view of Marriage is Monogamy. In Christ loving the Church he is always faithful, he has eyes only for his Bride (the Church). There is one Church, One Bride. In the same way the Church is called to be wholly faithful to the one who redeems us. There are many passages in the old and new that talk about being unfaithfulness to God. God throughout the Bible condemns Israel for being unfaithful. So if Biblical Marriage is a picture of Christ and the Church the idea that Polyamory does not stand up to Biblical Scrutiny. If you plan to respond with the typical what about Abraham, David, Solomon...etc. You need to understand that the people in the Bible are flawed individuals that do no live up to the the Perfection of Christ. The ideal marriage in Scripture is 1 Man 1 Woman for life.

Show post

Seth D. Young #fundie patheos.com

(=On the Bible and Polygamy=)

God also 'permitted' divorce and allowed Moses to issue certificates of divorce, but it wasn't His desire. He did it because of the sinfulness of man. I can't think for God, sin is sin and it matters not the generation. Besides all that, Jesus reaffirmed for the people the proper, godly, and right understanding of marriage, condemning the divorce certificate for nearly all reason (except unfaithfulness), and reaffirming that marriage is for one man and one woman only. This is how it was in the beginning, sinful people screwed up (as we do most things), God permitted it and even used it for his own advantage from time to time, but then reaffirmed it in Christ.

Show post

Michael F Bird #fundie patheos.com

To be blunt, I regard Jesus mythicism as pure pseudo-historical dogma by a few cranky atheists. For them, the non-existence of Jesus is somewhere between the holy grail of unbelief (i.e. wouldn’t it be good if we could prove Jesus never existed?) and mental masturbation (i.e the sheer selfishly indulgent pleasure of thinking about it). Jesus mythicism is an unscholarly conspiracy theory and its adherents should be treated in the same way we treat climate change deniers: A polite chuckle, sip your martini, then avoid eye-contact, and slowly walk away.

I sit on the board of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, a board filled with people of all faiths and none, Evangelical Christians, mainline Christians, former Christians, Agnostics, Jews, and Atheists. Now we disagree on A LOT, but we ALL AGREE that Jesus existed. In fact, we had a great discussion on Jesus mythicism at our last board meeting. Larry Hurtado made a great point that Jesus mythicism is like a weird monster that rears its head about every fifty years and needs to be periodically and ritually destroyed. Maybe they’ll do an issue on it one day.

Otherwise, see my older piece: Yes, Jesus existed … but relax, you can still be an atheist if you want to.

Show post

Clayton Gafne James #fundie patheos.com

(=Another regarding Chuck McKnight's support for polygamy=)

Let
me guess, many of you 'Christians' already accepting the practice of
same sex sin didn't see this coming sooner or later for you to have to
accept? Let's see how long it takes for you to accept and affirm this
sin too.

You should do the wise thing, realize who
is behind this sex acceptance nonsense renounce same sex relations
especially for those saying they are 'Christian' and do what is good in
the sight of the God you claim to know.

You ppl are being influenced by Satan. And this article here should be more than enough for you to see it now

Show post

Zach W. Lorton #fundie patheos.com

Homosexuality is sin.
Polyamory is sin.
Bearing false witness by claiming to be a gender other than what God desigbed you to be is sin.
How is ANY of this unclear?
The question is not whether anyone who practices these lifestyle choices can have a relationship with God -- of course they can. But to suggest. that this is something God smiles upon is ludicrous. I don't need to search my feelings on the Nashville Statement to come to that conclusion; I need only read the Bible.

Show post

Mr. Meow #fundie patheos.com

(NOTE: This is gonna be part of a series of quotes directed towards/regarding pastor Chuck McKnight, a pastor who supports and practices polygamy)

LGBTQ, Trans, now Poly. I applaud the fact that you and Mrs. Chuck came out of the closet and publically declared your infidelity! Will you guys be wanting your own separate public toilets too?

"Additionally, there are many more faithful Christians who either feel that they are poly or feel drawn to see if they are, but they’re not sure whether it is compatible with their faith."
Newsflash Chuck: every guy on planet earth is "drawn" to polyamory or whatever you call it. That's why guys watch porn, stare at women with big boobs or wonder what it would be like to have sex with women who are NOT their wife, etc.. Christians are told in the bible all this is bad. It's called "fornication", "lust" and a bunch of other names.
Also, running around on your wife banging other chicks... that's called "adultery" Chuck. I'm pretty sure adultery or "defiling the marriage bed" is a sin.
So "exploring non-monogamous sexual relationships", isn't compatible with Christianity.
Finally, you should have a read of the bible Chuck. You'll notice it's loaded with all kinds of cautionary stories about guys who thought poly was cool and the unfortunate consequences of their shenanigans (unwanted children, infanticide, family feuds, murder and all that). Pretty eye-opening stuff.

Show post

Andrew #fundie patheos.com

God never blessed polygamous marriage and you can quickly realize that by the destructive results that happened to those who practiced it throughout history. We have wars today because of the choices made by Abraham and Solomon thousands of years ago. Scripture assures us, our sin will find us out.

Show post

Mo #fundie patheos.com

Sven2547: What, specifically, about my comment is ignorant? Do you DENY that Al-Qaeda wants war between a united Islam and the "West"? Speaking as a non-religious person, I find it hilariously hypocritical when Christians insist on a 100% literal reading of the Koran, while refusing to hold the Bible to the same standard. The vast, vast majority of the world's Muslims don't abide by every jot and tittle of the Koran any more than the world's Christians abide the Bible.

Mo: Not a word about what I said. You have no clue what that even means, do you?

Sven2547: Not a word about what I said. They're old terms for the "kingdom (house) of Islam" and the "kingdom (house) of war". Note that this is not actually a tenet of the religion itself, but a classification used by some early Islamic scholars during a period of violence in the 8th Century AD.

Mo: Googled it, huh? And yet it's Muslims who use these divisions because they are the ones who are at war with us, all over the world. They've demonstrated it over and over and OVER again - in NYC, in Madrid, in London, in Boston - over and over and over again they prove it. It doesn't matter how many bodies are piled up by those correctly following the teachings of Islam, does it? You are still going to deny it and even claim it's the fault of evangelical Christians. Remarkable Tell me, 1) what was your impression of the Koran's view of unbelievers when you read it and 2) what was your impression of the Koran as you compared it with your reading of the Bible? You can't answer that because you've not done either, have you ? Goodbye.

Sven2547: My question to you is: what do you propose? Making Muslims second-class citizens? Blanket violence against all Muslims? What conclusion should be drawn from your argument, other than "be afraid"?

Mo: How about starting with speaking the facts about Islam? How about everyone actually READING the Koran so that they know what they are talking about? But they refuse. You can't address a problem until you admit there is one. And we're not even at that first stage yet. How much bloodshed by Muslims will it take before we wake up?

Sven2547: The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran, yet almost Christian I know is a nice person. It's hypocritical to make the opposite assumption about Muslims. Again I ask: what do you propose? What does "waking up" entail for you? What's your plan? What's your optimal outcome? Repeating over and over "Islam is evil! Muslims are bad people!" isn't a substitute for civil discourse or sane public policy.

Mo: "The Bible embraces violence and hatred every bit as much as the Koran" And that's as far as I read of your comment, and the last I will be engaging in conversation with you. This is a flat out lie. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. Therefore, there are no Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Period.

Butterfly: You have got to be one of the most poorly informed christians I have ever happened upon. Please don't tell me you actually believe that the bible does not contain commands from god to commit atrocious acts of violence against others... The christian god not only commands it multiple times, he promises his followers women and young girls as spoils of war in return for committing genocide. So they not only were told to murder, they were promised the right to rape others as a reward. I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that. I will, however, encourage you to Google the Amelekites and do a general search on the topics of war, murder and genocide in the bible and see what you find. Then come back and see if you still (rather stupidly) believe that the biblical god does not ask his people to commit horrible acts of violence against others. Oh, and if you decide to come back here all ruffled and insist upon attacking me instead of addressing what was said in regard to the bible, you'll be ignored. Also, you'd better come prepared, because I was christian for a long time and I used to teach it. Bring it on, baby.

Mo: "I'm not going to bother posting the actual scriptures because some of the other folks here have already done that." You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist. There are no open-ended commands in the OT or the NT for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers or against anyone. None. Zero. You cannot produce any because they do not exist. That is why we do not see Jews or Christians committing such acts, on a regular basis, all over the world, in obedience to any such commands. Now, how about addressing ISLAM, the focus of this article?

ToTripoli: "You won't bother, because you know they don't exist. Others haven't, because they don't exist." So you are blatantly ignoring the verses in the comments above the one you quoted. Isn't that tantamount to bearing false witness? Or are you actually convinced that the following passages do not exist in the Bible?: Romans 1:32, Leviticus 20:9-10, Deuteronomy 21:20-21, Deuteronomy 22:22, Exodus 21:15, Luke 19:27, Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 13:6-10, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, and Numbers 25:1-9. I am increasingly convinced that you have never read the Torah or the Bible, beyond a handful of verses. Oh, and as for Christians & Jews committing acts of terrorism? Look up "Christian Identity," "Lord's Resistance Army," "Anders Breivik," and "Bat Ayin Underground." (It should be noted that Jewish terrorism is far, far less common than terrorism committed in the name of Christianity.)

Mo: There are ZERO open ended commands for Jews or Christians to commit violence against unbelievers. That's why we're not seeing Jews or Christians AROUND THE WORLD ON A REGULAR BASIS committing any such acts IN OBEDIENCE TO ANY SUCH TEXTS. I hate to shout,but that may be the only way to get through to people like you. Such commands don't exist. You can't provide any. PERIOD. Now, instead of babbling about Christianity or Judaism, how about ISLAM, which is the purpose of this article, since MUSLIMS are the ones slaughtering people around the world in obedience to not only their texts, but their warlord prophet? How about that? Anything to say on Islam? Of course not. Just nonsense about Christianity and Judaism.

Show post

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

(=Part two of Anne Kennedy's Glenn Doyle Melton rant=)

So yesterday I got through half my thought. To recap, Glenn Doyle Melton recently announced on Facebook that in the wake of finally separating from her husband, she entered into a romantic relationship with another woman. Yesterday I began to answer the question What is love? Insisting, rather lamely, now that I go back and look at it, that self love is not really “love” in a true sense. But in this brave new world self love is the hope and the dream.

Of course, I’ve used the word “love” without really defining it. So let me do that now.

Love in our modern context means something like having powerful lovely feelings for something, someone, or oneself.

Love, however, in a biblical context is the verb used to articulate the nature of God who is One in Being, but Three in Person. God Is Love because the Father eternally pours himself out for the Son who eternally pours himself out for the Father. And so also the Spirit. The three live in a perfect unity of the giving of the self without holding anything back. That is a very different thing than, “what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.” Glennon’s articulated self love, so usefully insulated from the world’s criticism, being grounded solely in the rebellious and sin poisoned human soul is of necessity narrow and hard.

Whereas God’s love gives life to the world. As I like to say to my Sunday school children about Jesus, “He didn’t hold anything back from you. He gave his whole life, down to the last drop of blood. Not a single bit of who he was did he guard or keep away from you. How else can we talk about his body being something that we eat, his blood something that we drink?” This is the basis upon which any human being can give anything to any other human being.

If you are busy loving yourself you can only take, you can only demand. And so let’s look at what is demanded of the children in this picture. “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

Glennon is claiming a multiplication of love. Look, more people to love you. Me, your dad, his new person, my person, your grandparents. We are all here together with love. And we go to the parties together and everyone is completely happy.

And yet, because this has been a business of taking for the self, rather than self giving through death, there cannot really be happiness, in the ultimate sense. I would put cash down that these children have been cut to the heart by the father’s betrayal of the mother, and now the mother’s of the father.

Why? Because marriage is a picture of Christ and his Church. Jesus, who lived in the perfection of self giving love in the Godhead as the eternal Son, set that aside to come and gather us back into that perfect love. He set aside glory and honor and beauty to come and die as the ultimate act of Love. He gained, in his death, a bride, the church. Every marriage is a shadowy retelling of the triumph of the cross. And so each time a marriage fails, that retelling is spoiled. And the whole world feels it, knows it at the core, however much we may lie and say it is good. And the people who know it most are the children, the product of that troubled retelling. Multiplying “love” when something so essential is broken is not really “love”.

Really what the children have learned is that father can’t keep his promises and mother can’t keep hers. Each time a promise is broken “love” apparently abounds. Whereas, that’s just not true. Every time a promise is broken the love that Christ has for his church is lied about. And lying doesn’t really produce happiness. It produces misery and anger.

If lying produced happiness, humanity would be peachy happy and love love love. But we are liars by nature, determined to call good evil and evil good. And observe the roiling anger, the bitterness, the unbending intolerance of individual people for other individual people, the racism, the violence. Where is all the happiness? Where is all the love? It isn’t in the hard defiant gaze of Glennon Doyle Melton. It isn’t in the collective heart of a culture that hates God and loves the self.

As I implored yesterday, prayer is of the essence. But also Christians should cling tightly to the surpassing love of God that sets aside the self, dies to the self, abandons the self, holds nothing in reserve to grasp onto the one who is perishing. His blood and love is sufficient for every grief, every brokenness, every lie.

Show post

Anne Kennedy #fundie patheos.com

(=First of a two part post/rant about Glennon Doyle Melton, a Christian blogger/author who came out as a lesbian and married a woman=)

I mentioned in our podcast yesterday the tragic downfall of Glennon Doyle Melton. I would like to point out a few obvious home truths. Incidentally, of course it would be nice to think nuanced and fascinating thoughts, to grasp at difficult insights that have not been articulated by others, to, in short, be Novel. But this point in Christian history doesn’t seem to be calling for that sort of thinking. We seem to be needing to go back to the most basic point, the expression of the most essential truths. And the most essential of all of them is...

What is love?

This foundation of Christian doctrine has been so muddled and twisted, squandered really, by the modern Westerner, that we have to keep going back to the very beginning point of Christian Faith in order to answer this tragic confusion.

So Glennon, like so many, got married, had some children, and found herself in the usual way of coping with a too difficult life, a broken relationship with herself, and a cheating husband. In the midst of this, she turned out to be a top notch writer and so wrote her way through her difficulties and troubles. Here she has my complete sympathy. I am sitting here at this very minute in desperate pursuit of mental health through writing. Writing is my life line. If I don’t write every day, I become unhinged. And gosh, isn’t it nice if people read your writing? Everyone has been reading Glennon. That I haven’t is my own fault. I need to get out more and read more. I’ve read a few of her blog posts, though, and they are breezy, brilliant. The writing is what you Want when you click on the Internet.

But good writing does not a theologian nor a Christian make. Any one of us can put ourselves out there but the church–the people who know and love God and his Son Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit of whatever denomination and background–have a duty, an obligation, to articulate the gospel clearly and repudiate those who call themselves Christian but do not adhere to basic Christian doctrine. For the sake of Glennon herself, because she has claimed the name of Christ, I find I must say no to her new way of life.

Let’s just quickly look at what she says about love, both for herself, and more troublingly, for her children. She writes, “I want you to grow so comfortable in your own being, your own skin, your own knowing – that you become more interested in your own joy and freedom and integrity than in what others think about you. That you remember that you only live once, that this is not a dress rehearsal and so you must BE who you are. I want you to refuse to betray yourself. Not just for you. For ALL OF US. Because what the world needs — in order to grow, in order to relax, in order to find peace, in order to become brave — is to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation.”

And about her children, “They have the love and support of their dad, me, their grandparents, their aunts and uncles, their church, their teachers, their friends’ families –all of whom have fallen as hard for Abby as they have. They’re lucky kids, to be surrounded by so much love. We have family dinners together – all six of us — and Abby cooks. (She is an AMAZING chef because Jesus loves me). We go to the kids’ school parties together. We are a modern, beautiful family. Our children are loved. So loved. And because of all of that love, they are brave.”

You can find the longer post on her Facebook page.

Let me begin by saying that throwing over your broken marriage to join with another woman isn’t actually brave any more. It’s one of the easiest choices on the table. It may not feel easy in the moment, but what you are doing is embracing a copy of yourself, and you are doing it with the culture’s complete approbation. Bravery is when you do something difficult that ought to be done but you don’t want to do it, but you do it against your desires, for the sake of another. The choice of Glennon to be with a woman is the choice to go with self expression and the love of the self over the love of another and of God.

And that’s the confusion, isn’t it? It’s everywhere. In Christianity you are called to die to yourself, to die to the very essential nature of who you are which has been so corrupted and marred by sin that it is irrevocably bound to eternal death. This is the state of the human person. Not a single human person escapes the sentence of death that came when we chose to love ourselves rather than the Other, that is God. And however painful it is to face, no one gets a pass on this sentence. We all go down the grave one by one, dust to dust, because we idolatrously chose to love ourselves rather than our Creator.

No amount of embracing the self will cure the ills of the soul. No Amount. There is nothing you can do to love yourself enough to rescue your soul from death. You can’t. There is no human solution to the death dealing cavern that separates us from God.

That is why God himself had to cross over that cavern by himself. He had to come and absorb our sin and our rejection of him in himself. That is the cross. He took our catastrophic and poisonous self love onto himself and died the death we should have died.

When we cling to him, the death we endure, though it feels very great, is actually very small. Still, it is not easy to say no to the self, to put to death that essential poisoned self. It can’t happen without God himself carrying you through to eternity.

And I really hate to say it, but this is going to have to be part one, because I have somewhere to be. But I will pick up right here tomorrow, and will probably have another part after that. I hope you who know and love Jesus will pray for Glennon and her children and her husband and her new person and plead with God to enlighten the eyes of her heart that she might finally see him for who he is. See you tomorrow!

Show post

Susan Foley #fundie patheos.com

(=Comments on Christian author Glen Melton Doyle coming out as a lesbian and subsequent marriage to a woman=)

Susan Foley: One can only imagine what the children here really think of this. Have they actually "fallen for Abby"? Is it really their desire "to watch one woman at a time live her truth without asking for permission or offering explanation" when that one woman is their mother, and "living her truth" means tearing up their family, and the permission and explanation would should have been asked from them, given to them? "Oh no, who cares what you think dear, I'm off "living my truth" and you'll just have to adapt. You'd better pretend to be happy about it too or you'll ruin the story!" We won't hear from them until they are old enough to get out from under this monster self-absorbed mother they've got.

Charlie Sutton: My bet: within three years, there will be a tempestuous break-up.

Susan Foley: Count on it. When what matters is the gratification of the present desire, because people are inconstant, when the desire changes, more promises are broken.

Show post

Jack Wellman #fundie patheos.com

It would be maniacal to believe in something that you knew was a lie and then die for that lie. You can choose to believe or not to believe but your belief does not change the historical evidence that Jesus indeed did exist and that He continues to exist. For many, they will believe too late (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:11-15). If I am wrong, then you have nothing to lose and you will cease to exist at death but if the Bible is right, and I am convinced that it is, you will have to give an account for your life after you die (Heb 9:27) but “Those who are wise shall shine. Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness. Like the stars forever and ever” (Dan 12:3). Reject this truth and you will face “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2c).

Show post

wfmcfp #fundie patheos.com

When we force, or attempt to force, our own personal ways / requests / demands / lifestyles on others, knowing it hurts, scares, and even deeply offends these others as we do so,...are we truly interested in unity or healing? For example, gay "marriage" could have been achieved by "Civil Unions" or some other very meaningful title, but no..., traditional heterosexual one man, one woman "marriage" had to be "redefined". Why? Why this absolute demand at the cost of other's beliefs and sensibilities? Where was the unity interest demonstrated here? Differing opinions clearly existed, yet there seemed to be no desire to "work it out" together, to come up with a mutually acceptable approach. Deeply help spiritual beliefs and a century upon century definition was to be "defeated" / "turned asunder" for the 'victory' of a small group of people. Why? Was this truly a demonstration of the 'tolerance' that they'd passionately spoken of an marched for? How can one be so intolerant of another's deeply held belief as they hold a banner for tolerance? How about a baker, florist, retreat owner, losing their complete livelihood and being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, because although they'd served these folks for other needs, they couldn't offend their Lord to help "celebrate" what they feel is a Holy Covenant between one man/one woman? Where is the desire for "getting along", "unity", "live and let live", and "tolerance" here? Where? Love....true love....doesn't care to offend, put down, or demand, yet there is no loving caring "two way street". No, it's my way or the highway! We will make you pay if we don't get what we want! Why? Getting along will require a "two way street" on issues which divide, which offend deeply held foundational religious views, etc.... Real Love, true tolerance, genuine inclusiveness....cannot demand others simply disregard or go against their deeply held religious / personal beliefs. These people love their families, their children, and their children's children and desire to teach them to understand what they hold to be Truth. Why are their rights not held up along side those seeking new rights and societal changes? Why? Love, respect, tolerance, unity...all require a more thoughtful and caring process....one which is far less "in your face"!

Show post

See Noevo #fundie patheos.com

See Noevo: “Thou Shalt Not Be Gay” No. More like ‘A man shalt not have sex with another man, nor a woman with another woman.’ (cf. Rom 1:26-27)

HudBud: I don't know what's more mind blowing, the fact you got the verses mixed up or that it warranted likes.

See Noevo: "I don't know what's more mind blowing..." Poor guy. You must have blowing on your mind.

Show post

Mike Bird #fundie patheos.com

Answering President Jed Bartlet on the Bible and Sexuality

I have been very gradually working my way through The West Wing, currently up to Season 2 and I just saw this epic scene where President Jed Bartlett lays into some conservative Christian radio show host for her views about homosexuality.

I’ve heard this line of argument several times, it latches onto something genuinely problematic which most Christians have a hard time explaining, so I thought it might be a good idea to offer my own response to President Jed Bartlet:

Dear President Bartlet,

Sir, I just saw your rather dramatic lambasting of Dr. Jenna Jacobs for her views on homosexuality. You speak with great passion and conviction on the subject and are rightly concerned that pious people will use religious texts as a license to treat LGBT persons with hatred and indifference. I sincerely appreciate that concern and I applaud it.

As a biblical scholar myself I have to confess that I was seriously impressed with your ability to recall biblical passages from the Pentateuch by memory. You are obviously a veteran of a very rigorous Sunday School program and you can recall Scripture with a precision that would leave many rabbis envious of your abilities. You obviously have spent a lot of time reading the Bible and you take it very seriously. I appreciate that too.

Let me say also that I don’t know Dr. Jacobs, I don’t listen to her show, I have no desire to defend her as I imagine that she and I probably do not see eye to eye on social issues and how to express a Christian view point about them. Still, I do wonder if you gave a Christian view of the Bible and sexuality a fair go, at least as a biblical theologian might express them.

The problem is that you are right, there are some very strange prohibitions in the Bible about combining fabrics together, planting crops side by side, laws pertaining to slavery, and stoning the less scrupulously observant of religion. The Old Testament contains things that are not only weird, but look callous and cruel even to those brought up with a deep reverence for the Bible.

Sir, I do not presume to lecture you on matters of religion, but it seems to me like you want to say in effect, “You believe what the Old Testament says about homosexuality, so then, do you believe all the crazy rules and regulations in the Old Testament too?” That is a good question and such a question requires an obvious “no,” since Christians themselves would concur that they are not bound to obey all the Old Testament regulations. But the matter I wish to press Mr. President is that you have overlooked how Christians read the Old Testament as Scripture and how they use Scripture to construct their own mode of moral discourse.

Please indulge me for a few short moments Mr. President in the hope that I can illuminate your understanding of the Bible and help you better appreciate how Christians use the Bible in their moral reasoning.

First, the Old Testament regulations were for a specific moment in Israel’s history and are not prescriptive for all time. The purpose of the law was to equip the Israelites to survive in the harsh context of the ancient near east. To tease that our further, the purpose of the law was to protract Israel’s capacity to worship God, to cocoon God’s purposes around Israel, to keep the Israelites separate from the peoples of Canaan, to teach Israel about human sin and divine holiness, and to point to the messianic deliverer whom God would send in the future. Many of these laws are not ideal (such as divorce as Jesus himself taught), other laws are a liberalization of ancient practices but still not particularly pleasant (like the treatment of slaves), many laws are related to the specific context of the ancient near east (like inter-tribal warfare), and several laws censure things that seem odd to us like consuming blood (because of its link to pagan worship). So, even from a Christian perspective, we have to say that Old Testament laws were a survival measure in a hostile environment, they were addressing cultures as they were rather than how they might be, they were incremental attempts to bring light to a world that was brutal and dark, and the laws were preparatory for something better rather than final. These laws might be God’s first word on how human should live before him, but they were certainly not the last word either.

Second, the Old Testament is strictly speaking not prescriptive for Christian ethics. That is not because the Old Testament is a bad thing that has been done away with, but because it is a good thing that has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. I would suggest that the basis of Christian ethics is largely three things: (1) The example of Jesus and the apostles; (2) The teachings of Jesus and the apostles; and (3) Life in the Spirit. The Old Testament Law then is not the constitution for a Christian society, not the content of Christian ethics, nor the catalyst for Christian social reform. Instead, the Law is more like a consultant for Christian beliefs, embodying a form of wisdom on how to fear the Lord, how to walk in his ways, and how to love him. We are not bound to its letter, but we ignore its teachings to the peril our own spiritual ignorance.
Third, if the Old and New agree on one thing, it is this: the supremacy of love. Both Testaments agree that love of God and love of neighbour are the core concerns and truest teachings of Law. We read the commands: “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut 6:5) and similarly “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). This is precisely what Jesus himself argued according to the Evangelists where Jesus said: “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” (Matt 22:37-40). Even the Apostle Paul, though often maligned for his views of women and homosexual behavior, said: “For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal 5:14).

When it comes to the issue of sexuality and marriage, Christians should not rush to Leviticus or Deuteronomy searching for proof texts for their beliefs. The first thing to note is that Genesis teaches that God made men and women in his image, and that marriage is rooted in a sexual ecology of the complementarity of men and women oriented towards the creation of a family (Gen 1:26-28). What is more, this is something that Jesus affirmed (Mark 10:6-9). On top of that, there are prescriptions about homosexual acts outside Leviticus made by the Apostle Paul (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). And while these prescriptions are disputed – are they only about pederasty, an aggressive bi-sexuality, excessive lust, or limited to cultic prostitution – generally they are regarded by most scholars as censuring homoerotic behavior. Of course, if you think Jesus and Paul were just wrong and you care to disagree with them, that is fine, but please understand that that is not an attractive option for those of us who wish to affirm what our own tradition teaches on marriage and sexuality.

Mr. President, at the end of the day Christian ethics are based on love not law: love for God and love for our neighbors. Christians, within the precincts of their own consciences, cannot affirm behavior that they believe Scripture prohibits. The wisdom of our tradition is that sexuality is a gift from God, leading us to affirm celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage. Yet because of the command to love their neighbours, you can expect Christians to always treat people, irrespective of gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation, with compassion and dignity, as we ourselves would want to be treated. If you wish to wag a finger at Christians for their hypocrisy, and I hope you do, citing texts from Leviticus is probably not the best way to do that. Much better is to accuse Christians of not keeping Jesus’ commands to love their gay neighbor, point out that they have not followed Jesus’ example to welcome those who polite society has rejected, and they have not embraced the lost for whom Jesus said he came to save! That is a word of rebuke Christians need to hear time and again.

That is my two cents on the matter Sir. I wish you all the best in the coming election season.

PS, watch out for that Jeff Haffley guy, he’s a sly old critter!

Show post

aedgeworth #fundie patheos.com

Well, you agreed with them that the geologic column can't be found in one location, which is what they asked for. Your interpretation of it has a few problems such as missing layers, revered layers, fossils in the wrong layers, etc. Catastrophism fits the scientific evidence much better than uniformitarianism. Gravity isn't a theory, it is a law. It is amazing how many evolutionists don't understand the difference. But, if you can't answer their arguments, just use name-calling. A clear sign of your intelligence level.

I read the other day those finches on the Galapagos Islands are still finches, and the peppered moths in England are still peppered moths. How exactly does that prove one of my great grandpas was a complex chemical or a rock, depending on how far back I want to take my family tree of course. I know you haven't figured this out yet, so I'll help you out. Whenever someone tells you a story that starts out "billions" or "millions" of years ago; whatever they tell you from that point on, they made it up.

Why don't you just come out and say it? You hate God, you hate the Bible, you hate Jesus, you hate Christians, and you hate the idea that you might spend eternity in hell. We all know that is why you are hanging onto the fairy tale of evolution. You might as well be honest about it. But, I would guess that isn't one of your strong points. Eternity is a long time to be wrong!

Show post

scottmontgomery #fundie patheos.com

(Regarding a blog post on polygamy)

Clearly this author doesn't understand that some of her examples were stated as opposed to God's will (Genesis), the Rabbinic Code as Jesus summed up, given after the Israelites refused covenant with God, because their hearts were hardened, and circumstances only for widowed women. The Bible was always one man and one woman for marriage as God's stated purpose. when you see kingdoms in Judah or Israel whereby the king had numerous wives, they did not last and for that reason

Show post

CoffeH #fundie patheos.com

(=This fundie trolls a thread with pictures of athiests or agnostics who committed to prove athiesm is evil=)

CoffeeH: Another atheist kid who thought he could manage his own purpose. Eric Harris.

Iain Lovejoy: I am a Christian, and you purport to be so, so I'll speak to you Christian to Christian (and I'm sorry if this little speech is out of place in an atheist blog). Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Is your "purpose in life" to persuade as many people as possible that Christianity turns you into a d*ck? I am struggling to see how anyone who has even had a brief glimpse of the love of God, or comprehended anything at all of the character of Jesus could write this stuff. Are you an atheist deliberately trying to discredit religion? Why do you hate your fellow human beings so? God loved sinners (even the lost souls whose pictures you put up) to such an extent he permitted them to kill him in order to save them, and forgave them while they did so; haven't you read the Bible? John said that we cannot purport to love God we cannot see if we do not love our neighbour we can see, and that is because it is our fellow human beings who carry God's image into the world. All these shooters killed because they (rightly or wrongly) felt rejected and despised by the world. By their neighbour. By us. By you. If they had no "purpose" in life it was because they felt their own life worthless, because they felt hated, or despised, or treated with contempt, and returned hate with hate. So what do you do? You hate. You tell people who haven't had the good fortune to have a glimpse of God in the world that that makes them useless, or evil, or somehow worse than anyone else. You smugly post pictures of broken,lost people as if it proved anything other than your own desperate brokenness and need of God. Over and over I feel compelled to apologise for people like you. People who use the name "Christian" which I ought to be proud of, and make it an embarrassment, a burden, something to be ashamed of. Well I'm fed up. The Bible has only one character that constantly accuses human beings of sin, that demands their punishment and spews out libel against those who are good. Only one character that hates mankind and seeks to consign them to hell. That character is the Accuser ("Satan" in Greek). Your father whom you bandy about is not God but the Accuser and I am sick to death of people serving his purposes while his claiming to be serving God. OK. Deep breath. Rant over. God loves you as he loves every one of those lost souls whose pictures you have posted. You may have no knowledge of him, and have mistaken hatred for love, the Accuser for the Redeemer, but he does not give up he will one day free you from whatever pit of loathing you have confined yourself. And when he does you will find the doubters and atheists who love their fellow men at God's table waiting for you - anyone who loves his neighbour, who is God's child, and the world, which is God's creation, loves God better than someone who wraps himself in religious-speak, hates his neighbour and worships his own hatred and calls it God.

Raging Bee: Also, I notice you seem to be aware of how wrong the alt-right are; but you're only using that to attack atheists, instead of attacking the alt-right directly. Maybe you're the one lacking a decent purpose here.

CoffeeH: I think anyone finding their purpose in the alt-right is not finding their purpose in God.

Iain Lovejoy: Big whoopee, now you are preening yourself you are not an out-and-out Nazi (or possibly just that you aren't any worse). If you want to call yourself a Christian, perhaps you might hold yourself to slightly higher standards?

CoffeeH: Every day, we hear the garbage that religion causes most of the harm in the world or ever. It's BS. Sometimes, people need to see how wrong they are. It's ok.

Iain Lovejoy: Don't give me that. It is anything but "OK". If you want to do Christianity a service, take down your garbage and apologise. All you are doing is demonstrating precisely why people think religion causes harm, and indeed doing the exact harm people complain about. Your job as a Christian is to display God's love in the world, you are doing the opposite. If this school shooter is an atheist, it is precisely people like you, and the shameful behaviour they (and you) display towards anyone not sharing their beliefs or fitting in that helped produce the social isolation and bitterness that broke his mind. Love your enemies, welcome the stranger and the outcast, see God in every human being and welcome them in, show them God in your actions and love. That is Christianity. At least try and be a Christian this one time and stop this.

Show post

Jo Brown #fundie patheos.com


People stop homosexuals from marrying each other, or try to oppose homosexual practices, not because they have sin in their hearts, but because homosexuality is a sin and the people caught in it should not be encouraged to continue in it or allowed to lead others into it. Opposition to homosexuality is not because homosexuals are special or fabulous. In fact, being caught in the sin of homosexuality doesn't mean that you're automatically special or fabulous. That's just not logical. There are dullards and douchebags in every segment of society, including the gay one.
There's good reason why the bible forbids homosexuality. Just look at what's happened to society as the biblical moral restraints have been relaxed more and more. People are getting involved in ever more perverted sexual practices and general lawlessness, and it's bringing down the whole of society.
I've yet to read the links that purport to show how the bible allegedly doesn't teach that homosexuality is a sin, but I'm expecting a lot of scripture-twisting and logical fallacies and appeals to emotion and love. (yeah, like love should never be tough aye?)
One thing I wonder about, are all these gay christians happy to remain completely celibate until they've found and married their life partner? (And choose to remain married for life too of course.) Or, since they feel that homosexuality is biblically OK, it's therefore also OK to be sexually promiscuous and engage in fornication and adultery? Since the homosexual lifestyle is so much about hedonism, promiscuity, and fornication, I suspect it's the latter.

I've read the arguments for gay relationships and sure enough there's a bit of scripture twisting going on. Drawing rather a long bow by claiming gay relationships for David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi, the Roman centurion's and his servant, and that the Ethiopian enuch was gay, NONE of which are clearly and unambiguously stated but that is merely the inference preferred by gay people because it suits them. And what is initially postulated as "might be" and "could be" later magically transmogrifies into cold hard fact, upon which the rest of the house of cards is built. Then they go on about the hebrew words for shrine prostitutes (both male and female) and imply that therefore Leviticus 18:22 is not talking about homosexual sex but about sex with shrine prostitutes. Trouble is, Leviticus 18:22 does not use the words for shrine prostitutes, so if it's meant to be speaking against sex with shrine prostitutes why doesn't it simply use the words for shrine prostitutes? Answer: Because it's not talking about shrine prostitutes but about men having sex with men, plain and simple.
One must also ask why the one book in the bible that deals almost exclusively with erotic love (Song of Songs) does not depict any relationship EXCEPT that between a man and a woman. If the bible is supposed to be pro-gay, why the glaring omission in Song of Songs?

So, no, I'm not convinced.
I'm horrified that people would interpret scripture so permissively that it ends up saying something totally different from what a straightforward reading of it suggests. It's like looking at a black dog and saying well because of X, Y, and Z we have to conclude that it's really a white dog. And then staking your eternal destiny on that. Yikes! I think it's wiser to step back from the line, not over it.

Show post

DM #fundie patheos.com

(=A response to "Clobbering Biblical Gay Bashing=)

You lost me at: "so I’m not even having that discussion" If you build a whole argument on something that is highly debatable but you won't acknowledge there is another opinion then it is difficult to engage you in the rest of your conversation.

The Bible is very clear on homosexuality- it is a sin. Sleeping with someone before marriage is a sin, cheating on a spouse is a sin, drinking to excess is a sin. A sin is a sin and everyone on this earth has sinned. If you talk to an informed Christian they will admit that these are all sins and that not one is more severe than another. A Christian will do well to love everybody as their brother and sister in Christ but will also do well to point out an error to them when they are in the wrong. The Bible does warn that we shouldn't judge but 2 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) tells us- All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

The difference between homosexuality and other sins is that one becomes hardened to it. There are other sins that one hardens themselves to but homosexuality is one of the most prominent because it usually isn't a one time thing but more so a lifestyle. The real problem is that when someone becomes hardened to a sin they become separated from God.

What you are saying is discrediting the Bible and like many other people of the times you are trying to read the Bible to fit your opinion. Instead I would encourage you to pray to God and ask him for wisdom to understand the scriptures as it was intended, not as you want to read in to it. Biblical truths are not always popular, but they are truths-
Matthew 7:24- (ESV) “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
and
Isaiah 5:20 (ESV) Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Thanks be to God that Christ came to earth as true God and true man, lived the perfect life in our place to be the atoning sacrifice for all of our sins, homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc... Because of this love by God for us we are washed in his blood through this perfect sacrifice for OUR sins. Those that believe in this WILL have eternal life. But my friends please don't be the one that tries to change what God's word actually says and twists his words or follow such false teachings.

2 Timothy 4:2-4 (ESV)- For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Love your brother and sister in Christ, get to know them on a personal level, help them with their struggles. Furthermore explain to them the love of Christ and what he did for all sinners. Importantly when someone is caught in a Satan's snare and is trapped in a sin point the sin out to the sinner in love and gently bring them back to Christ so that their sin may not cost them their faith in God. Remember it isn't our words that will do the work but God and the Holy Spirit working through them!

Show post

Monty #fundie patheos.com

Monty: God did not create us the way we have become. God made us morally neutral and we chose to be the way we are. Be glad I'm not God. I'd just have wiped everyone and started again. God loves us and has provided the answer, doing for us what we cannot do for ourselves. We are fatally flawed. Even the most noble and upright of people have a dark side. God has already revealed Himself. He is not the problem, we are! We are born spiritually blind. God came to the earth in the form of a man. His name is Jesus. Jesus went about healing, delivering, and even raising the dead. We have eyewitness accounts. I can assure you that that kind of miracle still happens. I was healed from a severely damaged liver caused by alcohol abuse. Jesus came to earth knowing what was in store for Him. The perfect man was killed by those He came to help. Jesus sacrificed Himself so that anyone who accepts Him can experience eternal life. Jesus did not stay dead! He rose again and he lives right now. If you believe only in evolution, how come man is going backwards? The world is not safer, saner, healthier, more tolerant, more forgiving and more loving. How come we do the things that we know are harmful to us? We drink to excess, way overeat even though we know it's bad for us, we are destroying our home (the earth), then we want to export all our dysfunction to the rest of the universe!

ChrisDACase95:
What does evolution have to do with an interpetation of the cross ?

Monty: Nothing. Evolution is a myth. People use evolution in order to deny the fact that God created us in His image.I was responding to Matt Woodling. I assumed that he believes in evolution as he denies that God exists or if He does, has no interest in His creation. Evolution is the usual belief of people who deny God. I've not come across another belief apart from some really wacky alien theories.