Sketches on Atheism

David McDonnough: The Best/Worst Christian Apologist in America

David_PicThe author of Applied Faith, David McDonnough, is the living embodiment of why today the evangelical brand is toxic… and for that, I salute him.

The product of an American Bible school masquerading as a “University,” his often hate-filled, factually laughable, scientifically-illiterate, mean spirited, aggressively absurd right-wing articles are a blazing beacon for why 280,000 young Americans jettison evangelical Christianity every year (John S. Dickerson, The Great Evangelical Recession, p. 26). His articles are, in short, genius, even arguing recently that Christians are, in fact, still bound to the Law of Moses because that whole Jesus thing just interfered with the evangelical love of guns and violence.

His latest effort, Why “LGBTQ” is a Dangerous Slur – Considering the ACP Report, is true to form. This preposterous 1,600 word salad is a veritable showcase of unhinged Christian apologetic thought, and it exemplifies just why ridicule is the only possible adult response to apologists like David. It begins:

The American College of Pediatricians dropped a massive truth-bomb on the LGBTQ advocacy industry on March 21, 2016.  In very direct, factual and clear language, they declared “Gender Ideology Harms Children.”* The publication of this direct warning has had a tremendous ripple effect on the entire tapestry of imaginary “facts” that militant LGBTQ advocates advance.

Powerful stuff. He continues:

To fans of scientific fact, as well as fans of the Bible, the release of the ACP transgender report is a blast of oxygen to people being smothered in a blanket of ideological fallacy.  The foundations of the entire LGBTQ ideology are built on the sinking sands of an extremist political ideology that has run completely amok toward any who would challenge it.

And that’s about as far as anyone needs to go. When an evangelical Christian pens the words “scientific fact” any rational person knows the train is no longer on the rails. You see, David’s entire argument here is based on an article published by the impressively sounding ACP: The American College of Pediatricians. It sounds like a genuine professional body, an organisation whose thoughts should be taken seriously, but like American Bible schools masquerading as actual “Universities,” the ACP is in fact little more than a façade trying to give an air of legitimacy to a tiny body of radical right-wing Christian doctors who the Southern Poverty Law Center have classified as a Hate Group with “a history of propagating damaging falsehoods about LGBT people“.

Demonstrated time and time again, Evangelical Christians, like David McDonnough, are not shy when it comes to lying, and the ACP is in many ways pretending to be the AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP is a real professional body with over 60,000 members. The ACP has somewhere between 60 and 200 members. No exact figure is available because the ACP is not an actual professional body. They do not publish a journal, as any professional body should, they offer no certification, nor do they offer continued education for their members, which all professional organisations must.   As explained by Warren Throckmorton in a 2011 article:

“A hallmark of a profession is the provision of training, certification, and continuing education. The ACP does none of this independently. The ACP has been around since 2002 and the AAP since 1937. Annually, the AAP spends millions on professional publications and continuing education; the ACP receipts in 2008 were less than $60,000.”

So, David McDonnough’s entire argument is based on the apparent legitimacy (“scientific fact”) of an article published by a tiny fringe evangelical Christian hate group pretending to be a professional organisation.

And evangelicals wonder why no one takes them seriously?

Advertisements

204 thoughts on “David McDonnough: The Best/Worst Christian Apologist in America

  1. Pingback: David McDonnough: The Best/Worst Christian Apologist in America | Club Schadenfreude

  2. The thing is that these days (and for a long time now) Evangelical Apologists like this have really only been preaching to the choir. Those who are already biased against the LGBTQ community will slap him on the back, never investigate the group in question , and call that “WINNING”.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The frailty of a faith unsupported by reason. I think faith can be a helpful human attribute, yet if the whole stands on no more than wishful thinking, then it can only give rise to absurdity. To then dress these absurdities up as science is unforgivable – unless you’re a Christian, of course. *thinks fondly of Bill Hicks*

    Liked by 3 people

  4. David, naturally, censors his site, but this comment was left by the always brilliant Tildeb which, of course, has been deleted by David, but I think deserves a spot here in the sun:

    “Speaking wholly about massive truth bombs, why are you intentionally – speaking as one professional to another, of course – dismissing the amassed research leading to very clear and unambiguous policy statements and from the American Association of Pediatrics… you know, theactual. professional body for pediatrics in the States?

    In addition, by intentionally calling same-sex attraction to be at least similar to an “obsessive and compulsive disorder, much like chemical addiction, sexual addiction, OCD and others,” (fully discredited by all major psychological and psychiatric and pediatric professional organizations, let’s be clear) you are actively promoting the stigmatization of LGBT youth according to the American Psychological Association – an act contrary to our professional standards… unless, of course, you are not a member of any of these professional organizations… very handy when you wish to promote your religious beliefs in your so-called ‘counseling’ but under the false pretenses of pretending to be a professional pediatric and psychological counselor with professional training and professional standards… or do you correct this assumption and let clients know you are not representative of any of these professional bodies? You wouldn’t try to fool potential clients, would you?

    Clearly, you do not support professional ‘best practices’ but reject them wholesale. The truth bomb here is that you assume that, because of your contrary and incompatible religious beliefs, you are in a position to know better than tens of thousands of your supposed ‘colleagues’ who do the research and are concerned with best practices and this is why you apparently feel no ambivalence or remorse about promoting further stigmatization to a vulnerable pediatric minority.

    I’m sure you have no problem rationalizing the higher suicide rate from this vulnerable minority as having nothing whatsoever to do with such religiously inspired stigmatizing – as the kind of pseudo-professional counseling you engage in here and supposedly in real life – and has everything to do with professional organizations who attempt to counter this discrimination and the legacy of harm it leaves in its wake with knowledge and clear policy guidelines you simply wave away.

    Well, aren’t you special… having received your professional training apparently from SNL’s The Church Lady.”

    Liked by 9 people

  5. Conservatives creating fake institutions is a long time frustration for me. They didn’t like what academic institutions said, so they created “think tanks” which were little more than propaganda mills. They didn’t like Wikipedia, so they created Conservapedia. It’s not a serious surprise to me that they created the ACP to put out legit sounding nonsense.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. “The American College of Pediatricians dropped a massive truth-bomb on the LGBTQ advocacy industry …

    *sigh*

    There is a debate to be had regarding gender identity and children. Dropping ‘truth-bombs’ when entering into the conversation is precisely the wrong way to go about it.

    There is such little space to be had just to discuss these issues due to the machinations of the authoritarian Right (thanks David) and the Left.

    I just reread David’s post… no one told him that you never go Full Trump.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. “[We] may be divorced and remarried several times. We may be as greedy and unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others…. But at least we’re not gay.” ~ Greg Boyd

    Great post, John. For every hate crime committed against LGBT people, David and his hateful ilk should be held accountable. An eye for an eye? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, they estimate approximately a quarter of a million hate crimes are committed against LGBT people annually. That’s just in U.S.

    According to FBI statistics, LGBT people are more targeted for violent hate crimes than any other minority in America.

    Liked by 5 people

    • I’m baffled as to why these people are even so obsessed with gays. Seriously, what business is it of theirs? Me, I give the whole subject exactly zero thought.

      Read Tildeb’s comment which David deleted but i posted here above. It compliments your points beautifully.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tildeb’s comment was spot on. Forensic psychologist, Karen Franklin did extensive research on the root causes — why there is such an obsession and hatred toward gays. She stated:

        […heterosexism is not just a personal value system, it is a tool in the maintenance of gender dichotomy. In other words, through heterosexism, any male who refuses to accept the dominant culture’s assignment of appropriate masculine behavior is labeled early on as a “sissy” or “fag” and then subjected to bullying. Similarly, any woman who opposes male dominance and control can be labeled a lesbian and attacked.

        The potential of being ostracized as homosexual, regardless of actual sexual attractions and behaviors, puts pressure on all people to conform to a narrow standard of appropriate gender behavior, thereby maintaining and reinforcing our society’s hierarchical gender structure.”

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/franklin.html

        Liked by 6 people

      • What’s not a waste of time is to call out these pernicious bigots and reveal them for the lying charlatans they are.

        Imagine some parent thinking his or her child who indicates same-sex preference taking them for supposedly psychological counseling only for the child to be exposed to condemnation and vilification for their feelings… taking the child to an appointment that seems like it represents professional psychological counseling then paying such a execrable wank who is only pretending to be a real counselor (by ignoring not only best practices but the actual standards of the professions he pretends to represents) rather than what he is: a religious mouthpiece who seriously couldn’t give two shits about the child’s psychological welfare but assumes a disorder where none exists.

        By making such an unprofessional assumption, the pseudo-counselor then attacks the most fragile part of the child: the developing ego and sense of self worth. After all, if the child feels this way and then is told the feelings are wrong, then of course the child is going to feel like they are broken in some fundamental way. Of course this is going to lead to higher rates of self-harm. That’s why I can safely say that such counselors do not give a shit for the welfare of the child. In fact and deed, they cause harm.

        This kind of ‘counseling’ is a special kind of torture only the religious seem to think equates with piety and is an expression of the ‘loving’ approval of their god. It’s so sick and twisted and causes such harm that the least any rational person religious or otherwise can do is condemn it for the abuse it is in the strongest possible terms. And people like David McDonnough need to hear this condemnation in case they are curious why they and their religious beliefs that motivate this widespread child abuse are held in such richly deserved contempt.

        Liked by 6 people

      • You mean like Evangelical Christian bullshit taking over states like Mississippi? I think every time the utter idiocy and hypocrisy of fundamental christianity, and its values, can be exposed and shamed, it should be. Fundamental christianity, and the christians who profess it, are no different than the Taliban or ISIS. They’re bullies whose world view is so fragile and weak the only way they can continue to profess it is to force it onto everyone else around them. Anything different than them is a threat to their asinine belief system so anything different must be vilified and eradicated. Fundamentalists, at their core, are weak, petulant spoiled brats who simply can’t play in a sandbox that has anyone in it but them.

        Liked by 2 people

      • When I was a career infantry NCO I heard numerous homophobic remarks. I usually addressed them with humor. I said things like “ah insecure in your manhood I see! Let me know when you figure it out so I know how to counsel you.” Or “I am all in favor of supporting Gay rights, the more the better. Makes for less competition for the females for me!” Most of the boys didn’t feel threatened by Lesbians. In fact they sort of liked the Bi aspects of that! Lol. I felt that got them think a bit about how stupid they were. Some of the lads said, “hmmm, never thought about it that way! I guess you are right Sarge!” I suspect that the Fundies are the same. Just parroting what they hear and never stop to think about it. How many of that protest to much are simply closeted Gays too. Always fun to see one get busted!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. So I made a very polite comment pointing out the professional but contrary policy guidelines of the AMA, AAP, APA, and a list of research for ‘best practices’ regarding counseling youngsters from this highly vulnerable pediatric group (LGBTQ) and posted it. My question was about his any ‘professional’ standing in any of these recognized counseling groups if he held a stigmatizing contrary opinion about and – lo and behold – it disappeared from his site without reason or comment. What an honest fellow… and very professional in his counseling, too.. his professional opinions apparently informed and qualified as it is only by SNL’s The Church Lady.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I continue to read your articles, John, because I like you. I like people who think, and I like people who encourage others to think. I am a devout, Holy Spirit empowered disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, and I believe that the Bible is accurate. I understand that the consensus is against these things, but I don’t feel obligated to defer to the consensus. As always, the very best to you and yours. Rich

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Excellent post John. There is probably no greater sign of someone weakness in position when they have to invent a name for an organization to make it appear more legitimate than it actually is. Yet even what is so obvious to the rest of us, such strategies work on deceiving many. Arguably many of them prefer the deception to support the way they already feel, but those that are still on the fence and think they are informed fall victim to such charlatans. Not to mention the real victims which are the many transgender children raised in such a hostile environment. Thank you for posting this story and exposing them. James Randi would be proud. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

    • “Yet even what is so obvious to the rest of us, such strategies work on deceiving many.”

      It’s an ever-so-sweet deception for those who want to be deceived. Never forget, the seminal church historian of 3rd and 4th Century Christianity, Eusebius of Caesarea, brazenly titled the 32nd chapter of the 12th book of his Evangelical Preparation, “How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wow. Well nothing deceiving about that title though…just brazenly says that deceiving people is justified especially if those people want to be deceived. Of course one has to ask the question is it deception when someone already believes a lie as the truth? Rather it seems to me more as exploitation, which is a different ethical question. Well there is a lot of cross over of course, because exploiting ignorance is sort of what deception is, but you can also exploit someone’s skills and knowledge too. More to the point if you were to ask me to hit you over the head, that doesn’t mean I should or that it would be moral for me to do so. I’m not sure that anybody wants to be deceived at least in the way that you and I are seeing as a deception. Either way, it’s all very troubling that deception is justified as a necessary action to promote what they consider to be the truth.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. He is an evangelical counselor isn’t he?
    I get the impression that a number of these Christian Counselors had some sort of problem before they became counselors.
    I wonder how many issues this bloke had?
    He is as toxic as they come.

    Smashing post as usual.

    Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t fully understand what damage is done by people expressing opinions. Surely the LGBT advocates are strong enough to stand up against the rantings of a religious kook even though he claims to be an expert.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Have a look at the graph Neuronotes posted above.

        The point of this post, however, was not even to advocate any LGBTQ position. Hate is hate. There is no good way of looking at it. It ends in violence. The point of the post was to demonstrate that evangelicals willingly lie to present their so-called “case.”

        Like

      • It says FBI stats, but I would suggest you ask Neuro (Victoria) that question.

        Are you, however, honestly suggesting hate crimes aren’t committed against the LGBT community? Where does that irrational hate come from? Who propagates the hatred? Are you aware of the Kill Homosexual laws written by American evangelicals in countries like in Uganda?

        Liked by 1 person

      • You understand then that I’m reluctant to consider a graph valid without referencing the data that graph represents.

        I am not suggesting that hate crimes aren’t committed against LGBT people. Hate crimes are committed against every kind of person. I can’t tell you for sure where that hatred comes from but I don’t think it emanates solely from speakers with whom I disagree.

        I was not aware that American evangelicals are empowered to make law in Uganda.

        Like

      • Then I suggest you educate yourself.

        Mother Jones: Meet the American Pastor Behind Uganda’s Anti-Gay Crackdown

        ”Lively, a 56-year-old Massachusetts native, specializes in stirring up anti-gay feeling around the globe. In Uganda, which he first visited in 2002, he has cultivated ties to influential politicians and religious leaders at the forefront of the nation’s anti-gay crusade. Just before the first draft of Uganda’s anti-gay bill began circulating in April 2009, Lively traveled to Kampala and gave lengthy presentations to members of Uganda’s parliament and cabinet, which laid out the argument that the nation’s president and lawmakers would later use to justify Uganda’s draconian anti-gay crackdown—namely that Western agitators were trying to unravel Uganda’s social fabric by spreading “the disease” of homosexuality to children. “They’re looking for other people to be able to prey upon,” Lively said, according to video footage. “When they see a child that’s from a broken home it’s like they have a flashing neon sign over their head.”

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/scott-lively-anti-gay-law-uganda

        And this from the LA Times: How anti-gay Christians evangelize hate abroad

        ” In nations such as Uganda, Russia, Nigeria and Belize, an insidious homophobia engineered in America is taking root. I have seen this hate being spread with my own eyes … In the United States, Lively is widely dismissed as an anti-gay firebrand and Holocaust revisionist. But in Uganda, he was presented — and accepted — as a leading international authority. The public persecution of LGBTQ people escalated after Lively’s conference, with one local newspaper publishing the pictures and addresses of activists under the headline, “Hang Them.””

        http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kaoma-uganda-gays-american-ministers-20140323-story.html

        And this from the Nation: It’s Not Just Uganda: Behind the Christian Right’s Onslaught in Africa

        “For years now, evangelical activists from the United States have been speaking out against homosexuality and cheering on antigay legislation all over Africa … The influence of these groups has been well documented in Uganda. The now-defunct Exodus International, for example, sent Don Schmierer, a board member, to Uganda in 2009 to speak at a conference alongside Scott Lively, a pastor who was later sued by a Ugandan gay rights group for his role in promoting human rights violations against LGBTQ people.”

        http://www.thenation.com/article/its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa/

        John, in the Age of Information, ignorance is a choice.

        Now, do you have a point to make, are you happy with just making noise with no apparent intent?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Didn’t realize I was making noise. In my ignorance, I thought we were having a discussion.

        Perhaps you can answer a couple of questions to help me take your advice of educating myself.

        Why blame a handful of religious activists for the passing of laws in other countries instead of the country’s law-makers?

        On what basis can you argue that any law is immoral?

        Like

      • Did you read the articles linked?

        Do you think someone should be killed for their sexual preference? If so, please give me the moral justification for that.

        Now, in relation to the post, what point are you trying to make?

        Like

      • I read the linked articles.

        No. I don’t think people should be killed for their sexual preference but that opinion is based on my religious convictions. My questions were seeking insight about how non-religious people justify telling law-makers in other countries that their laws are wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ”No. I don’t think people should be killed for their sexual preference but that opinion is based on my religious convictions. My questions were seeking insight about how non-religious people justify telling law-makers in other countries that their laws are wrong.”

        You need your religion to know what is right and what is wrong? Interesting… although hardly a compelling argument as the articles linked name members of your own religion who wish people killed for their sexual preferences. The command is even in your book:

        “If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13)

        And before you try and say the OT laws no-longer apply to you, I will point you to an article penned by none other than David McDonnough, whom this particular post is about, who say’s you’re wrong, John.

        ”What Christians most often forget is how to read the whole Bible as the complete Word of God. For some, there is a misunderstanding that the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians. That would be a mistaken understanding because Jesus came to fulfill the “Law and the Prophets” (the Old Testament), but not to change a “jot or tittle” of it. Jesus did change some of the incorrect ways that the Jews were practicing the Law, but did not change the Law itself.

        http://appliedfaith.org/2015/10/06/can-christians-carry-concealed-weapons/

        So, you were saying?

        Now, do you wish to address the central point of this post, or are you simply happy presenting noise?

        Like

      • I was saying that I don’t know how non-religious people can tell law-makers in other countries that their laws are wrong.

        What is the central point of the post?

        Like

      • Evidently you do know the answer to your question. You are contravening your own religion by saying people should not be killed for their sexual preference.

        So tell me, as it’s so clearly not from your religion, where do you, John, get the idea that people should not be killed for their sexual preference?

        The central point? The lies apologists tell to construct their sick arguments. Alternatively, one of the reasons why the evangelical brand is toxic.

        Like

      • I have not contravened anything.

        I believe God exists. I believe God created people with the ability to discern right and wrong (sometimes called conscience). The essence of my religion boils down to ‘respect God’s laws’ and ‘treat others the way you want them to treat you’ hence, I don’t think people should be killed for their sexual preference.

        The atheist rejects the existence of God. That leaves the notion of right and wrong up to individuals. It makes morality relative. Stating that homosexuals should not be killed is a matter of personal opinion and yours is no more legitimate than any radical evangelical.

        Like

      • John, you have completely and entirely evaded what was put to you. Your religion says kill homosexuals. That is your “Gods Law.” It’s in black and white. That is the command being taken to African nations by members of your own religion. It is being taken to Africa only because secular governments (like in the US) won’t hear a jot of such nonsense. I have shown you how David McDonnough says the OT laws apply to you, John. I can show you many, many more captains of Christianity (theologians) who think the same, like Gary North. Rev. Rick Warren, one of your leading evangelical voices, was in Uganda publically supporting the Kill Gay Law.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/whos-helping-finance-ugandas-kill-the-gays-bill-you-are_b_2229509.html

        So, evidently, you are not practicing the same religion as these leaders of Christianity are practicing. Who am I to believe: a comedian, or a professional theologian with a following of millions? Why do you contradict senior Christians, like Rick Warren? David McDonnough is a theologian. Doesn’t his interpretation of your religion trump your amateur position?

        So, tell me without avoiding it this time: where do you, John, get the idea that killing people for their sexual preference is wrong? Where does that idea come from?

        Like

      • It comes from the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus. His teaching, in my opinion, trumps Rick Warren, David McDonnough and the framers of Ugandan laws.

        Now, without evading, where do you get the idea that killing people for their sexual preference is wrong?

        Like

      • ”It comes from the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus.”

        Jesus said nothing of the like. In fact, he was quite specific concerning the Law of Moses:

        “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)

        So, John, where do you get the idea that Jesus said the OT laws don’t apply to you? The OT laws are specific: kill homosexuals. Why are you disobeying Jesus?

        If you’re going to point tosomething like the Golden Rule, then, ignoring Jesus’ own quite specific directions above, that’s hardly original to Jesus. The concept dates back to the Egyptian Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE) “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.” It also emerged in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1780 BCE), as well as in the Mahabharata (8th Century BCE) “The knowing person is minded to treat all beings as himself,” in Homer’s Odyssey (6th century BCE), “I will be as careful for you as I will be for myself in the same need,” 6th century BCE Taoism, “Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss,” in 5th century BCE Confucianism, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself,” in 4th century BCE Mohism, “For one would do for others as one would do for oneself,” and was articulated by the Greek, Pittacus (640–568 BCE), who said: “Do not do to your neighbour what you would take ill from him.”

        Hardly unique, wouldn’t you say?

        So, again: John, where do you get the idea that Jesus said the OT laws don’t apply to you? Where do you get this idea that you should not kill homosexuals?

        Please be specific.

        ”Now, without evading, where do you get the idea that killing people for their sexual preference is wrong?”

        As I’ve already said, you already know the answer to that question for it is the same place you got the idea… and here’s a hint, it’s not from your religion.

        Let me demonstrate this point further. Do you support slavery, John? I’m assuming you don’t, but why don’t you? Any such notion is certainly not found in your religion. Your God endorses it, Jesus (as above) condones it, and Paul encourages it, even giving advice as to how slaves should behave:

        “slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling” (Ephesians 6:5)

        “tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Titus 2:9).

        So, if not from your religion, as it so clearly is not, where do you, John, get the idea that slavery is wrong? What inspired this advance in the human condition?

        Did you know the first formal abolition of slavery was enacted in India, by Ashoka, emperor of the Maurya Dynasty, who abolished slavery in the 3rd Century BCE. In China, the Qin Dynasty eliminated slaves in the late 200’s BCE. When the Qin Dynasty fell, many of these laws were overturned, only to be abolished once again in 26 BCE by Wang Mang (Xin Dynasty) who abolished slavery altogether. In Europe, the first abolition of slavery occurred in Venice, 906 CE, when the Magistrate (Doge) of Venice, Pietro IV Candiano, banned it. Doge’s were men of the Law, John, not of religion. Venice was, of course, antagonistic to the Vatican.

        So, can you answer this question: if not from your religion, as it so clearly is not, where do you, John, get the idea that slavery is wrong? Is it not the same place where you got the idea that killing people simply because of their sexual preference is wrong?

        Like

      • Unless you have chosen to be ignorant in this Information Age, you are aware that the New Testament records many more words from Jesus Christ in addition to those he spoke in Matthew 5:18-19. I have concluded from our conversation thus far that you’re an intelligent person so I won’t need to convince you that the whole of Christianity cannot be expressed in two verses. You already understand that context is important when considering quotes from George Washington, Richard Dawkins, Winston Churchill or Jesus Christ.

        I suspect that you don’t hold the Bible in high regard. I avoid giving Bible answers to non-believers because I might as well be quoting Mother Goose. My book of ‘myths and fairy tales’ is of little interest to the steadfast skeptic but since you specifically asked about the passage in Matthew, here is my answer:

        Jesus said he came to fulfill the law and that no part of the law would disappear…until everything is accomplished. The last part of that statement is important. He didn’t leave it open ended. He didn’t imply that the law would stand forever and that in 2016 we should be stoning homosexuals.

        In the Book of John (19:30) Jesus, as he hangs on the cross, proclaims, “It is finished.” Then he dies. The veil in the temple tears from top to bottom and the OT Law is officially fulfilled. God’s new covenant is in place. God’s people are made righteous through the sacrifice of Jesus.

        God didn’t give us the law in order to make us righteous.

        (Romans 3:19–26)
        19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
        21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 1

        The theme of the New Testament is overwhelmingly peaceful. Again and again Christians are instructed to treat their neighbors with kindness. No serious Bible reader can argue that Jesus advocated oppression as a form of worship.

        Slavery existed in the first century and the Bible instructed both slaves and masters in proper conduct. The Bible makes no proclamation endorsing slavery.

        I think you’re wanting an admission that my sense of right and wrong is a matter of conscience. I made that admission earlier but I will repeat it. I have a sense of responsibility for how I treat other people. I know I shouldn’t intentionally harm my neighbor. I shouldn’t kill people for their sexual preferences. This is supported by the teachings in the New Testament.

        So my question remains. If the law dictates what is right, then slavery is right in those places where it’s legal. How do you justify telling Uganda their laws are wrong? If people are not made in the image of God, isn’t conscience just a matter of personal opinion?

        Like

      • “Unless you have chosen to be ignorant in this Information Age, you are aware that the New Testament records many more words from Jesus Christ in addition to those he spoke in Matthew 5:18-19.”

        Absolutely, but not a single word saying “owning and selling human beings is wrong, don’t do it.”

        ”The Bible makes no proclamation endorsing slavery.”

        What an astoundingly bizarre statement. Are you honestly this ignorant, or are you just playing dumb?

        I have already given you two quotes from Paul advising slaves how they should behave. The bible, however, has a fertile field of passages not only endorsing slavery, but giving clear instructions concerning the trade.

        Exodus 21, for example:

        “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing.3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.

        7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

        Now, we even have instructions as to how to beat your slave:

        Exodus 21:20-21: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.

        Exodus 21:26-27: If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

        So, Yhwh supports slavery, Jesus supports slavery, and Paul encourages slavery. That, John, is from your bible…. The source, according to you, of all human morality.

        So, if you consider slavery morally reprehensible, then we must conclude that you have arrived at this notion quite independently of your particular religion. Indeed, history informs us that while your religion was busy promoting the trafficking in human beings, other cultures, such as the Indians and the Chinese, were busy abolishing it.

        Where did they get the idea from, John?

        Where did you get the idea from, John? Please, be specific, and just to remind you, if you’re going to say “the Golden Rule,” we have already established that Jesus merely plagiarised that idea. It was not original, and certainly not unique.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I’ve already explained where I got the idea from, John.

        You have yet to explain where you get the idea that slavery is wrong. What moral authority do you use to criticize the Bible?

        Like

      • And in answer to your question: Enlightened self-interest. I would not like to be a slave, so, thanks to the giant processing plant sitting above my eyes, I can project that same abstraction onto others and appreciate how they would feel in the same position. It’s called empathy, and as a cognitive capacity, it arose quite naturally through the evolutionary paradigm.

        Is that so genuinely difficult for you to understand? Seriously?

        Now, please address the question put to you, which you keep evading.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Okay. Enlightened self interest which evolved via natural processes through evolution. That’s not difficult to understand at all.

        Did the belief that slavery is an acceptable practice also evolve via these same evolutionary processes?

        Forgive me but I’m not sure what question I’ve evaded.

        Like

      • You have failed to tell me from where you got the idea that slavery is wrong. You have said the New Testament, but haven’t given me any specifics or pointed to any one particular passage. So, as you are acting contrary to what the bible says regarding the matter, please tell me where you got the idea from… and while you’re answering that, you might as well also tell where you think the Indians and the Chinese got the idea from.

        You are claiming, aren’t you, that the bible is the source of all human morality? This being the claim, I think it only reasonable for you to explain then what inspired Ashoka, for example, to abolish slavery while your religion was busy promoting it.

        Like

      • Yes. That’s seriously what I’m implying.

        Religion is the ONLY source of moral absolutes. In the United States, religion is responsible for the idea that all people are endowed with certain rights. Those rights come from God. (Another part of your toxic evangelical brand…)

        If God does not exist then the final authority is government (law) and that raises my dilemma. Atheists cannot appeal to God as the ultimate authority. So on what basis do you get to tell the lawmakers in Uganda that they’re wrong?

        Like

      • Your founding fathers were mostly deists, inspired by the goals of the Enlightenment, not Christianity. They were also quite gifted wordsmiths, so I’m pretty certain if they’d meant the US government to be a Christian institution they would have penned words to that effect. They didn’t. What they did pen were words like these:

        Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

        Article. VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

        You see, a man-made Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” and no religious qualifications shall ever be required.

        Now, the way to the way to declare the establishment of a “Christian Nation” can be found in some of the Colonial Charters. Here’s Connecticut’s preamble to their charter of 1639 (almost 150 years before the Constitutional Convention):

        “For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:”

        If the framers of your nation had ever a single thought to creating a Christian (theocratic) government that is the way they would have penned it.

        They didn’t.

        End of story.

        Liked by 2 people

      • On compelling reasons. Duh.

        We get morality only from God which is why morality is evidence for God, you see.

        There’s something broken about this line of reasoning but that’s what religious belief does: it breaks the bonds between reality and our beliefs about it and calls this a virtue. It’s not. It’s a failed method that produces exactly zero knowledge about the world but convince the credulous and gullible that they have special insight. John B is a good example. It’s a mug’s game and he’s fallen for it hook, line, and sinker, which is why his reasoning is broken.

        Liked by 3 people

      • I just got into with him today (on SB’s blog) about being a “counselor.” He said he has a master’s degree from a seminary in Pastoral Counseling. Which, you know, is the same as being a witch doctor. He did not appreciate my analogy.

        Liked by 2 people

  12. He’s a good writer, even if his facts are debatable and his perspective intriguing. Loaded.

    For myself, I don’t give a damn (and neither should I) what people get up to so long as no unwanted force is involved and no-one is hurt by it. No valid one, that is.

    So where kids are concerned we have to tread carefully and this is where the spaghetti in the can becomes worms.
    I can see where this gentleman is coming from (oops), which is obviously that he’s defending his turf. Income. Stipend. Franchise, and using the innocent as an excuse, or tool, or weapon. Not good.

    But consenting adults in private? Oh … I forgot: God is watching, and He isn’t pleased.

    But isn’t that the same God-guy who was watching even before the Creation, hundreds of millions of years ago? And who did nothing more about it than go ahead and create the whole mess anyway?

    (Billy Connolly has a lot to say about Big G as Big Brother in his ‘World Tour of Scotland’)

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Outstanding post John, as usual. Bravo!

    All of the pro-LGBTQ comments here are very good. Well done for them.

    I’d like to throw in my POV as well, but from the biological record for thousands into the millions of years. So for any Abrahamic religious followers, I DARE YOU to study the Natural world and see for yourself just how immeasurably DIVERSE (is perverted the term you’d recognize?) the ACTUAL world you live in… truly is!

    http://professortaboo.com/co_sales/

    Liked by 3 people

  14. I think you did well writing this post John, and I agree with you about this guy and deleting commentators reply’s, just wrong. He might also be breaking the law.

    We all know hate speech, outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

    In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. If a mentally unstable person attacks a gay person solely on this guys teaching then he could be in legal trouble.
    ***
    My brother is gay and there is a running joke in the family his marriage has lasted longer then any of his three brothers marriages. I love my brother very much and I see him twice a year, when we have our family get-togethers. He had it tough as a teen, struggling with his feelings, suicidal thoughts and pain.

    But accepting a person with same-sex-attraction does not demand I also accept their behavior any more than finding homosexuality among animals or a “homosexual gene” would demand I accept human homosexual behavior as normal or natural or desirable.

    But conversely, even though I reject certain behavior does not mean I cannot love or accept the person involved in the behavior. Remember that God loved me even when I was a sinner. He made a distinction between me and my sin.

    We are responsible for our lives and actions and just because one might have a genetic propensity for an “unnatural” or destructive behavior does not make it acceptable, especially if that behavior is given entitlements and privileged legal standing in our society.

    Like

    • Hi Roy. I don’t think anyone is asking you to find same-sex attraction desirable. The point of the post was simply to demonstrate the subterfuge hate-filled evangelicals like David will stoop to so as to construct their sick arguments.

      I’m glad, though, to hear you and your brother get along. That’s encouraging.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Roy. I found this one paragraph of yours interesting…

      “In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. If a mentally unstable person attacks a gay person solely on this guys teaching then he could be in legal trouble.”

      Does your understanding of “hate speech” as you described it, also include “writing” over internet domains, including against any one gender/person or internet domain?

      I might also have further questions based on your answer(s). Thanks.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hello Prof,

        It might, if said speech incites violence. Might be hard to prove though…

        Americans can be charged under the Language and Overt Vitriolic Expression (LOVE) Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed the act into law with little fanfare.

        The first American charged under the was an agnostic gay activist who was arrested when he was overheard saying that heterosexual Catholics harm the planet.

        Ref: http://skinnyreporter.com/hatespeech.html

        There are several instances of arrest on Facebook bulling,

        http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/10/does-the-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech-on-facebook/

        Interesting paragraph at this second link, “There is also another form of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment, and that is a type of speech involving a repeated course of communication either in person, by mail, telephone, social media, or other forms of electronic communication that is designed to put a person in reasonable fear for his or her safety or is designed to cause severe emotional distress.”

        To me this implies domain writing but really seems kind of lame. Take this blog, for example: yes it bashes Christianity always, and some posters convey vile, hateful opinions, that could cause severe emotional distress, buy I’m here by choice. Kind of like a TV show, if you don’t like it and it is that emotionally stressful, just turn it off.

        Like

      • Roy,

        The first question which comes to mind is over “inciting” violence. Just to clarify meaning… do you mean violence that has actually begun by “hate speech” or hate-language, or POTENTIAL violence by hate-language-speeches? Where is that line?

        My next question is over this you wrote…

        To me this implies domain writing but really seems kind of lame. Take this blog, for example: yes it bashes Christianity always, and some posters convey vile, hateful opinions, that could cause severe emotional distress

        Could you give an example, perhaps a personal example? If not, I can provide at least one. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Leroy

        The skinnyreporter appears to be a satire site. If you click on the first link that “claims” an agnostic gay activist was arrested it actually leads to a Telegraph Article about a Christian Preacher who was arrested for preaching in the streets against homosexuals in Workington, Cumbria (Britain, not the US).

        Liked by 2 people

    • @LeRoy (also for John Z)…

      What is the Statute of Limitations for your blog John, for someone to respond? In Texas it is 1-year for libel or slandering offenses. Should you, I, and your readers wait that long? 😉

      Since I haven’t received your 3rd response from you Roy, here is an example of internet-domain hate-language/hate-speech “inciting” violence or emotional distress (as you stated) upon a person and gender. How would the enforcement of guidelines written above (by you) be applied to this specific man’s blog-comment I quote here?

      “Well, she did invite me, from Zande’s blog, to come to her blog and talk about the reality of Satan. I had no prior knowledge of [woman’s name omitted for discretion] and really didn’t care about her or her false testimony, but it does bug me, the lies, and deceit. I went out for a real quest for an honest understanding of the “informed” and it did not go well.

      I would blame it on the female sensibility. Sometimes when you tell a female to shut-up and listen they do not take it too well, so, the broken ones don’t anyway. So she banned me. There always has to be hierarchy and it starts with Christ, then man, then women. It’s a circle, complete and perfect perfectness.

      I initiated conversation to another Trump sham post under another WordPress login, “Bobby”, after she banned “Leroy”. It was going great and no one had any idea that Leroy was Bobby until I confessed. And guess what? The [woman’s name omitted for discretion] banned me and erased some of my posts. Not all of them, but some of them. Dumb.

      I don’t really give a shit about you two dumb-asses either but I thought I should give an explanation, kind of bros-before-hoes kind of thing. I mean, for me, I would trust my life to you two guys if under fire, before any shit-for-brains female like [woman’s name omitted for discretion]. I don’t really care if you like me, because i really don’t like you either. I love your soul, just don’t like your mind, but I would trust my life to you two guys over some flake. Throw me under the bus dudes and I will lay there smiling knowing it was my choice to trust youins.”

      I personally was appalled by this man’s inciting hateful speech/language, especially to this woman AND women in general, but also for simple human decency standards!!! 😮

      If I had been the recipient of this David McDonnough-ish man’s comment, at minimum I would absolutely demand an immediate unconditional apology from him demonstrating his remorse… but for normal average levels of human decency I would demand an immediate unconditional apology from him demonstrating remorse for the specific woman, the other person, AND women in general for his hate-words or “inciteful” language! I think this man’s comment is full of the exact things YOU mention… “conveying vile, hateful opinions, that could cause severe emotional distress.” Yes?

      I hope you can return here reasonably soon Roy to give your personal thoughts about this man’s “vile, hateful opinions.” Thanks.

      Liked by 3 people

      • …spewed by a Christian?

        That is an excellent point Jeff, especially in light of what Scripture teaches about witnessing to the unbelieving world. For example…

        Isaiah 55:11, Romans 1:16, and John 12:32!

        Too often on Xian blogs, comments by Xian bloggers, in person at live protests, on television news broadcasts, etc, I hardly ever see what these 3 bible passages talk about — AND their supporting passages & teachings — exhibited by “Christians”. I find the double-standards to be rampant sometimes throughout ALL “god’s churches.” Christ-like behaviour is hard to find these days. John’s post here is one example out of thousands/millions around the globe. It saddens me to be honest and at minimum repulses me AWAY FROM their “faiths”! 😦

        Liked by 2 people

      • I thank you in humiliaty Jeff, but to be perfectly honest, I almost graduated seminary (Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS) and almost 10-years in ministry & missions (4 different continents)… so I’m literally speaking from experience and firsthand knowledge. Hence, I cannot take full credit for what I’ve said here — I had many a WISE teacher & in contrast, many a baffoon. 😉

        I just too remembered a seminary lesson we had on this very topic using Colossians 4:5-6… sympathetic, humble, compassionate, loving, patient, when to be silent, stoic wisdom, ALL leap out from this passage! Yet, how often do we actually SEE these superb words manifested by Xians???

        Aside from the extensive highly probable/plausible real history of the formation of the Earliest Jesus Movement throughout the Levant and Asia Minor in the 2nd century CE… I am astounded and BAFFLED how so many Xians know little (nothing?) about the Canonized “Holy Scriptures” they use and learn from! The reasons and causes are about as many as there are galaxies in the cosmos, or denominations in all Christianity. (laughing)

        Liked by 2 people

      • “Yet, how often do we actually SEE these superb words manifested by Xians???” Not often enough. In particular, not on any of the blogs I follow or in the southern half of the U.S.-just ask Victoria. We need not look to the Middle East in search of ISIS and religious fundamental tyranny. We have it right here. Long live the Christian Reich! 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • We need not look to the Middle East in search of ISIS and religious fundamental tyranny.

        Another great point Jeff. Aside from the obvious diversion-technique being used that 1-on-1 is a classic symptom in clinical behavioural psychology & therapy… YES, the essential message and dark spirit of the rhetoric is all the same and it is not exclusive to religions either. In fact, I always argue that all the Abrahamic religions are and teach blatant or subtle forms of tyranny, elitism, hyper-nationalism, divisiveness, anti-global collaboration, and hence manifesting — at least as a large group or movement — everything BUT the great human virtues!

        It must be something having to do with “mob-mentality”, huh? :/

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ConsoledReader —

        Thank you CR for such a great question!

        Though one can discover many great(est) human virtues throughout recorded history — if they try and look broadly and extensively enough — they can be found in a few ancient cultures, a variety of historical Eras like the Renaissance or Victorian Periods, and 20th – 21st century CE cultures up to present day. When you lay these various examples out on a ping-pong table or say an empty Walmart parking lot, a GENERAL theme emerges of great(est) human virtues and individual examples. Two individuals are apart of my All-time favourites: Mohandas Gandhi and current Dalai Lama.

        My biggest point in that introductory answer is to indicate that no ONE ideology (religion) or civilization has exclusive rights and ownership to virtuous purity that is clearly world-wide since the beginning of the Homo sapien species.

        For specific descriptions, here are a few: Kindness, Selflessness, Humility, Compassion, Empathy, Creativity, Accountability (self especially), Discernment/Wisdom, Eloquence, Flexibility (especially in a world of 7.4+ billion humans and some 30-million+ different living species on the planet!), Patience/Forgiveness, Impartiality (as is humanly possible & diligently strived for), one of MY very favourites: Compersion, and Collaboration reaching scales of a Humanity as a Superorganism, if that makes sense. Nineteen living species have been Superorganism-ing for millions to thousands of years, BUT humans barely 20-30,000 years(?) and NOT very well compared to the other 18 species that do it exceptionally well!

        I could go further, but I think you have the idea. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thank you for your response, Professor. Those are interesting selections for virtues. The reason I asked the question is because most groups would claim they teach the “great human virtues.” Certainly Catholics believe their religion contains the great human virtues.

        I can’t really agree with your broad generalizations about the Abrahamic religions. To take your comment above implying that all people that could be lumped under the category of Abrahamic religions are anti-gay rights is simply untrue. For example, according to a PEW report from 2010, Jews were 76% in favor of gay marriage (Catholics – 46%, Black Protestants – 28%, White Mainline – 49%, White Evangelical – 20%, atheists/agnostics – 80%).

        Liked by 1 person

      • More good points CR. And actually I won’t argue your disagreement about me generalizing the Abrahamic religions. Your listing of PEW stats are not surprising.

        I’d have to go back through ‘dusty’ papers, books, and weblink citations, BUT if my memory serves correctly there were studies and polls done recently in North America via various related questions about WHY people chose certain religious beliefs over others — because of parents/family, marriage, life-or-death circumstances, peer pressure, etc.? — and although the results were primarily familial-marriage, ONE particular theme which emerged was Self-Preservation. In other words, based on a person’s learned adult self-values and perceived self-needs, they would select the religion that best serves themself immediately and for the foreseeable future, UNLESS it all changed. 😉

        Hence, those percentages in pro-gay populations might(?)/probably(?) best serve their own circumstantial values-needs as well as others they value/need. Or they are simply indifferent because it doesn’t impinge on their quality of life.

        In my own personal adult experiences (5 continents) I also find human behaviour to ultimately be influenced to degrees by regional/communal, and therefore self needs/values RATHER THAN the frequent (abused?) claim of a “Universal” monistic esoteric or exoteric Truth, miracle(s), God, or collection of scriptures/testaments. It is this latter group I try to address seriously. People who actually choose a lifestyle based on their INDIVIDUAL adult wants, needs, values, AND openly admit it as purely PERSONAL preference, maybe immediate family preference… I have no issues with — unless they attempt to force them upon me of course. 😈

        Based on those percentages you listed (<em.regarding sexual-orientation only), I would get along VERY WELL with 76% of Jews, 46% of Catholics, 28% of African-American Protestants, 49% of White-Mainliners, 20% of White Evangies, and 80% of Atheists/Agnostics!!! I think THEY represent that “more human” populace than those claiming to believe & attempting to follow a monistic binary code which is not reflective of Nature’s (Quantum subatomic to Macro-cosmic and all in betweeen) immeasurable complexity and diversity. Hope that makes sense. 🙂

        And yes, my comments often have generalizations because of time constraints, other commitments, and honestly the average attention-span of internet browsers/readers and the same for them. But personally I loathe oversimplifications, or gross generalizations. But obviously society as a whole sees it differently; pedantic. (laughing)

        Thanks CR. ❤

        Liked by 3 people

      • Prof Taboo –
        Just looking for some clarification here. Are you saying that Leroy actually wrote those vile, hateful, overtly sexist comments about a woman in our blogging community?

        Liked by 2 people

      • For Carmen —

        Here is the actual original April 1, 2016 comment:

        http://wp.me/P1uLmp-3sp

        Based upon LeRoy’s two above comments on this post, I found contradictions. Serious contradictions aside from the horrible language and hate-speech. I hoped to have him give further clarification as well… if he ever returns here — or on any non-Christian blogs. :/

        Liked by 1 person

      • I read it, thanks for posting. 😦

        If I ever come across that person again online, it probably won’t go well.

        Can ANYONE figure out how a living, breathing human gets attacked and vilified by someone because of the perception that their imaginary friend – their ‘holy spook’ (thanks, Arch) – has been insulted?

        Bizarre, I’m telling you.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “Bizarre” is putting VERY mildly Carmen. As I’ve mentioned to John Z and Jeff/Inspiredbythedivine, when any intelligent (semi-pagan & adequately unbiased, i.e. simply HUMAN!) person looks at all the Abrahamic religions throughout all of the historical, archaeological, palaeographical, etc, records… one CANNOT IGNORE how many millions (billions) of lives have been wasted — genocides on immeasurable scales! — over a “Holy Spook”. Those 3 religions have been humanity’s WORST scurge in all of time! Period.

        Yet millions still blindly (faithfully?) clinge to and associate themselves with the myths & legends…and MUCH WORSE the direct/indirect mass exterminations — no matter the breath, time-period, and/or scales — it is all the same!

        How do sane people do that!? 😦

        Liked by 2 people

      • There’s a section of the Holy Babble, in Mark, I believe, where christians are given instructions on how to 1.) Curse out disbelievers with hateful, vile language, women especially; 2.) Create multiple personalities and multiple online identities so that when one identity is banned on blogs for use of said language, another can take over to carry on the vile hate speech, and 3.) Create “hushmail” email accounts so that they can personally attack non-believers through the use of untraceable emails. Yes, Leroy/Bobby is a christian through and through. (Perhaps I should refer to “him” as “they”?) He/they does/do all of these things very well. Superbly in fact. So, then, do online stalkers, pedophiles, and all around perverts, but who’s noticing that? BTW, I do believe our multiple personality friend here is SoM. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s pretty much confessed to being half the whacked out, vile angry christains we encounter on these blogs almost every day. Gotta suck buying xmas gifts for LeRoy/Bobby.SoM/ (fill in the blank). How many gifts do you need to buy for a hate-filled christian with 7 or 8 identities? Decisions, decisions!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jeff-Inspiredbythedivine…

        I will not argue that assessment. The evidence is plentiful today and for the last 3.5 millenia. However, in my personal opinion the bitterness, arrogance, “hate”, and seemingly non-stop aggression is not purely exclusive to the Abrahamic religions. Bear with me a moment or two while I offer an alternative theory.

        From the sciences of Genetics, Genetic Mutation-Expression, and Molecular Biology, we know feasibly well and WILL know extensively more in time soon enough, that in areas of viral and bacterial antibodies as well as prevention-treatment, that the MORE DIVERSE-COMPLEX the human cells and genomes/DNA, the stronger the immune system of descendants that can combat disease, even lethal infections and spreading like the 14th century (Yersinia pestis) or Bubonic Plague. That plague eventually reached Eyam, England in 1665. Many Eyam villagers quickly died, however, there were a small group of Eyam residents who, although came in close contact to the bacterium, NEVER CONTRACTED the plague bacteria! Geneticist Dr. Stephen O’Brien researched today’s decendants of those 17th century ‘immune’ family members and his results were startling. Here is the link to that PBS.org show and articles:

        http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/mystery-black-death-interview-geneticist-dr-stephen-obrien/1495/

        Geneticists in Mutation-Expression and Molecular Biology also now know that viral/bacteria cells learn over time how to become resistant to old or recent familiar antibodies. It is the exact reason why doctors always tell their sick patients to FINISH THE ENTIRE antibiotic description! Why? Because if you don’t you risk for yourself — and your descendants — a new RE-infection by mutated (smarter) viruses/bacterium that have learned to be immune to old familiar antibodies. Here’s another quick link about this “counter-insurgency” of bacterium/viruses:

        http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/cellular-microscopic/question561.htm

        Now, hopefully you’re still with me and not bored. 😉

        Here is my personal hypothesis about this subject of cyclical pathology. Why today do we STRONGLY discourage or legally ban incest and incestual marriages? I’ll assume you know the full scope of why and move on to my next question…

        If medical, genetic, molecular doctors/scientist already know what takes place (over short periods of time with incestual births; 1 generation)… then what happens when marrying or after sexual intercourse happens with a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th removed cousin in a small community/village over 2-4 generations? Now, ask the same line-of-questions about STRICT MARRIAGES only within identical religious groups/families! Do you see the possible immune system progression (weaker or stronger) the LESS the genetic/DNA diversity or the HIGHER?

        Here’s my next theoretical jump… To what degree are the differences between the genetic-codings (blueprints) of our immune systems and those of our genetic-neurological codings and blueprints? It is the DNA/RNA nucleic acids we all receive from our parents that structure those blueprints. So… my final theoretical question…

        For the sake of mere survival and better human survival, and most certainly better-evolved neurological psychology-pathology… how safe/wise is it to reproduce STRICTLY within a small specific identical community/group over generations compared to reproducing (or learning from!) COMPLEX DIVERSITY over generations!? 🙂

        There’s my quick 2-cents Jeff. I hope I didn’t put you fast asleep. (laughing)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Excellent arguments, Professor. Slightly different than this is the God Virus argument as proposed by Darrel Ray ED.D. I read his book a few years ago and found it quite convincing. His book, combined with your argument here, makes a strong case for why there are so many whack jobs practicing the hate-filled beliefs found in religious fundamentalism. However, I also think religious fundamentalism often attracts mentally ill people from outside the group. Hell, I’d say it’s a magnet for them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Wow! Thank you Jeff. Just the first 3-minutes and Dr. Darrel Ray and I have MANY similarities regarding Fundy spouse and in-laws, GEEEZZZZ! 😛 lol

        Looking forward to all 10-minutes of this video. Many thanks!

        Liked by 1 person

      • I just saw this last night when Victoria directed me to it from another blog. (I hadn’t been following all the comments when they got so long.)

        I’m actually thrilled that he thinks so little of me because now we’re even. And of course, it confirms what most of us non-believers already knew … the “love of Jeebus” isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Nan,

        I’m so sorry you and other women (AND just people with common decency) even had to read this, At first I immediately deleted his hate-speech comments off my blog-page, but after he made the 2 comments here on John Z’s post and LeRoy was ignoring my demands for unconditional remorseful apologies to you and all women… I couldn’t let it go. 😦

        I suppose after he read my 2nd reply/questions, he KNEW exactly what I was referencing.

        Nevertheless, I do believe people CAN change, but the more anger, bitterness, hate, lingers unresolved… the much harder it is to reverse. Ironically, that is the same process for addicts and addiction. :/

        Liked by 2 people

      • LOL @ Jeff/IBTD… I know you know that answer, but I will add to that:

        If the human brain (including our Endocrine System) is constantly told it and most everything/everyone in this life, on this planet, is diseased, wrong, in “sin” and in need of severe transformation — by a disempowering imaginary Proxy! — then over time the brain’s neurology-wiring and our glands/hormones DO INDEED change or mutate into organs & systems that self-destruct and destroy within an immediate sphere of influence if exposed long enough and internalized by those other living entities. Make sense?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, Professor, people can change. But I think you will agree, the #1 incentive is desire. It’s obvious this person has not reached that point or there would be apologies and retractions instead of continued posts filled with hostility and hate.

        Liked by 2 people

  15. This is such a long thread, I decided to add my comment here. John B. wrote: “I avoid giving Bible answers to non-believers because I might as well be quoting Mother Goose.”

    Would that others recognized this! (In fact, Mother Goose often makes better sense.)

    Liked by 4 people

  16. Ah David. Comment g is lke banging one’s head against a brick wall. You may remember when I dabbled. It’s a mix of child’s play (in pointing out the errors) and impossibility (it makes no difference what one says). But good on you for pointing out his appalling illogical theories and conclusions.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. John,

    Have been watching all afternoon Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey” on the National Geographic Channel, in anticipation of The Story of God with Morgan Freeman which airs at 8:00pm CST (6pm your time?). Do you get the NatGeo Channel down there in beautiful Brasil? 🙂

    Like

      • Oh damn. If you don’t find it later, perhaps it will soon show up online on the NatGeo website!

        From what I’ve gathered from the 2-3 previews (excerpts)… the show & Freeman will show just how immeasurably DIFFERENT the “nature of god” or one supreme theistic being, and the worship of it… has as many variations as there are living cells and species on this planet, on out into the Cosmos! (laughing)

        Diversity everywhere! From the exponentially microscopic Quantum sub-atomic… to the cosmic macroscopic! Diversity, diversity, DIVERSITY everywhere… making monistic and/or binary beliefs folly and empty. 😀

        Liked by 2 people

      • making monistic and/or binary beliefs folly and empty.

        Bugger off, heathen! The Owner of All Infernal Names is real and can be proven. The problem is, no one wants to acknowledge the existence of TOOAIN because doing so is just so damn uncomfortable 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hahahaha!

        Alright Owner of AIN. It is uncomfortable, but just for a bit… here and there… then you actually get used to it… adapt. That’s why I always say…

        “Unless your hemmorhoids, GET OFF MY ASS!” 😈

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jeff,

        LOVED every bit of TTWH, especially the impeccable science on the brain and death… and how “death” is being delayed (kept at bay) longer and longer! Hence, allowing us to further study that ‘transition’!!! Astonishing stuff!

        Also, the April issue of NG Magazine — which is coupled with their show “Explorer” coming on before The Story of God tonight — has half the magazine dedicated to the scientific data finding of the Many Faces of Death and in one of the patients examples one boy was dead (by traditional terms) for almost 2-hours, BUT three and a half days later, the boy left the hospital very alive and well because of modern medicine & science! 🙂

        Kid you not Jeff!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah. Great stuff. Inquisitive, open minded thinking, yet very skeptical and scientific at the same time. Terrific series. Love Morgan Freeman, too. I want him to be my dad. I’ve sent him letters asking, but all I’ve gotten in return are restraining orders.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Hahahaha! Damn that man. He must be prejudice and discriminating! 😉 😛

        Yes, civil skepticism (open-minded questioning) is always healthy not only in science, but all areas of life, death, and Nature. Time is a dear ally of such never-ending curiosity. It is NOT an ally of any systems or ideologies that never wish to change. Example…

        Wahhabism. Well, and to be fair & honest… I could list many extreme fundamentalist groups, eh? 😈

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Well done sir. I’ve always found the fascination the Christian right has regarding the sexuality of certain segments of my the population beyond peculiar. I would go so far as to speculate that those who have the most vitriol are themselves the most closeted and self loathing.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. John, I see JB has a post up about your recent exchange. Of course, he’s the hero in HIS mind. That’s the amusing news.

    The bad news? He’s got grandkids. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  20. “I hate him with a perfect hatred. I have no love — NO LOVE — for this ‘Bruce’ freak. I hope he dies today. I hope he dies and goes to hell. He’s disgusting, he’s filthy, he’s reprobate. And I pray all these prayers from Psalm 69 — It’s ‘Oh! How could you say that?’ Well, how did God say it? — I pray all of this in Psalm 69 and Psalm 109 towards him. You evil, filthy animal that’s destroying the morals of our country: DIE!” ~2:00

    No contorted apologetics or appeals to come for behavior counseling sessions from ‘pastor’ Steve. He cuts straight to the chase:

    Liked by 1 person

  21. What does puzzle me is why so many Christians support extreme right wing politicians.

    Even a cursory examination of the New Testament teaching and narrative would show that it encourages left wing economic policies.

    But having said that many Christians seem to give 1,000 times more weighting to ‘moral’ policies compared to ‘economic’ policies {unless the economic policies affect them personally}.

    Liked by 4 people

  22. So, I started an organisation called Scientists for the Vigorous Investigation of Facts (‘SVIF’). It released a paper last February titled ‘Bigots, in psychological terms, are retarded’.
    To fans of scientific fact, as well as fans of tolerance, the release of the SVIF Bigot Report is a blast of oxygen to people being smothered in a blanket of ideological fallacy.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. In a way it’s admirable that he rejected Jesus. What Jesus usually represents (as opposed to the complex being he was) runs so counter to the “Christian” right-wing in this country it’s ridiculously hypocritical. But at least we’ve rid ourselves of hearing Ted Cruz (for now).

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s