The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Ma’am, Have You No Sense of Irony?

June 12, 2006 | 55 Comments

Fox News’ Julie Banderas goes ballistic on Shirley Phelps-Roper, who has brought her “God Hates Fags” campaign to the funerals of soldiers who have died in service of this Sodomite nation of ours. Unfortunately, Julie also goes Biblical, not the best strategy for someone opposed to the notion that God Hates Fags. Worst of all, she quotes some irrelevant language from Leviticus, whose pertinent passages commands people to kill fags — and she compounds the error by calling Shirley an “abomination”, which is precisely what God Calls Fags. And in the middle of her own preaching about what (she thinks) the Bible says and God wants, Julie demands to know what authority Shirley has to preach.

As you’ll see, the post in which Michelle Malkin highlights this clip is meant to cheerlead for Julie. Interesting, given that just last year Michelle was complaining about how the “feminists and post-modernists” had gotten their hands on the Bible to give it a “PC rewrite.”


55 Responses to “Ma’am, Have You No Sense of Irony?”

  1. Snap Crafter
    June 12th, 2006 @ 11:45 am

    Maybe it’s me, but the Phelp’s clan seems to be a mock-christianity group. Like Landoverbaptist.

    Now, I’ve known people who really did act like this, just not going to far as to protest a funeral. But they seem far too good to be true.

  2. Chris Treborn
    June 12th, 2006 @ 2:32 pm

    Phelps is not a real Christian. He is simply a bigot. God loves all, even homosexuals, and atheists.
    However, the gays need to repent because it is wrong. If it wasn’t, why would intellectual biblical scholars from all over the world all agree that it is?

  3. erik
    June 12th, 2006 @ 5:10 pm

    Because you have to have a better reason than “it’s wrong because a book says that it is” or “because God says it is”. Otherwise, you place the power of the decisions in the hands of people who are interpreting, rather than making decisions based on the facts.

  4. Chris Treborn
    June 12th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

    Erik, are you a gay? If not, try to look at it objectively: if everyone was gay we’d die out. Therefore, from the point of view of society existing, being a gay is not only wrong, but dangerous to everyone. It’s like murder or robbery: if everyone does it society will come apart, so not only does God tell us that these things are wrong, but we can see why from purely social reasons as well. The bible has many truths like this, but you have actually read it to see this.

  5. Nokot
    June 12th, 2006 @ 5:45 pm

    Chris, don’t be silly. Even if everyone were gay it would not mean the human race would end. Gay people are still capable of having procreative sex. In fact if everyone were gay it would only mean the end of abortion, unplanned pregnancy, and bad interior design.

    Second, it can be advantageous to a species for a portion of its members to not procreate. For example, non-procreating adults can increase the ratio of parents to children, or if they do not parent, they can act as producers for the species.

    And yes, the bible does have many truths like this–truths that are completely incorrect.

  6. Rob
    June 12th, 2006 @ 6:00 pm

    Chris, are you a virgin? If not, try to look at it objectively: if everyone was a virgin we’d die out. Therefore, from the point of view of society existing, being a virgin is not only wrong, but dangerous to everyone. It’s like murder or robbery: if everyone does it society will come apart, so not only does God tell us that these things are wrong, but we can see why from purely social reasons as well. The bible has many truths like this, but you have actually read it to see this.

    (Chris, do you understand the flaw in your reasoning now? My cut and paste job of your statements should show you that just because something is a negative survival strategy if everyone commits to it, it doesn’t necessarily mean its a negative survival strategy if just a few people commit to it. You are using the fallacy of the excluded middle.)

  7. Facehammer
    June 12th, 2006 @ 6:59 pm

    Chris in justifying his hatred by saying that god loves you anyway shocker!

  8. Chris Treborn
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:19 pm

    Nice try Rob, but your cut and paste makes no sense. If everyone STAYED a virgin then we’d die out, a virgin is a temporary condition, but being a gay is a way of life. You don’t go back to not being a gay after some time of being one. Also, the bible says that virgin is only for unmarried, after you have married you can have all the sex you like and it’s not wrong. I am married, and so I am not a virgin. I have two wonderful children who thankfully are not gays. Can you see now Rob why your attempted parody in fact just makes my original point more valid? Nokot, you make some good points, but if everone was a gay then it would not seem like they would want to have sex for children, even if they were technically capable of it. That would be like asking normal people to have gay sex to cut down on the population. Having a gay society to stop abortion is simply swapping one sin for another. I admit that gay sex is not as bad a murdering children, but it is still a sin and all sin is wrong. Facehammer, I don’t know what hatred you mean. I said that God loves everyone. Even you, asshole.

  9. Facehammer
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:30 pm

    Hey Chris, what about bisexuals?

    By that last post, I meant that you cover up your clear distaste for both us and homosexuals by saying that god loves us all. It’s implied that god loves us all, but you don’t. Whether you mean it or not.

  10. Snap Crafter
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

    “…condition, but being a gay is a way of life. You don’t go back to not being a gay after some time of being one”

    Now, maybe I’m just reading this wrong, but it seems that your implying that you go back to being a virgin after a certain period of non-sex.

    Now, maybe it’s been awhile since my last biology class, but I’m pretty sure that once you loose said virginity, you can’t go back to being a virgin.

    Now while we’re on the topic chrissy-poo, I gots a question for ya:

    What happens to Homosexual Christians when they die? Can a homosexual go to your heaven? Can you be a homosexual and a christian at the same time, in your view?

  11. Chris Treborn
    June 12th, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

    Snap, I know you’re just a kid, but try harder in your reading comprehension. If you are a gay then it’s a test from God, so all you can do is resist your temptations, and you will be rewarded in heaven. But if you give in then you won’t. A homosexual christian is like any other christian who sins and does not repent. Bisexual sin is no different. Are you bisexual? If you are then you know when you do gaysex that it is wrong, but you do it anyway, and that is the sin. Just because you then go lie with a woman doesn’t clear the gaysex sin. MY distaste it for sin not for you personally, even if you are an asshole. It is only god’s distaste you should care about. And God does love you, even if you won’t accept His love.

  12. Snap Crafter
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:02 pm


    A: I don’t think it was my reading comprehension, I think it was more that garbled mess you call english.

    B: Have to focus on my age all the time I see. Well if that’s what Jesus tells you.

    C: You didn’t answer the questions.

    I’m curious, why would god test his people like that? Even when they are so very young, or they don’t ‘know’ better. And I thought god hated sin, so why would he inflict the urge of it on his children? Your ethos is chaotic, you yourself don’t understand it. Your preaching is even worse.

  13. Interested Atheist
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:02 pm

    Hi Chris,
    . From what I remember of the Biblical policy on virgins, they are to be kept alive for the sexual pleasure of conquering soldiers.
    . God loves everyone. But he acts like he hates a lot of people. Calling them evil and sending them to hell and all that. So he has a rather peculiar view on hell, it seems to me. Oh, wait! I remember. God doesn’t send anybody to hell, they choose to go there themselves, right?
    Which brings me to the main point…

    What is it exactly about homosexuality that makes it evil? Despite what you may think about it, the argument you’ve given is merely a biological one – and evolution has nothing to do with morality. Yes, if all people became gay then the human race probably would have died out. Because sex would be unpleasurable, or possibly disgusting. So what? All that means is that homosexuality is disadvantegeous from an evolutionary point of view.

    And finally, that video. Thanks a lot, RA! Wow, those two were at it hammer and tongs, weren’t they? I think it’s true – Phelps is evil and twisted by hatred – but you can’t blame her. The Bible does say that gay people are an abomination. Not an unfortunate case; not mistaken; not a regrettable quirk of nature. LIVING IN SIN! So you should hate them. God does.

  14. elena
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:07 pm

    Now, I’m an atheist. I think Christianity is an invalid social structure. But I always liked these lines from “When Night Is Falling,” in terms of highlighting the absurdity of “homosexuality as a prohibitive sin”:

    Board President: So, we’ve covered abortion, church and state, predestination, drug abuse, prostitution – ah, yes, homosexuality. How do you approach the homosexuality problem, Camille?
    Camille: Well, um, I’m not really sure I’d consider it a problem.
    Martin: I like what you said over at Tom’s, Camille said that it’s important to love the sinner but hate the sin, so that you’re allowed to feel the desire but not act on that desire.
    Camille: Well, in hetero – in retro-spect, sorry – I’ve come to think that there’s a lot of room for multiciplicity in God’s creation.
    Reverend DeBoer: You are aware that that is contrary to doctrine in this matter.
    Camille: God… God cannot be so cruel as to decree that people like… like that can never, ever be contented. I mean, one’s devotions are not entirely chosen.

  15. Interested Atheist
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:07 pm

    Oh, and being gay is a test from God? OK. Let’s see where that takes us:
    1. Why would God test anybody? He already knows what we’re going to do. At the very moment of creation, God knew the exact body count in heaven and hell at the end of time. He knows if the poor beleagured gay is going to pass the test or not. So, what’s the point?
    2. If I were a gay I might fail the test. I might think to myself: “I have a preposition to love people of the same sex as myself. This seems to be a minority opinion. But it doesn’t hurt anybody, and it feels as pure to me as heterosexual love must to other people, so no problem.”
    3. Would you be able to tell us, Chris, what exactly is wrong with being gay? Apart from the fact that God SAYS it’s bad?

  16. Chris Treborn
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:21 pm

    All I need to know is that God has told us in the bible that gaysex is wrong. That’s good enough for me.

  17. Thom
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:36 pm

    Ah, at last, you admit your ignorance

  18. Snap Crafter
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

    Took him long enough.

  19. Interested Atheist
    June 12th, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

    Chris, even if you believe that you’re right on this, surely you can see that your views aren’t going to convince many other people based on logic?

  20. mithraman
    June 12th, 2006 @ 9:37 pm

    Logic? You mean something like this? Let’s see, God hates the gays, and there are gays in America. Therefore god hates America. And American soldiers are getting killed. Everything is God’s will, so God is killing AMerican soldiers because he hates America. Therefore we should protest about gays at funerals of soldiers. How do you like that logic. That’s whatcha call yer good ol fashioned convoluted logic.

  21. Erik
    June 12th, 2006 @ 10:03 pm

    Chris T.,

    No, I’m not gay, but you are definitely loopy on this one. As if a small percentage of the population being gay would send the entire species Homo sapiens into a population crash.

    I do not at all feel threatened by gay people. I do feel threatened by people with a penchant for committing violent acts. There is a huge difference, and it easily separates the issues of homosexuality and crime.

    You are unable to state with any coherence the reason why homosexuality is wrong. You seem to think that society is best off only with people who are willing to reproduce. Well, what if overpopulation got to the point that society is better off with people who do not reproduce? In that case, homosexuality would be a moral stance. In fact, you admit it in a later post that your purported rational position is irrelevant anyway, For you, if God said it, that’s good enough. But as I mentioned earlier, this is an extremely bad way to decide what is bad and what is good, because you cede the power to the interpreters of what God has said. You don’t have to look further than Islam to see the problems inherent with such a system.

  22. Nokot
    June 12th, 2006 @ 11:05 pm

    “…if everone was a gay then it would not seem like they would want to have sex for children, even if they were technically capable of it.”

    Actually, Chris, gay people love raising children! Seriously.

  23. Some Guy
    June 12th, 2006 @ 11:15 pm

    Did anyone hear that news thing about a lion killing this person at a zoo? I guess he said something like “If God exists then he’ll save me from this lion,” and jumped in.

  24. Interested Atheist
    June 12th, 2006 @ 11:21 pm

    Yeah – what part of heterosexuality has the copyright on liking kids?

  25. Mijae
    June 12th, 2006 @ 11:37 pm

    Here’s a better cut-n-paste job for ya guys, by the way.

    Chris, are you infertile? If not, try to look at it objectively: if everyone was infertile, we’d die out. Therefore, from the point of view of society existing, being infertile is not only wrong, but dangerous to everyone.

  26. D
    June 13th, 2006 @ 12:05 am

    Incidentally Chris, your Church…does it have a priest or pastor or something? Is he celibate? Do you at least know of churches (like all Catholic churches for example) where priests cannot have sex? Do you honestly think they’re all hellbound for not breeding enough?

  27. Brian Macker
    June 13th, 2006 @ 1:07 am

    Mr. Treborn,

    It has been my experience that their is no danger that heterosexuals are going to stop having sex just because of homosexuals having sex. How does homosexuals resisting the temptation to have same sex contact going to solve your depopulation issue? One would think that homosexuals who are not having sex also do not have children. Are you suggesting that lesbians stop having sex and seek out homosexual men to act as sperm donors?

    There is very little danger of homosexual behavior rubbing off on us heterosexuals so I don’t see the danger you do. Might happen if rape is involved but that is wrong for different reasons. Although I think that too would be speculation. I haven’t heard a lot of tales about homosexuals who got that way by force. I find it hard to believe that homosexuals are going to go around talking heterosexual males into getting excited by the shape of another mans buns either.

    There is absolutely no evolutionary danger involved. If homosexuals don’t have offspring their tendencies die with them in either case. If it’s nature, in their genes, well then not having children is a heavy selective pressure against that. If it’s nurture the same applies since they won’t be raising any children to bring them up gay.

    I have thought about ethics enough to realize that there are different categories of moral error. There are errors which hurt others directly which are crimes, there are errors that hurt oneself and therefore others indirectly which are vices. Homosexuality can at most be considered a vice. The problem is that vices by my reckoning must be self destructive. Problem is that if homosexuals truly like the same sex then heterosexual behavior would be the kind of behavior that would be self destructive. For a homosexual to behave in such a way would be a denial of self.

    People with special circumstances are not bound by the same moral rules as everyone else. For instance, the retarded are not expected to perform at the same level as everyone else. Same with the people with other congenital defects. We cannot, for example, expect them to be self sufficient member of society. Being born homosexual removes certain obligations from those individuals moral plates. Not that the obligations are all that binding to begin with. It is perfectly acceptable for a heterosexual to decide not to marry and have children for whatever reason the decide is compelling. Reasons can run the gamut from hereditary disease to failure to find a compatible mate. Certainly this option should be open to the heterosexual.

    Issues of promoscuity, STDs, and such are a completely different issue. Behavior that is self destructive with regards to these issues operate the same way for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Often such consequences have more extensive collateral harm in the case of heterosexuals than homosexuals. Sure the promiscuous homosexuals parents, partner and siblings will be damaged if he dies of aids but at least in the majority of cases there are no dependent children involved. So I would say it was more wrong for a married heterosexual with children to be promiscuous than a homosexual man in a relationship where no children are involved.

    These are my religious views on the subject that were arrived at in a rational way. Not some book written by people barely out of the stone age.

  28. ChiotVulgaire
    June 13th, 2006 @ 3:29 am

    CT, you have bee thoroughly psychologically trounced.

    Now then, take a look at that book and ask yourself: “Why do I believe this? What makes it right? Why do other people disagree?”. You sir, have an inability to question yourself to insure that you are following what you REALLY believe. People choose god, god DOESNT choose anyone, simply because god serves the same purpose that these people want.

    Don’t kid us: Homosexuals make you uncomfortable. Homosexuals make you feel a little disgusted. Homosexuals probably even piss you off. If that’s the case, just say so! You’re more likely to be labeled a bigot by invoking a book and a god that JUST HAPPENS to agree with you, than if you just admitted you didn’t like homosexuality and were plain honest. I’ll admit it: homosexuality makes me a little uncomfortable, but I have the integrity to mind myself and I know that if a few thousand people want to have sex with their own gender it does NOT bring about the apocalypse.

    Frankly, this whole thing reeks of selfishness. Christians and religions in general are the ONLY people who are picking on the gays, and it serves nobody but themselves to be so oppressive. The gays aren’t an active threat to any church, or they would have succeeded LONG ago. So tell me, how does it feel knowing you proudly support something that actively hunts down and bullies, taunts, harasses, and even kills those it doesn’t like?

    An engine of hate, that’s what jesus has created: an engine of hate.

  29. Joe
    June 13th, 2006 @ 6:09 am

    The thing that the GOD HATE FAGS people have gotten wrong is that it should be GOD HATES FAGS WHO DON’T SUCK DICK. God created Fags, and GOD created dick sucking, the both serve a purpose that glorifies his purpose in the big picture. I’m not sure what the purpose is yet. If I were god, I would hate Pat Roberston. I would also cast him into hell with much glee, amen…

  30. physics teacher
    June 13th, 2006 @ 7:57 am

    “if everyone was gay we’d die out. Therefore, from the point of view of society existing, being a gay is not only wrong, but dangerous to everyone. It’s like murder or robbery:”
    if this where not so absured then it might be funny.
    If society was in danger of collasping it is because of religous nuts like CT and every one of the god hates fags assholes, Ct Is your wife as ugly as she is stupid?, if so you should keep in mind that ” Fags hate dogs, especialy ugly bible beating phuckers”
    anyway I got off track overpopuation is going to be a big problem if it is not already. we should learn alittle from Jared Diamond, and from the collapse of easter Island and many other societies. what two things did the most damage, 1 there belief that there gods or god would save them, 2, they bread to much, they made too many kids.
    the island societies that learn to control population are the ones that last for more than a few hundred years.
    I wish you theists whould stay the hell out of our hospitals, airplanes, and anything else creatied by science and not your lame, do nothing god, sorry , your lame god hase created one thing. IGNORANCE,HATETRED,WAR and GENOCIDE,
    Nice, what a powerful god
    please pray when you and your family get sick and stay the hell away from hospitals and science and logic for that matter.
    Fags hate dogs(that means you, you ugly phucking bigots) sorry about the misspelling, I’m very dyslexic

  31. HappyNat
    June 13th, 2006 @ 8:01 am


    Have you ever met “a gay”? You sounds like you are talking about aliens or the dodo . . .psst they are all around you and they are good productive people. I bet you’ve even shaken the hand of “a gay”, you know gayness spreads through physical contact. AAAH wash you hands quick!

    Just some advice from your loving asshole.

  32. DamnRight
    June 13th, 2006 @ 8:15 am

    … the bible suggests the best choice for christians is staying single… and since outside-of-marriage sex is wrong, they would/should not pro-create… and the human species would die out… or maybe just the really dedicated christians?…

    June 13th, 2006 @ 8:28 am

    Chris Treborn said:
    All I need to know is that God has told us in the bible that gaysex is wrong. That’s good enough for me.

    AAAAAHHH yes —-

    Give me that old time religion
    Tis the old time religion,
    Tis the old time religion,
    And it’s good enough for me.

    Makes me love everybody.
    Makes me love everybody.
    Makes me love everybody.
    And it’s good enough for me.

    It will take us all to heaven.
    It will take us all to heaven.
    It will take us all to heaven.
    And it’s good enough for me.

    Everyone – join in ….. :)

    HA HA HA — too F###$G funny.

  34. Mookie
    June 13th, 2006 @ 8:32 am

    It is time to face facts and reality and change those memes:

    Many Native American cultures didn’t give a shit about people being gay. Some cultures even welcomed it, or viewed homosexuals with respect. They didn’t have a formalized system of land/property inheritance to encourage unnecessary hate. Most of the herding people in the Middle East passed on animals and property to the male of the line. If I marry off my daughter, and her husband dies, everything goes to me, because everyone knows women don’t have any rights. Homosexuality was discouraged because if two men got married, and one died, the one left would still have a claim to the herd/property. The Catholic church was big on making this a rule around the 4th century. If the husband died, and the widow had no close male relatives to claim the property, it would go to the church. Pretty sneaky, huh? And lucrative! The modern objection doesn’t even go into this, and is now proven to just be greedy leftover illogic from a dirty, flea-ridden time/place. Congratulations, xians, for perpetuating ignorant hatred for so many centuries.

  35. benjamin
    June 13th, 2006 @ 9:09 am

    Chris, are you a computer programmer? Because if everyone was a computer programmer, we would have a lot of programs and nothing to eat, so we’d die out. So being a computer programmer is dangerous to society. Chris, are you a lawyer? Because if everyone was a lawyer, well… nothing would get done because we wouldn’t have any judges, and also nothing to eat, so we’d die out. So being a lawyer is dangerous to society.
    Do you see what’s wrong with your logic? The only thing that everyone can do is farm and/or raise animals. That doesn’t mean that doing anything else is dangerous to society.

  36. Interested Atheist
    June 13th, 2006 @ 9:15 am

    I think Chris isn’t going to be persuaded by people calling him an idiot. But I think Benjamin has hit the nail on the head. This gets rid of the argument for homosexuality being dangerous to society; and as for it being evil in and of itself, we still have to see any evidence to support this.

  37. Facehammer
    June 13th, 2006 @ 9:16 am

    I bet Chris is more than a bit gay himself. The average level of gayness amongst heterosexual males is around 20%. That’s per person, not number of gays in a population, remember. And it tends to be even higher amongst homophobes.

    How gay are you, Chris? If you’re absolutely sure it’s 0%, you have an extremely rare condition. Or lying to yourself, in the usual christian manner.

  38. jahrta
    June 13th, 2006 @ 9:41 am

    Someone should take that boy behind the woodshed and give him a taste of what he’s apparently so afraid of. deep down, he’s probably just like that guy from “american beauty” who winds up trying to cram his tongue down kevin spacey’s mouth, so he most likely wouldn’t mind too much. Chris, i’m glad your children aren’t gay – not for your sake, mind you, but because no one deserves to be hated by their parents simply because of a genetic predisposition to find members of the same sex attractive. Being gay isn’t a choice, fucktard.

    my bet is you live in the deep south and are too inbred to pick up a book and make sense of all the funny li’l squiggles on the page. i know that books are handy to keep around if you run out of TP – that’s what I do with the gideon bible when the maid doesn’t change out the roll – bless those gideons – but if you did any actual research (you know – fancy book-type learnin’) you might actually come to some type of understanding that the bible isn’t so much the word of some infallable godhead as it is the word of sheep-herders and primitive tribesmen from around two thousand years ago, most of whom most likely wiped their asses with their hands, which is probably why they wrote the bible in the first place.

  39. Chris Treborn
    June 13th, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

    Thank you all for reaffirming my faith. God bless you, assholes.

  40. Thorngod
    June 13th, 2006 @ 2:30 pm

    How often, CT, does your faith require reaffirmation? Are you subject to fear and trembling? Have you stood at the brim of the abyss? Has the cloven-hooved one tried to strike a bargain with you for your soul? Details, please! Details!

  41. HappyNat
    June 13th, 2006 @ 2:42 pm

    He just needs assholes to reaffirm his faith. Sounds like a vote for “the gay”, doesn’t it?

  42. Snap Crafter
    June 13th, 2006 @ 4:00 pm

    Chris acting as he usually does. He gets completely pwned, but when the posts get insulting toward him because of his stupidity, he claims that his faith has somehow been reaffirmed. Classic christian defense mechanism.

  43. thickslab
    June 13th, 2006 @ 7:55 pm

    “if everyone was gay we’d die out. Therefore, from the point of view of society existing, being a gay is not only wrong, but dangerous to everyone. It’s like murder or robbery:”

    Yeah, and if everyone were as stupid as Chris Treborn, we’d still be stuck in the Dark Ages. So what?

  44. Branko Collin
    June 14th, 2006 @ 3:04 am

    Christ Reborn has succeeded admirably in his real purpose, which was to steer the discussion away from the actual topic.

  45. jimjim401
    June 14th, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

    Interesting. I think the use of Leviticus is a nice, if slightly ironic, move. There is a very numerous group of Christians who reject the out-of-context “proof texting” method of using scripture. The fact that the actions of the Phelps group seems to be specifically prohibited not only by scripture but in the very book cited by Phelps’s crew is an excellent way of demonstrating the logical fallacy of their position.

    Now there are two audiences here: One is the Phelps-types; biblical literalists who can be persuaded by the proof-texting technique. For them the fact that Leviticus forbids the very behaviour that Phelps indulges in is a very powerful and useful argument.

    The second is all people who are not biblical literalists. Literalism is one means of reading the bible, but is is neither the only method, nor the oldest nor (in my not terribly humble opinion) the best.

    (I much prefer the concept (powerfully argued by Bishop Tom Wright of the Diocese of Durham, Church of England, among others) that scripture must be read “top down.” This is the very opposite of “proof-texting,” which seems to start at the level of a single verse and build from there. The “top down” method says that although the Bible is written by a variety of people in a variety of forms at a variety of times for a variety of reasons, it does have a divinely inspired message, which should be understood by a reading of the entire text. No single book, chapter or verse can be legitimately understood in a way that contradicts the the over all concept.

    (Thus, if there is a conflict between a verse that says to kill homosexuals and many, many verses that say you are to love your neighbour, there are about three choices for the Christian: First, it may be that killing people because of their sexual orientation is an act of love. Very few people, I hope, would seriously consider this. Secondly, the entire message of “love your neighbour” may wrong, and our entire understanding of the overarching concept is mistaken. Thirdly, the understanding of the verse that says you are to kill homosexuals may be wrong. Most logical readers of scripture would, I suspect, prefer the third option to the second. (And they do.) . . . but I digress.)

    Speaking to the second audience (the non-Biblical literalists of whatever religious persuasion) it is important not to quit-claim scripture to the Phelpses of the world. There are sociological and moral reasons to say that what Fred Phelps is doing is wrong. There are also important and solid religious, theological and Christian reasons to say that he is wrong.

    On a slightly lighter (I hope) note, I absolutely love the “Patriot Riders” group. Let’s hear it for non-violent, mass support for the grieving and oppressed! (And check out the pictures on their website; it’s astonishing how many “Born Again” bikers are among them.) Somehow we have now arrived at the point where the “true believers” are the bad guys and the bikers are the good guys.

    That’s like saying the best rapper in the world is white, the best golfer in the world is black or the tallest player in the NBA is Chinese. Oh. Wait a minute.

    And now I will just step outside to see what colour the sky is on this lovely planet.

  46. Interested Atheist
    June 14th, 2006 @ 8:12 pm

    Well, that was certainly an interesting read. If you do believe in the Bible, it certainly seems a good idea to value the new verses versus the old ones.
    But the logical Christian might wonder why the old ones were put there in the first place. Does this mean there was a time when killing homosexuals was a good thing? Did God change his mind? If so, the Christian might be excused for wondering if killing homosexuals might be appropriate in certain circumstances.
    I’ve heard Christians say before that the old compact has been rendered null and void by the new one with Jesus. But this is not a satisfactory explanation. It isn’t, for one thing, an apology or an admission of past wrongs. So, God is saying that it’s not ok to kill homosexuals any more? If that was Jesus saying it, the message seems to have been lost on the people of the 1, 900 years following the announcement, but never mind that. The point is that the old covenant will not be rendered null and void until the atrocities in it are apologised for and forbidden in the future. Then we will know if Christianity has or has not turned a corner.

    Consider this: Is it possible that, when religions are in power, such as in the Old Testament, their Gods go around saying things like conquer, kill and destroy; and when religions are out of power (such as in the Roman Empire) they go around saying things like love your neighbour, do good to your enemy, pay taxes and look to a future heavenly justice.

  47. Memnoch
    June 15th, 2006 @ 7:11 am

    One tenet clearly prohibits women from being ministers or otherwise speaking in church (“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak”– 1 Corinthians 14:34).
    Maybe they should read this passage..LOL

  48. Thorngod
    June 15th, 2006 @ 8:18 am

    A lesser known and universally ignored caution is Deuteronomy 22:5, “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man; neither shall a man put on a woman’s garments; for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”

  49. keith
    June 17th, 2006 @ 6:52 am

    Surely if God didn’t want me to be gay, he wouldn’t have made men so hot.

    Chris: It’s people like you who remind us why it’s called homophobia. You seem to believe that if giving a choice between being gay or straight, everyone would choose to be gay and so the only way for the human race to survive is to persecute gays. The straights I know tend to be accepting of the way I am but would never want to “go gay.” If you think people would want to “go gay,” then you’ve all but admitted that you’re a self-loathing homo in denial. Just come out of the closet, already!

    Brian: Homosexuality is almost definitely neither genetic nor “nurture.” If it were genetic, it would have been stamped out a long time ago. Because homosexuality exists throughout the animal kingdom, it might have even been stamped out before humans evolved. But what we see is a constant amount of gay people, generation after generation. The nurture argument doesn’t really make sense either. First, the chances of being gay is about the same, regardless of whether your parents were gay or straight. Second, there are too many involuntary aspects involved in sexual attraction (pupil dilation, increased blood flow, response to hormones, etc.) that simply can’t be learned or chosen. So, it’s mostly likely “nature,” but from something else other than genes.

    I’d also like to add that this may be one of the best science versus religion topics. Where the origin of life will most likely never be known, the effects of sexual stimuli on people can be directly observed, and it’s all in conflict with what religious folk are saying.

  50. Thorngod
    June 17th, 2006 @ 10:08 am

    Keith, almost everything in the world conflicts with what religious folk say. Unlike homosexuality, religion is a mental injury inflicted in childhood, and is usually too severe ever to be healed.

  51. Chris Treborn
    June 19th, 2006 @ 4:19 pm

    Keith, you may be a gay, and that’s between you god and all the men who ejaculate on your face, but that does not give you unlimited freedom to spout your ignorant gay diatribe. Give it a rest homo.

  52. Thorngod
    June 19th, 2006 @ 11:29 pm

    You’re right about sex being a rich topic for discussion. It’s surprising it hadn’t cropped up before (as far as I’m aware). I tend to believe that Freud was basically right about sex influencing every aspect of human life. It’s evinced in areas and in ways that I think most people don’t perceive. I have gotten some quizzical and dubious responses from people when I point out to them that any difference in the way any female responds to any male, or vice versa (assuming both to be heterosexual) that is different in any way from the way either would respond in the same situation to a member of their own sex, is necessarily sexual. This is a virtual tautology, but for one reason or another, many people want to argue the point. Anyhow, I think the varieties of sexual inclinations and expressions would make for a fruitful and fascinating discussion.

  53. physics teacher
    June 20th, 2006 @ 7:10 am

    shi treborn, shut the fuck up you shit filled bible thumping, baby raping asshole.
    did you not know that judas and jesus when lovers, tossing each other salads and the like. go back to reading your bible, nobody cares what you think here, try to learn alittle from good old lily and act like person, I don’t agree with most of what lily says but I at least respect her for not being a bitch. she in calm and to the point. when she has some thing to say she says it like an adult .
    not like a sniveling like cunt like your self

  54. physics teacher
    June 20th, 2006 @ 7:13 am

    shi treborn

    your homophobie is indicative of your repressed homosexual desires
    your stupidity is indicative of belief system

  55. Thorngod
    June 21st, 2006 @ 12:42 am

    Physics T’s advice is well put, Chris. I’ve acquired considerably more respect for you, by the way, than I was first able to muster–though I think you should cease wishing God’s blessings on “assholes.” You’re no dummy, and I apologize if I may have implied that opinion at some point. You see, when an atheist hears a typical religious opinion, it always sounds absurd to him. It’s always so incongrous, so fabulous. When religion takes the floor, reason and logic seem to fly out the window. I do admire you somewhat for sticking around and taking all the abuse being hurled at you. But the honest truth is that neither I nor any other atheist posting here can see any logic or reason in most of the things you say in defence of your religion. It’s not animosity for the sake of contention; it’s just a fact. We truly see everything about religious belief as a form of insanity. It simply makes no sense. But I’m glad you stuck around, and I hope you’ll keep contending. Who knows; maybe you’ll say something eventually that’ll amaze and enlighten us!

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links