Apple Beliefs Columns Culture Ethics Jonathan Merritt: On Faith and Culture Opinion

Nancy Pearcey and Jonathan Merritt spar on the hottest of hot topics

Countless evangelical men have achieved more acclaim than Pearcey with less acuity. (Image courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons - http://bit.ly/2BxiXku)

If Nancy Pearcey were a man, she’d probably be a household name among conservative Christians.

The first time I remember seeing her name, it was in tiny print beneath a mammoth “Charles Colson” on the cover of the iconic book, “How Now Shall We Live.” While Colson received the lion’s share of credit for the book, it’s widely believed that Pearcey carried the intellectual freight. In the subsequent years, Pearcey has published many books including “Total Truth,” a hefty defense of traditional Christian theology that won the Gold Medallion award.

Pearcey’s razor-sharp scholar’s mind combined with a compelling personal story–a former agnostic who converted to Christianity–makes her a powerful, if undervalued, champion for conservative believers. She has lectured at prestigious forums around the world from Hollywood to the White House, and The Economist once labeled her, “America’s pre-eminent evangelical Protestant female intellectual.” Countless evangelical men have achieved more acclaim with less acuity.

In her newest book, “Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions About Life and Sexuality,” Pearcey pulls no punches. She confronts all the tricky topics du jour: abortion, LGBT issues, assisted suicide, secularism, and the so-called hook-up culture. So I decided to spar with her over some of these topics; my questions were direct and pointed. Though Pearcey is traditional in her theology and we clearly disagree about much, her defense of conservative positions is eloquent and impressive. Here is our lively exchange:

Image courtesy of Baker Books

RNS: I’m pro-life like you, and you write extensively on abortion in this book. What do you say to pro-choice advocates who argue that anti-abortion legislation steals a woman’s control over her own body?

NP: Bioethicists defend abortion by saying the fetus is biologically human but not a person—which means it can be killed for any reason or no reason. It can be used for research, tinkered with genetically, harvested for organs, then disposed of with the other medical waste.

The point is that the sheer fact of being biologically human no longer guarantees the most fundamental right—the right not to be killed. That’s a drastic devaluation of human life and it affects everyone, including women.

In addition, an abortion culture does not treat women’s biologically ability to gestate and bear children as a wondrous capacity to be cherished, but as a liability, a disadvantage, a disability to be suppressed with toxic chemicals and deadly devices. Even in my younger years when I was an agnostic, I sensed that this was demeaning to women.

RNS: An issue I’ve wrestled with over the years is physician-assisted suicide. How does your theology of the body address this matter?

NP: Think of it as the abortion argument in reverse: Bioethicists defend abortion by saying anyone who has not achieved a prescribed level of cognitive awareness is not a person. They defend euthanasia by saying if you lose certain cognitive abilities, you are no longer a person—even though you are obviously still human. At that point, you can be unplugged, your treatment withheld, your food and water discontinued, your organs harvested.

Note again that being human is not enough to qualify for human rights. You have to earn the right to legal protection by exhibiting an arbitrary level of cortical functioning. This is not compassionate, it is exclusive. It says that some people don’t measure up. They don’t make the cut.

By contrast, the pro-life position is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re “in.” You have the dignity and status of a full member of the moral community.

RNS: You say that the pro-life view is “inclusive.” That is, if you are a member of the human race, you should not be killed. It seems to me that you’re describing the “pro-life view” generously. Aren’t many pro-lifers also the first in line to support waging an unjust war, defending torture, and even fighting to support government-sponsored execution of prisoners despite troubling evidence about our justice system’s ability to accurately litigate capital punishment cases. Can you tell me why what you call the “pro-life view” so often manifests as something not at all inclusive and why many people–Muslims, prisoners, and others–often end up excluded?

NP: In Love Thy Body, I am not asking if people are consistent with their views—most of us are not entirely consistent. I am unpacking the logic of those views, showing especially the dehumanizing impact of the secular ethic.

For example, the book includes a chapter on the hookup culture. Young adults know the rules of the game all too well: no love, no relationship, no commitment.

Some think the hookup scene gives sex too much importance, but in reality it gives sex too little importance. One young man told Rolling Stone, sex is just “a piece of body touching another piece of body”; it is “existentially meaningless.”

The hookup culture rests on a materialist view of the human being as a physical organism driven by sheer physical drives, with no higher purpose. That is the underlying logic.

Researcher Donna Freitas interviewed hundreds of college students who admitted they are disappointed with their meaningless sexual encounters. They feel hurt and lonely. They wish they knew how to create a genuine relationship where they are known and loved. They are trying to live out a worldview that does not fit who they really are.

RNS: You say that LGBT people and the gay rights movement are denigrating biology. Many would counter that science overwhelmingly supports popular and progressive understandings of sexual orientation. How would you respond?

NP: There’s no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The American Psychological Association says, “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor.”

Then again, no one really denies that on the level of biology, physiology, and anatomy, males and females correspond to one another. That’s how the human sexual and reproductive system is designed. To embrace a same-sex identity, then, is implicitly to contradict that design—to say: Why should the structure of my body inform my identity? Why should my sexed body have any say in my moral choices?

This is a profoundly disrespectful view of the body. By pitting biological sex against psychological identity, it has a fragmentating, self-alienating impact on the human personality. Queer theorists themselves speak of a “mismatch” between sex and desire.

Those defending a biblical view of sexuality are not relying on a few scattered Bible verses. They hold a teleological worldview in which the structure of the universe—including the body—reflects a divine purpose. A biblical ethic overcomes the “mismatch” and leads to a wholistic integration of personality.

RNS: One of my transgender friends tells me that he feels liberated from embracing his gender identity–an identity he has known since kindergarten but only recently accepted. What do you say to a person like that?

NP: Listen to the transgender narrative itself: It dissociates gender from biological sex, insisting that the authentic self is strictly a matter of inner feelings. Kids down to kindergarten are being taught their bodies are irrelevant to their identity.

The implication is that the body does not matter. Matter does not matter. All that matters is a person’s internal sense of self.

In other words, if a person senses a disjunction between mind and body, the mind wins. But why? Why accept such a demeaning view of the body?

This is radically dehumanizing. For if our bodies do not have inherent value, then a key part of our human identity is devalued. The transgender narrative estranges people from their own body.

By contrast, a biblical worldview honors the body as an inseparable part of our identity. The body/person is an integrated psycho-physical unity. Matter does matter.

Image courtesy of Nancy Pearcey

RNS: You say that if a person senses a disjunction between mind and body, the mind wins, and you believe that is demeaning. But in your view if a person senses this disjunction, the body always “wins.” By your own logic, isn’t your view demeaning to the mind?

NP: My goal is to reintegrate body and mind—and since the body is what’s being disparaged, that’s what we must defend. In Love Thy BodyI tell stories of real people, like Sean Doherty who was sexually attracted to other men and decided to be celibate. Today he is married to a woman and has three children. What changed?

Sean began to reflect on the “tangible fact that I am a man. Thus God’s original intention for me in creation was to be able to relate sexually to a woman,” no matter what his desires were. “Indeed, I came to think my feelings were relatively superficial, in comparison to my physical identity.”

Over time, Sean noticed a subtle shift. “Without denying my sexual feelings, I stopped regarding them as who I was, sexually, and started regarding my physical body as who I was.” To his surprise, his desires gradually changed.

Though our emotions are important, they can fluctuate—and often do. The most reliable marker of who we are is our physically embodied identity as male and female.

Of course, humans are much more than biological beings, but Scripture presents the created differentiation of male and female as a good thing. The question is: Do we accept that created structure or do we reject it? Do we affirm the goodness of creation or deny it?

RNS: There is a political dimension to many of the issues you raise. Some might say, “It’s fine for you to believe these things, Nancy. But you can’t legislate your morality for everyone.” What would you say to that?

NP: The secular moral revolution is destroying pre-political rights and expanding the coercive power of the state—and that hurts everyone.

Take abortion. In the past, the law recognized the right to life as a pre-political right you have just because you’re human. The law did not create it, but merely recognized it. However, the only way the state could legalize abortion was to deny the relevance of biology and declare that some humans are not persons. The state claimed the authority to decide which humans have a right to live.

In the past, the state recognized marriage as a pre-political right based on the fact that humans are a sexually reproducing species. But the only way the law can treat same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples is to deny the relevance of biology and declare marriage to be merely an emotional commitment. But there are endless varieties of emotional commitments, so the state has claimed the authority to decide arbitrarily which ones qualify as marriage.

The only way the law can treat a trans woman (born male) the same as a biological woman is to deny the relevance of biology and declare gender to a matter of inner feelings. The state has begun passing laws telling us whom we must call “he” or “she.”

Pre-political rights are being reduced to merely legal rights at the dispensation of the state. And what the state gives, it can take away. Human rights are no longer inalienable.

RNS: You claim that there is a “pervasive hostility toward the body and biology” in secular culture. But I’ve witnessed body shaming and body negative theology in evangelical churches across America. What am I missing?

NP: We all absorb aspects of secularism, even in the churches, often without realizing it.

Those living out a secular ethic may not consciously intend to disparage the body. But our actions can have logical implications we have not clearly thought through. Secularism sees nature as a cosmic accident, a product of blind material forces. It reduces the human body to a collection of atoms, cells, and tissues, no different from any other chance configuration of matter.

The implication is that our bodies have no inherent purpose, give no clue to our identity, convey no moral message. Camille Paglia, an outspoken lesbian, defends homosexuality by saying nature made humans heterosexual but why not “defy nature’? “Fate, not God, has given us this flesh. We have absolute claim to our bodies and may do with them as we see fit.”

In every choice we make, we are affirming a worldview. The fundamental question is: What kind of cosmos do we live in? Are we products of blind material forces? Or are we the handiwork of a personal God, reflecting his loving purpose?

RNS: My experience is that conservative Christians, generally, have an underdeveloped theology of the body and focuses on “eternal” or “immaterial” matters instead. Is this your experience?

Many Christians are out of touch with their own heritage. The early church was surrounded by world-denying philosophies like Platonism and Gnosticism, which saw the material world as a place of nothing but death, decay, and destruction. Gnosticism even taught that the word was created by a low-level, evil deity. No self-respecting god would get his hands dirty mucking about with matter.

In this context, Christianity was revolutionary. It taught that the highest God, the Supreme deity, created the material world and pronounced it “very good.”

An even greater scandal was the incarnation—that God himself took on a human body. The incarnation is the ultimate affirmation of the dignity of the body.

Finally, at the end of time God is not going to scrap the material world as if he made a mistake. He is going to renew and restore it—creating a new heaven and a new earth. The Apostle’s creed affirms the resurrection of the body.

This is an astonishingly high view of the physical world. There is nothing else like it in any other philosophy or religion. Love Thy Body gives tools to go beyond an incomplete negative message (“It’s wrong, it’s sinful, don’t do it”) to deploy positive arguments, showing that a biblical ethic is more appealing and more attractive than a secular ethic.

RNS: When a problem in the broader culture is presented, you blame secularism’s influence on society. When a problem in the church is presented, you blame the influence of secularism on the church. It sort of seems like the six degrees of secularism to me, as if you’re always finding a way to blame this boogeyman. What am I missing?

NP: It’s true that Christianity sometimes seems opposed to fun or pleasure. That’s because to some degree early church thinkers absorbed those Platonic and Gnostic ideas that were in the air at the time—something we’re all prone to do. These philosophies denounced the body as a “prison.” Thus the path to holiness was depriving the body through fasting, poverty, rejecting sex and marriage, and other forms of asceticism.

This explains why even today there are churches that teach a stern, tightlipped asceticism. They regard the body as shameful or worthless; they treat sexual sin as more wicked than other sins; they hold an escapist view of salvation, as though Jesus died to whisk us away to heaven.

As one of my students said, “I was raised thinking ‘spirit=good, body=bad.’’

Of course, spiritual disciplines such as fasting can be helpful. But Paul warns against an asceticism that says, “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” Such “harsh treatment of the body” does not lead to true holiness (Col. 2:21, 23).

Many readers say they picked up Love Thy Body hoping to find handy answers to current issues, but were surprised to discover that it transformed their own thinking. They did not realize how deeply they had absorbed the sacred/secular split.

FOR MORE, CHECK OUT LOVE THY BODY BY NANCY PEARCEY

About the author

Jonathan Merritt

Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service and a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He has published more than 2500 articles in outlets like USA Today, The Week, Buzzfeed and National Journal. Jonathan is author of "Jesus is Better Than You Imagined" and "A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars." He resides in Brooklyn, NY.

192 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “Why do many so-called pro-life people look the other way at, or worse, promote other kinds of violence?”
    “I’d like to ignore your question and talk about ‘hookup culture.'”
    For someone advertised as God’s female gift to Protestant theology, the interviewee seems awfully confused about her arguments. First she tells us that “hookup culture” is destroying young people’s sense of self through meaningless sexual encounters. But when it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation, she tells us that your identity and mind are irrelevant and all that matters is your genitals. Which is it?
    What a standpoint to uphold. A man’s identity apparently should be determined by the fact that he has a penis and therefore is obligated to have sex with women. Great for evolutionary biology, not so much for the lives of men and women.

  • And once again to vitiate the entire discussion:

    Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.

    • As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.

    • There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.

    • There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.

    • There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.

    • Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.

    • Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.

    • A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.

    Added details available upon written request.

    A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.

    e.g. Taoism

    “The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.

    Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother’s womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. “

  • Shorter for this lady. I’m right, you’re not.

    There’s no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation is biologically determined. The American Psychological Association says, “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor.”

    But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t. Nor does it mean that is changeable, nor does it mean that it isn’t real. And of course, she is conflating sexual orientation with sex, and conflating that with reproduction. she is leaving out the obvious: heterosexuality is a sexual orientation as well, as is bisexuality, and there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it is biologically determined, Either. When she can show me the heterosexual gene, she might have a point. But she can’t.

    “Then again, no one really denies that on the level of biology, physiology, and anatomy, males and females correspond to one another.

    Again, more of the same dishonest conflation.

    “That’s how the human sexual and reproductive system is designed.” Really, prove it. Again, sex isn’t reproduction. And designed by whom? Oh, yes, the god she claims to speak for,

    Funny how it all works,

  • You don’t know anything about Buddhism. Buddhist don’t worship Buddha as a God. They think he found a truth that the rest of us can find too. I’ve said this before, but I still don’t see if there was no Moses why that mean that thses religions have no strenghth of purpose. It doesn’t follow.

  • I did not say Buddha was a god. His depictions are highly variable however. Then there is the idiocy of reincarnation and the Dalai Lama and the lotus stupidity.

    And you might want to review the Moses effect on history all now vitiated by the lies of the Jewish scribes who invented him.

  • What she said is, that as humans we are designed to sexually reproduce… Humans can’t reproduce if the parts don’t fit where they are designed to go…

  • If there is no biological evidence for homosexuality then that means there is none. Its not that difficult. Funny how it all works.

  • If Christianity was false it would not have lasted 2000 years.
    Atheism won’t last because there are no facts that proves it true. Its total nonsense.

  • Ben, Christ taught that homosexuality is abnormal and a “shameful act”. Had she bothered to say that , the conversation is over.
    Had she bother to teach the author that Christ died so that we can have a relationship with Him with an eternity with Him, and all we need to do is renounce our sin, would have made a shorter article.

  • There’s nothing to talk about. That’s my problem Pearcey, she has some interesting things to say but I wonder if she has any capacity to listen.

  • And for thousands of years humans believed that Earth was the center of the universe and flat at that. And where is your proof that your god exists?

  • Dear Irrational Assertions, is it rational to believe that the most complex information code known to man (DNA) arose by purely natural processes? If so, could you please provide just one example of an information code arising from a non-intelligent source? Empirically speaking, all complex information codes known to man have a prior intelligent source. Rationally speaking, it would therefore be highly irrational to believe that the most complex information code known to man arose from purely natural processes without a prior intelligence. 🙂

  • She made assertions and provided rational arguments to support them. You have provided only assertions. Assertions do not an argument make. BTW, isn’t it rational to believe in her God? Have you examined the evidence?

  • Not at all. She presents the case for the integrated pscho-physical person as we were created to be. The modernist view was de-humanizing in that it deified the body (matter) and subjectivized the mind. The post-modern view has swung to the other de-humanizing extreme in that it has deified the mind and subjectivized the body. Christianity is pre-modern and holds to a unified view of truth and affirms the reality of both the mind and body as created by God. Christianity also recognizes the fact of objective moral evil and presents God’s plan for deliverance from our fallen state. Finally, in regards to the supposed dilemma between being pro-life and pro-death penalty; rightfully understood, there is no dilemma when one understands the concept of justice. Babies do not deserve death, pedophiles do.

  • She made assertions. I pointed out the assumptions she was making, based upon her own words.

    Is it rational to believe in her god? not according to the 2/3 of the world that thinks that her god and his story is nonsense.

    What evidence? You have a book, 2000 years old. So do a lot of other people, with even older books.

  • That is exactly the problem. That was my very first sentence. I’m right. You’re not. That’s her argument.

  • Have you EVER had sex for any other reason but reproduction? Yes? You just invalidated your argument,

  • First you give me some proof that shows atheism is true. I don’t want your opinion that you don’t find arguments for God’s existence compelling but I want some facts that proves atheism is true. Then I will give you my proofs.

  • More about pearcy’s “opinions”.

    She starts with an assumption, viz, that her religious beliefs about god, gay people, sexuality, heterosexuality, and life itself are facts, all in accordance with what she believes a book says, a book that is actually a series of books by a number of authors writing at different times over at least 500 years, written for a people 2000 years and a universe away from us in culture, thought, knowledge, language and concerns.

    this is the problem with so many people who have opinions on homosexuality, informed by their religion, misinformed by their pastors. They can’t be bothered to ask actual gay people about our lives, because they already “know” everything they “need” to know. They are so used to thinking the way they do that they simply don’t consider that they don’t know what they are talking about.

    But those are the ones that are just ignorant. There are far too many people that are not just ignorant, but proudly so, happily so, preferably so. They are filled with malice and fear, misunderstanding, and despite, and their own rather nasty personal issues. (I’m talking to YOU, Ted and Bryan, and a multitude of others). They take what they think they understand from their book, and they use it to justify their malice. They are happy to work to harm people they don’t know, know nothing about, and who have done them and intend them no harm, simply because they have an unwavering and unwarranted faith in a completely self assigned and otherwise wholly imaginary superiority as “religious” people, as moral people, as heterosexuals, and as human beings.

    Is Pearcey one of those? I have no idea. but it doesn’t matter, because she provides the ammunition to those people, a weaponized faith. She says, because alleged science is useful to her point, …”The APA says this.” The APA didn’t say that at all. The APA also says that homosexuality is a natural and normal part of the the spectrum of human sexuality. You can bet that she left THAT part of it out.
    For Pearcey. Science is useful only up till the point it disagrees with her.

    Intellectual dishonesty on display. Justified by god, who is always used to justify what cannot be justified by any other means,

    The malice is always there, and gives the lie to any claims of Christian Love, let alone morals. Don’t ask don’t tell was a perfect example, though many would do. “We can’t have homosexuals in the military. It would destroy military effectiveness and unit cohesion.” This is what they said for decades, without the slightest bit of evidence. Despite good soldiers who just wanted to serve their country. DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF OUR ALLIES, THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR FELLOW SOLDIERS. And when they finally got rid of it, no one cared. It wasn’t about gay people at all, but what some heterosexuals, and a great many alleged heterosexuals, thought about gay people.

    And just how many soldiers died because too many Farsi and Arabic translators were kicked out of he military for being gay, leaving a dearth of translators available, and thus compromised intelligence. As my dad always used to say, military intelligence is an oxymoron. Where in earth is the Christian morality of that. Hint: there is none.

    Conservative Religion, by insisting on prejudice and bigotry and harm that is contrary to actual evidence, facts, logic, and experience, has decided to make a stand against my full participation in society, authentically, as I am made. Every time religion does this, it loses, because it is standing on the side of not morality, but of immorality, not of truth, but of lies, not of love, but of bigotry. It’s obvious to anyone who is paying any attention. Jesus himself, as well as Paul, had a lot to say about that. Whited sepulchers, scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites, slandering and reviling, and a host of other sins.

    Do you really want to die on this particular Hill?

    Of course you do, because you have ISSUES.

  • All you have here is just your opinions. You have no biological facts for homosexuality. That means its just a preference. Deal with it.

  • I recommend a thorough review of the process of evolution starting with star dust. Get back to us when you finish your review.

  • She’ll back her claim with a testimonial. What she fails to tell her readers is that those people’s stories do not represent the majority of people who have a same sex attraction and want her to be right. Pearcey is very smart, too smart not to know better. She is presenting the exception to the evidence as the proof of her view being the right view.

    I actually agree with many things she says in the two books mentioned. I don’t come to her conclusions. She starts with a conclusion and reasons backwards towards her “worldview”. She states though that conclusions are reached depending on the world view you start with. Listen to me and I will explain the “biblical worldview” to you, don’t trust yourself that you have one if you are not reaching my conclusions. I’m the authority who validated what you are thinking not yourself.

  • So, you have never encountered secondary and primary objectives?

    If you have a secondary objective, does that render the primary null and void?

  • Ben in Oakland, thanks for the time you took in composing your response. I’m sorry that your experience with Christianity has been so harsh. I appreciate you don’t blanket Christians as holding one opinion on all issues. We don’t. The critical element of following Christ is believing in His incarnation, His death and His resurrection. The other issues are what we work out on our journey here. Thanks for limiting your comments to “so many people.” As I can neither speak to all gay people about their lives, their hearts, and their hurts, you can’t speak to all Christians about their thoughts, their beliefs and their convictions. And we both can’t know the sincerity of love we each hold for all humankind. By the nature of humanity, we all offend, we all manipulate and we all spend far too much time judging good and evil. Yet some do try to love with sincerity and to represent the light and the love of Jesus to those we meet. I do pray you may one day have an opportunity to meet a Christian who does that.

  • My apologies to Ben who is more than capable of responding to you on his own but you need to hear this from someone besides Ben.

    Pearcey didn’t write her book with Ben in mind, she knows he would blow her reasoning up. She wrote it with you in mind, and here’s a news flash, she’s assuming your stupid. She’s not going to tell you she thinks your stupid, she’s smarter than that. She is going to make you feel smarter for agreeing with her. Here is how she does it, first she sets herself up as the expert with the inside information, then she sets you up as the victim of something would never choose otherwise.

    From the first page of the introduction of her book Love Thy Body.

    “As a former agnostic, I give an insider’s road map to postmodern moral theories, showing how they devalue the human being and destroy rights.”
    The expert baits the hook. The next sentence starts a new paragraph.
    “Dissenters to the politically correct orthodoxy are accused of intolerance and discrimination, branded as bigots and misogynists, and targeted for campaigns of shame and intimidation.”
    The hook is set. Now to play the fish.
    “Those who disagree with the prevailing secular ethos plead a right to religious liberty.”
    Time to reel that trophy in.
    “The next stage (there’s not hers) will be to deny citizens their religious liberty-and it has already begun. Those who resist the secular moral revolution have lost jobs, businesses, and teaching positions. Others have been kicked out of graduate school programs, lost the right to be foster parents, been forced to shut down adoption centers, lost their status as campus organizations…and list of oppression is likely to grow.”
    That’s from her introduction she goes on to write a book about how not to fall for this kind of trickery. I love the last sentence of her introduction.

    “To start learning how, turn to chapter 1.”

    I started feeling smarter before the page had time to flip. The book is actually a pretty fascinating read when you want to understand how to regress thinking in the evangelical world.

  • Many right things are said in the book. Much of it in my opinion can make a positive impact on culture and society.
    Reading the book won’t make Ben straight. Listening to Ben won’t make you gay. Start with that conclusion, don’t add a word don’t delete a word, just rearrange what is in the book and you start to close gaps that cause disunity in our society.

  • I googled god and found no reliable studies that your god exists now or in the past. Your turn.

  • So Ben himself says the real APA deal: “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor.”

    Imagine that. All these decades of the gay movement preaching “Born That Way”, only to finally reach the point where the scientific APA publicly shrugs and disavows it.

    People, the scientific door is open for all slaves to escape the Gay Plantation (or any other plantation). God will give you cleansing, healing, power, and freedom (1 Cor. 6:9-11, 1 Cor. 10:13). So NOW is the time to dial up Jesus. Whoever or whatever you are, it’s time for you and Christ to **really** meet up (Rev. 3:20). Something gonna happen. To you.

    Let Pastor Donnie McClurkin, (who used to be homosexual till Christ broke off his chains), quietly sing about YOUR healing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uNx0T6E_ds

  • So, the basis for your ‘rational’ rejection of God is a majority vote? Truth by democracy? Wow. You ask what evidence and then posit the Bible. We could get to the Bible (the majority of which is quite a bit more than 2K years old), however, I like to begin with philosophical arguments as well as the rational inferences drawn from empirical observations – which point to His existence. I am sure that you are well aware of these logical arguments for the existence of God, especially since you have rejected Him. Otherwise you would have made a decision without considering the evidence. I’m sure you would never do that. Or else one might accuse you of treating the (Shorter version of the) question of the Existence of God as nothing more than, “I’m right. You’re wrong.”

  • “The sacred/secular split”, my anti-apologetics foot!

    You know what’s wrong & dumb with this picture that is Nancy Pearcey?

    Can’t you see that she’s constantly talking on her own? She’s into monologues where all her debating partners (including Jonathan Merritt here) are ghosts, strawmen & red herrings. She invents all her debaters and repackages all their – get this now – “worldviews”, so this way they sound sinister & stupid and only her “worldview” doesn’t. That’s why she says half-lying and half-truthtelling stuffs like:

    Here’s a good one. Materialism dichotomizes us into an upper-level personhood and a lower-level body. Why? So as to devalue our physical bodies. Which is what’s happening in abortion, euthanasia, the hook-up culture, homosexuality, and transgender. Says who? Not the materialists, of course, but Nancy Pearcey.

    And oh by the way, Christ Jesus is no longer relevant & needed in Nancy Pearcey’s all-sufficient “worldview”. He too is a ghost.

    I gave up on this “worldview” approach to talking to people of interest long ago for these 2 reasons.

  • Nice dodge Irrational Assertions. We know that the human DNA consists of over 3 billion chemical characters of information and that this information code is by far the most complex information code known to man. We also know that information codes are always preceded by prior intelligence. We also know that there is nothing in the chemistry that causes the complex arrangement of these nucleotide letters. Therefore, appealing to ziggy stardust gets you nowhere. Is it not irrational to conclude that the most complex information code known to man arose by a non-intelligent source when every other empirically-observed information code known to man has an intelligent source?

  • You have it exactly right. She has her religious beliefs, and is reasoning backwards, very backwards, from it.

  • Bang on exactly. She isn’t bothering to talk about all of the gay people who have lost their jobs for dating to challenge her “moral” orthodoxy. She didn’t care about the denial of religious liberty inherent in all of the morality campaigns of the hyper evangelicals.

    Her concern is obvious: the loss of political power and dominion that the hyper Christians have experienced in the last 25 years. When they were running the show, none of these issues were of any concern to them. But now that they are no longer able to exercise the political and religious dominion that they used to have over the lives of gay people and liberal denominations that don’t obsess over genitalia, she’s whining.

    Thanks for posting this.

  • Thanks for YOUR comment.

    I don’t tar all Christians it’s the same evangelical brush, or even, all evangelicals. I’m quite clear about it, and have been through my thousands of postings on this subject. I don’t hate all Christians, or even dislike all of them. I never have. Nor do I want to.

    We are atheists, but asked a dear friend of ours, a Christian minister, to officiate at both of our ceremonies. I have nothing against Christians, Muslims, or anyone else, per se. But…

    I will stand, now and always, against the fear, hatred, despite, ignorance, stupidity, bigotry, and prejudice that hides like a cockroach behind the wall of religious belief.

    Thanks again.

  • No, you simply don’t understand me. You are the one that is asserting “I’m right. You’re wrong.” I pointed out that lots of other people make the same assertions you just did, with as much evidence.

    Please stop putting words in my mouth.

  • Or, it might just be the nature of how life works. We don’t know. You just assumed you do, and that the answer must be YOUR god over the tens of thousands of gods that men have worshipped for the past 5000 years.

  • #1: You asserted that the reason that you think it is irrational to believe in God is because (according) to you, 2/3 of the world do not believe in Him. By this standard, you would have likely have held to the widely held 19th century scientific position that the universe was eternal. We do not arrive at truth by consensus Ben.

    #2: You tried to define the basis of my belief in God as being solely on the teachings of the Bible (which I do hold as true). And I stated that there are many arguments outside of the Bible which easily show that it is irrational to not believe in God.

    I would never assert, “I’m right. You’re wrong.” That is lazy. And besides, I like arguing for truth too much for that.

  • Hinduism, is 5000 years old. It must be true.

    Buddhism and Confucianism are 2500 years. They must be true.

  • There you go again Ben. Once again you have attributed an assertion to me that I never made. You see Ben, my argument is not from what we don’t know. Rather, it was from what we do know: Intelligence always precedes Information. Always. My point was modest. Every complex information code known to man (Binary Code, Written Language, Musical Notation, Hieroglyphics, etc.) has prior intelligence as its source. It is therefore most rational to conclude that the single most complex information code known to man, also had prior intelligence as its source. It goes against reason and is an irrational blind faith in atheistic naturalism to believe otherwise. Unless of course, you can provide us with one single example of complex information arising from a non-intelligent source…..

  • I have to congratulate you. You’ve summed her up precisely. She has created an army of straw men to tilt at with her windmills.

  • Christianity has not only been proven true but all critics of it have failed to disprove it. Atheism on the other hand is not true. No atheist has ever produced one fact that proves it true. Atheism will eventually be forgotten.

  • It’s worse than whining she practicing regressive religion. Regressive religion appeals to victims and produces disciples of victimhood. Here’s another quote from the introduction of Love Thy Body.

    “The majority opinion accused DOMA supporters of being motivated by ‘animus’ (animosity, hostility, hatred). It claimed that their purpose was to ‘disparage,’ injure,’ ‘degrade,’ ‘demean,’ humiliate,’ and ‘harm’ people in same-sex unions…to brand them as ‘unworthy,’ to ‘impose a disadvantage, a stigma’ and to ‘deny them equal dignity.’ In short, the Court did not just say people who support man-woman marriage are mistaken . It denounced them as hostile, hateful, and mean spirited.”

    She has a strategy to fix that.

    “To be strategically effective, then, we must address what people believe ‘about the nature and significance of life itself.” We must engage their worldview”

    Here’s a strategy, shut up and just listen. You can’t be found guilty of a single thing the court accused you of if you do that. Nancy says “we must engage their worldview” follow me I will teach you. Jesus said “settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. I wonder if Nancy ever thought ‘wouldn’t it be great if the court accused DOMA supporters of offensively talking less and listening more’?

    Just throwing this out there, quoting Jesus, if anyone remembers that guy anymore, talking about the body and serving two masters.

    “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!
    No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

    When I read Love Thy Body I don’t feel like the sentiments of those two thoughts are being expressed. On the other hand I feel like the sentiments of those two thoughts are being expressed. It is a fascinating read, “below the surface, at the
    level of worldview.”

  • Being uncharacteristically rude, this is stupid, even for you.

    And yet, For something at has been proven true, it still has failed to convince 2/3 of the word of its truth after 2000 years. And in the civilized world— hi shawnie— it is hemorrhaging members.

  • I didn’t read her book. But if she said something like that to me, I would say…

    If you don’t want to be thought a hateful, meansPirited bigot, don’t talk like one, don’t act like one, and stop justifying those who do.

    I’m glad you read what she had to say, so that I don’t have to. She sounds like a real piece of work, like our little sandimonious.

  • You’re welcome Ben. I too hope to stand against the darkness that obscures the light of Christianity and the love of God. And my prayer remains that as Christians we spend a little more time valuing people (both Christian and non-Christian) and gladly leave the judging to the One who calls us to love and to share His love. I’m so thankful for His grace and I pray I focus on that.

  • Humans were not designed, we evolved into this form due to natural selection.

    Claiming that we were designed just tells me that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    The Earth didn’t get created by a god either, it was formed out of the interstellar void by natural processes.

  • Atheism is the absence of god. In the billions of references reviewed by Google and other search engines no proof of the existence of God has been found.

  • I thought some more about your comment, and your Pearcey quotes, and I suddenly realized what had been scurrying around in the back of my mind, something I couldn’t quite discern.

    This whole “intellectual” charade is revealed in those comments. This is all about anger at those uppity people who dare to assert that evangelicals in particular, and conservative Christianity in general, no longer get to have the dominion they have always had. especially, those uppity figs. How dare they!!! Pushback is simply not allowed, especially by the morally, politically, socially, and theologically inferior.

    In short, it’s all about the kind of bigotry that isn’t hate, but is the unwarranted, unwavering belief in a wholly imaginary superiority as a moral person, a Christian, and a human being.

    In short, this is all about one thing.

    REVENGE.

  • When did natural law, devised by the ancient pagan Greeks, become theology?

    Given a choice between natural law and your compulsions, I’ll go with natural law.

  • Please? The ancient Greeks? The ones who believed in false gods?

    Natural law is a catholic conception, and means “it seems good to me.” I thought you were a die hard baptist, but apparently, your are a hyper conservative Catholic.

  • No, natural law is NOT a “catholic conception”.

    I thought you were a die hard atheist, but apparently you’re simply ignorant.

  • It’s not particularly “hemorrhaging members”.

    In Western Europe and Canada religion in general is in decline.

    In the USA and Mexico it is a very very mixed bag.

    In Africa and Eastern Europe it’s growing.

    Don’t let wishful thinking obstruct the facts.

  • I would be interested in why you think the APA is worth citing.

    Psychology is one part science and nine parts politics.

    In the USA it appears to be 9.6 parts politics and .4 parts science.

    I also find “on the side of not morality, but of immorality, not of truth, but of lies, not of love, but of bigotry” interesting.

    I assume this conclusion results from the opposition to considering same sex relations as normal, in which case one might rephrase yours as “on the side of not what I want, but against what I want, not of truth as I see it, but of truth as they see it, not of endorsing me and my choice, but of opposing me and my choices”.

  • You’ve never met anybody who has personally experienced the healing, the deliverance, the sheer invincible power of Jesus in this one area.

    But I have. Both “before” and “after.” Completely unforgettable. Changes everything. You start believing that Jesus really IS totally powerful, just like in the Bible days. ‘Cause you can’t get over what you saw and heard upfront.

    So, Karl, what do you really want? You want to stay where you’re at? Nobody will force you to leave. But if you’re tired of being “in the life” and you want to get out of there, then Somebody wants to speak with you.

  • Better be careful how much you focus on God’s love and grace there.

    Focus on it too much, share one too many “unconditional love and grace” Scriptures with a person, and that person might just accidentally buy in all the way, getting saved & healed & delivered in Christ.

    THEN you gonna catch some heat!!

  • I think its great NP is trying to restore dignity to the human body and provide some critical counter narratives. And, as noted in this interview, it is particularly good to point out the coercive power of the state.
    However, aren’t both political conservatives and leftists just as anxious as one another to take control of the state’s machinery to enforce one’s view of what is right? Isnt that assumption that drives mainstream politics and so-called evangelical ‘culture wars’?
    Last time I checked, neither Trumpists nor his critics give much weight to ending war, torture, drone bombing of women and children, forced catherization, forced central banking and threats of punishment for daring to use a currency without Caesar’s face on it, sexual assault in the name of dangerous plants, and empire building. That’s what Christians would or should be known for opposing. But they’re generally not (except for a handful of exceptions).

    In short, I’m not sure NP and similar figures are in any way in a position to criticize statism, nationalism, and expanding empires with one hand and feed these pagan deities with the other hand when it’s politically correct.

  • Oh no please. I was going to ignore this article but then there you were trying hard to get through to her, Pearcey. So I did a quick background check and that Amazon link at the bottom of the article got me to where I wanted to go. Yup, thought so. Just another Baker Books sales for nobody else but my fellow born-again Christian brothers & sisters, fooled into thinking that, thanks to Pearcey, they’re actually now thinking through all the issues surrounding abortion, euthanasia, the hook-up culture, homosexuality, and transgender. BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY ENGAGING IN REAL ARGUMENTATION with the other side! Made them all feel better now, though, right? It’s a set-up.

    Like you’ve said in your comments and G J too, I believe, Why can’t she just listen to what her opponents have to say? Instead of transforming them into classes of people, classifications of ideas, all foreign to them? Who gives her the right to do that awful thing to people?

    But that’s what Worldview-ism does. And it’s stupid & harmful. “Weaponized faith”, you called it. And that’s exactly what that is. Another culture war against the rest of the world.

    OMG have mercy on Your people – what are they doing?!

  • From your last sentence, do you believe in Him or not?

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
    That is the beginning of what He taught, other than Sodom and Gomorrah. Then, He turned around and died for these people, should they repent of their sin, so they can spend eternity in His love.

  • Certainly not. If you didn’t understand that from what I wrote, then I question your ability to understand what is written in the Bible. Or to understand the history of that collection of books. You certainly have no concept of time, eternity? Do you know how long that is?

    Leviticus was a book that was “discovered” during a siege of Jerusalem. It was written by humans, not a god. It wasn’t inspired by any god, it was written in the hope of magically evicting an invading army.

    To think that a god would care about who you have sex with is silly. To think that a god would care about whether or not you sat on the same chair as a menstruating woman is imbecilic.

    You care about who I sleep with, while I don’t give a fig about who you sleep with. Why is that?

  • Well floydlee that’s interesting counsel. I’m not worried about what people do with my words. But all the judgement that Christians feel compelled to share, particularly when not asked, does worry me. So sometimes I like to say, “I don’t belong in that camp, and there are other Christians who don’t belong there also.” All the outcomes you mention really don’t have anything to do with me — I’m just called to be ready with my story, and my story is one of love and grace.

  • The opinions of humans, even their careful interpretations of evidence based on observation, are still opinions. But if God is real it is not hard for Him to cause people to write down what really happened from creation forward and to preserve it through the ages. You may think it is a big assumption to say God is real, but again, if He is, then it is really up to Him whether He makes Himself personally known to you enough to convince you. According to His book He could rightly toss the lot of humanity in to hell. He is holy and we are not, and we find Him obnoxious unless He comes near. He has the right to do as He wills with what He has made – from His perspective He has might and right. You can disagree with Him but it is like the criminal disagreeing with the judge. The amazing thing is that He made a way of forgiveness (which cost Him terribly), and He saves a lot of people, often the most wasted individuals, while leaving the confident to themselves. A problem with spiritual realities is that you can’t afford any big mistakes: we meet it at death and don’t come back. So love yourself enough to give Jesus a real look while you have breath.
    It is possible for anyone to have a same sex desire, but the question is whether it is right to accept it or turn away from it: i.e. is it right or wrong. If it is wrong we ought to treat it as other wrong desires we have (and we all have many). And the more serious the wrong the more strongly we should turn away. Some sins are worse than others, as when Jesus told Pilate ‘he that delivered me to you has the greater sin’.

  • Contradict yourself.

    My point exactly.

    Contradicting yourself and my point.

    Absolutely. And as your hero trump said…

    You shouldn’t.

  • “Pushback is simply not allowed, especially by the morally, politically, socially, and theologically inferior.“

    I agree with that. I would reword some of the other things you said concerning evangelical and conservatives. I don’t view Pearcey as evangelical or conservative, she is regressive and she is wrong. I’ll post some examples later.

  • The existence of God as a fact does need evidence. You claim to know of the existence of some. Please state them.

  • Sandi is worse than a sanctimonious ass – she is the most notorious anti-gay hate monger this site has. She is Rev. Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” reincarnated. She thinks that she alone speaks for God and she regularly damns people to hell who dare to disagree with her. It’s a badge of honor to be damned to hell by her. She is a horrid ambassador of Christianity. Now that Evangelicals endorse Trump cursing, I call her an Evangelical bitch.

  • I understand, it’s painting with a rather broad brush. Sometimes, its just too much work to use a smaller one.

    I know it’s not all evangelicals, nor all conservative Christians. But like with the NALT Christians in general, where are the NALT evangelicalsand the NALT conservatives…

    Present company and a few others excepted, of course?

  • ◄ John 19:11 ►

    New International Version
    Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

    Just another passage invented by the author of John’s gospel.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship

    “Since “the higher criticism” of the 19th century, some historians have largely rejected the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus.[3][4] “[M]ost commentators regard the work as anonymous,”[5] and date it to 90-100.”

    And from Professor Gerd Ludemann, in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416,

    “Anyone looking for the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John. “

  • I am a straight female. I married my second husband when I was 53, well and truly out of the reproduction business. If, as married people (and married in church, even), we have sex, fully realizing that there was never the faintest possibility of procreation, is it “sinful”? I brought this point up in an ethics class in my graduate Theology program. (It’s a Catholic university.) Again, there’s no primary objective as you understand it. Two surgeons have attested to the absolute impossibility of pregnancy, and while God may well be able to produce a baby through a virgin female, He doesn’t generally replace the plumbing when it’s no longer there!

  • There’s another view that is still part of orthodox (small o) Christianity. I am a Christian, but I don’t believe that the Hebrew Scriptures were written by God in any of the 3 Persons of the Trinity. Karl is correct to the extent that he says the Bible was written over time, by men. I have a grad degree in theology and was taught by priests, so I have some competence here. It’s generally believed by Jewish, Christian, and secular scholars to have reached its present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC).

  • Great question. I think a book like Pearcey’s is a counter to an organization like NALT. There is a passive aggressive nature to Pearcey in her book. She ties behaviors that everyone condemns and makes no attempt to differentiate. NALT on the other hand attempts to differentiate. The problem with NALT is that it is an organization and Pearcey attacks organized thinking very well. Not All Like That, or NALT, people within the evangelical conservative world will have to counter Pearcey and the organized thinking she represents as individuals.

    One of the things that is impressive to me about how Pearcey frames her arguments is that it counters unwanted conclusions so effectively. NALT, don’t believe them they are an establishment who promotes secular thinking. Starting to question what you’ve believed for so long? It’s okay a little secular thinking will infect us all. In the subconscious the message is stop thinking if you start questioning some things. She writing to you on the conscious level conditioning you to believe something about someone’s subconscious. She is into your head by telling you what is in someone else’s head.

  • THANK YOU, SANDI, for teaching the truth EXACTLY AS CHRIST TAUGHT IT.
    The only choice left for the majority of these posters above, is to repent, change, and STOP BEING DECEIVED BY SATAN.

    Sexual relations are ONLY ACCEPTABLE to Jesus Christ if they are between one man and one woman, who are legally and lawfully married. Every thing else ranges between a sin to an abomination, as you state.

    We can spend Eternity in HIS love if we embrace HIS gospel of LOVE, and cease justifying and rationalizing SIN.

  • Sandinwindsor is the MOST TRUTHFUL and RELEVANT person on this website, and she is supported by the LORD JESUS CHRIST. I so testify in the SACRED NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AMEN Shalom!

  • She picks and chooses the Human stories to make her point. This last week one of the Mormon guys who is gay but married a woman and had children has now admitted the tediousness of the farse. He has lived for years with suicidal ideations because he was trapped in a mariage with someone to whom he felt no physical or romantic attraction. She was resentful towards him because she was trapped in a marriage where her partner was not physically or romantically attracted to her. They are now getting a divorce.

    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/01/couples-divorce-shows-gay-men-shouldnt-marry-straight-women/

  • Oh jeeez. Did you really write this? God could tell us clearly what he thinks, but he doesn’t have to. He could burn us all in hell, because he loves us, but he doesn’t have to. Somesins are worse than others, unless it is one’s own sins, In Which case, they are the same. Or unless someone is not your type of Christian, and believes all sin sin. Right Shawnee?

    So. much judgment. So little time.

  • Let me shorten for you. it’s all aboutpower and money and dominion for some people.

    The liberal position is, keep the state out of people’s private lives.

    the conservative position is, the state is all when it comes to controlling people’s lives, unless it is to control conservatives’ lives, in which case, it’s bad.

    In pearcey’s case, she wants the state to enforce her theology.

  • Actually there is plenty of bioogical evidence, they just haven’t pinpointed a “gay” gene. They may never do so either, because that assumes that the biological determiner is just that, a gene. However, the field that points to a biological determination for sexuality isn’t genetics, but epigentics, the field of gene expression.

    The more correct statement is, they haven’t yet found the biological evidence for the determination for human sexuality.

  • For every ex-gay story, there is an ex-exgay story. The so-called exgay is a tiny, tiny subset of gay folks. Not enough to be statistically important in any manner.

  • I thought that you were a Mormon! Sandimonious has plenty of ugly things to say about you folks as well.

  • You’ve probably never met anyone either. Just people who convinced you they had changed, when all they had done is “change.”

    You might spend some timeprofitably with Josh Weed. He was a self professed gay man in a hetero marriage, and was spending so much time having sex with his wife and raising his wonderful family and being all heterosexual and stuff. But still a gay man. And still selling the poison of the Mormon position on gay people, still helping gay people change to straight, still absolutely surethat he was hearing god and god was telling him what to do, and that all was blessed and heterosexual and stuff.

    Despite all of his prayers to god, despite his robust heterosexual lifestyle, despite selling the snake oil he was selling to other people, THIS GODDAM HYPOCRITE LYING A-HOLE COULDNT CURE HIMSELF, not even remotely. He and his wife are getting an amicable divorce.

    because he is still just as homosexual as he ever was. Every bit. So, the momos can add another family casualty to their toll.

  • For every ex-gay story, there are a hundred ex-ex-gay stories, or perhaps a thousand.

    And for every thousand ex-gay stories, you can be pretty sure there are 999 “I’m a total liar and hypocrite but I really wanted to please the people over to whom I had handed my humanity and integrity” stories.

    Fixed it for you.???????

  • Actually, bob, it is. Consensus is built over what constitutes the most accurate picture of reality. ?

    Don’t you see my professor emoji?

  • Sandinwindsor, you say Christ said, and you quote Leviticus. So are you implying that Christ said that in Leviticus through divine inspiration? Christ speaks to marriage (heterosexual) in Matthew 19, but nowhere in the gospels does Christ teach homosexuality is abnormal and “shameful” (quotations courteous of you). As a matter of fact — Christ never called anyone abnormal or shameful. Closest He got was His description of the Pharisees and Scribes as being white-washed etc. But that term references hypocrisy — not shame. Christ isn’t about shaming, He is about loving and offering grace for sin.

  • There is another choice. To tell you and your religion and your desire to speak for god and to to elevate yourself to godhood yourself so that you can feel free to tell other people how to live their lives…

    To get stuffed.

    There is another choice. To live our lives freely, with fulfillment, and authentically as we are made, with religion in our lives if we are so inclined, 0r without it if we are so inclined, to stand up against your theocratic and theofascist tendencies, to tell you to deal with your own issues and stop pretending to deal with what you imagine to be ours, and…

    To go take a flying leap.

  • I always look to the morals of people 2500 years ago to guide me today. It means I don’t have to think.

  • There’s also no “tallness” gene, no “intelligence” gene, no “athletic” gene, no “diabetes” gene, etc. There are boatloads of studies showing that all of these, including homosexuality, have genetic factors, however none of them have one single gene you can point to and say “there’s the gene for it”. Saying there isn’t one specific gene that controls something doesn’t mean it’s not biological in nature.

  • Sandimonious believes that Christ is the God of the Old Testament, so everything spoken by God in the OT is actually from Christ.

  • As I’ve pointed out before, those are erronious translations of the Hebrew into English. So it isn’t what Christ said, even were we to agree with you that Christ is the God speaking in the OT.

  • Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. It is the body of knowledge accumulated based on experiments that support demonstrable and reproducible data. A valid hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Science deals only with the natural universe.

    I like your emoji, professor

  • Well, you may be right, you may be wrong….John 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” Now, He didn’t use the term “homosexuality”, but no difference. Homosexuality is a component of Immorality.
    His apostles following Him taught against homosexuality, so unless they were still following Leviticus, I would think He would have commented on the sin aside from what I reference further on.
    Secondly,why do you want to confine Christ to the gospels?
    Revelation 21:8 ESV
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” John quoted Christ

    And, finally, He does mention homosexuality in the gospels:
    Matthew 15:19 For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality, theft, lying, and slander.20 These are what defile you.

    The “not natural,” and “shameless acts” comes from Romans 1:26-27:
    Romans 1:26-27 English Standard Version (ESV)
    26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
    Paul learned that from 3 years of revelations from Christ in Arabia. (Galatians 1:11-18)
    He does love us and offers us grace for sin, when we turn to Him, repent of our sin, and follow Him. Otherwise, one will not see Heaven.
    blessings

  • your “erroneous translations” are an excuse to change the word of God, David. That’s all.
    You are the wanna-be-devine person that Christ sent the memo contradicting Himself to. Sorry

  • Which “them”: Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero, English jurists, American jurists, Hobbes, Islam, Grotius, Jefferson, Locke, Hayek, Adam Smith, Hume, Aquinas, Germain Grisez, Maimonides?

    Coming from anyone to you it’s both a compliment and an upgrade.

  • Sandinwindsor, i’m struggling to believe you just quoted John 21:25 to attempt to confirm your statement that Jesus called homosexuality abnormal and “shameful.” With that logic, we could each state Jesus said, “…..”, and support whatever “itchy-ear du jour doctrine” we’ve decided fits our narrative of Jesus. That’s sheer foolishness and honestly playing frivolously with the Word of God. And I’m quite familiar with the Rev. quote, but truly if you read that sentence and look at it through the lens of Matthew 5-7, we are all murderers etc. You leave no room for grace, except the grace that was lavishly and freely extended towards you and me and others who follow Jesus. In reference to your Pauline reference, the word is “shameless” turning that word into a finger point and labeling others as “shameful,” places you in the seat of judgement. And honestly, Sandinwindsor, as a dedicated and grateful follower of Jesus, I’d rather have my eternal fate left to the wisdom and grace of Jesus than to your interpretation of Scripture. A Christian is one who believes in the saving power of Christ, through His death and resurrection. All of these other things aren’t within our judgement seat. I understand the relationship between Galations and Romans, and I also understand in Gal 3:28 and in the later Pauline epistle, Colossians (3:11) Paul seeks to teach that we are one in Christ. Our goal as Christians is to let the fruit of the Spirit reign in our lives and hearts (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control AGAINST WHICH THERE IS NO LAW -Gal. 5:22-23). Is that what your testimony speaks, or does it speak judgement and condemnation? Because Sandinwindsor, it is the kindness of God that brings repentance (Rom. 2:4) and then it is the God-given job of the Holy Spirit to convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement (John 16:8). Our job, Sandinwindsor, is to do unto the least of these and we are to do it through love. “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, IF you have love for one another.” John 13:35. So may I encourage you to love those who disagree with you and by being the light and love of Jesus to a lost and dying world walk in His grace… the grace that He gives to us both freely and lavishly.

  • There’s a primary objective whether you understand it or don’t.

    Being fertile is unrelated to the objective of why sex exists at all.

    This is a common misconception.

  • Seems you didn’t read my comment
    To do unto the least of these is to assure they know the truth of Christ’s love and His desire for them not to be lost to perdition.

  • When we have received Spiritual Truth, the LORD requires us to share that with others. That is what Sandi above has done, and I have supported her. WE BOTH KNOW THAT THE LORD IS PLEASED WITH US, while you are still deceiving yourself. Satan awaits your arrival.

  • Let me tell you the story that shapes my understanding. I’ve been married thirty years. When I was considering asking my future wife to marry me one thing I had to consider was the fact she had a gay sister. I had to do a little soul searching, I didn’t want to marry into a family that I wouldn’t be accepted by nor did I want to marry into a family I could not accept. I didn’t want to be the reason someone didn’t show up to Christmas and I didn’t want to have a reason to not show up for Christmas. Had I read this book thirty years ago I probably would not have disagreed with mich in it. It would be fair to say I started out in a place or position Pearcey advocates for. The problem I have with the book today is me thirty years ago is like a line in the sand you should not cross. So I marry my wife and for three or four years I do a lot of listening and a little bit of talking with my sister in law. I began to understand some of the issues that came with being gay in this world. The day my oldest son was born I walked out into the waiting room after his delivery to visit with friends and family. While out there a stranger came up, introduced herself as a friend of my sister in law and said that’s a fine looking boy you have there. I said thank you, but I was thinking, who is this lesbian. I had that thought for a few seconds then it was replaced with she’s with your sister in law your sister in law is family, she’s a friend of the family, it’s all good. For the next thirteen or fourteen years this new family friend I met remained a family friend in my mind, nothing challenged that discription and it seemed to work for everyone. In 2003 my sister in law passed away, but my family friend has remained. There came a point after my sister in law passed away when I realized this friend was going to continue to be in my life but the friend connection was gone. Friend of the family no longer worked for me, I now just consider her family. Her friends, to me those are friends of the family.

    That’s it for me, and I’m still processing.

  • You are committing blasphemy by criticizing Sandi. She alone speaks for God and she will damn you to hell if you go against her. You better think twice about criticizing her or disagreeing with her – you’re putting your soul in danger of hell if you do. Whatever she says is the final word from God. It’s best to bow out now before she pronounces you damned. Watch out – she’s God’s Evangelical Bitch!

  • Sandinwindsor, i did read your comment and addressed it point by point. My only question to you is, what is the truth of Christ’s love? For me the truth of His love is His incredible sacrifice in not counting equality with God something to be grasped and taking on the form of a servant He was born in the likeness of men and humbled Himself through obedience even to death on the cross. Then God exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name above all names so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow. (Phil. 2) That’s the truth of Christ’s love, Sandinwindsor. And not everyone will agree with that truth and some will mock it as they mocked Jesus. Yet, that’s what we’re called to share. As for the sin part… God calls to sinners through His kindness, the Holy Spirit then convicts and then we love all by encouraging them with gentleness. We don’t love through wearing our “phylacteries” proudly so everyone sees how righteous we are. No, Christ called foul on that behavior.

  • We’re both right, of course. What you describe is the process. The end result is the consensus that the process asked and answered the question properly. That consensus can be challenged by the process again and again, and each time a new consensus is reached. Thus Aristotle came us against Galileo, and later newton. Aristotle was tossed, Newton became the word. Then, al9ng came Einstein, and we learned that newton was a special case.

  • “I’d rather have my eternal fate left to the wisdom and grace of Jesus than to your interpretation of Scripture.”

    And that sentence alone is worth a millions words from sandimonious,

  • I may have told this story before, but I think it sums up your point quite nicely.

    Years ago, Helen Bunker Hunt, the mother of the infamous Hunt brothers, (google hunt brothers silver forvthe story) was asked if the Bible were literally, 100% True, inerrant. She said, “of course it is. Once you start questioning it, where do you stop?”

    And that is the fundelibangelists mindset. Of course, they own the proper interpretation, so they will never ask a question at all.

  • Ben, I believe we both understand what science is. The reason I challenged you is that consensus, meaning unanimous agreement, without stating the consensus of whom can be confusing. We all know that 97% of climate scientists concede that global warming exists and is caused by human action. But since this is not a consensus. deniers would feel justified in their doubts. About evolutionary theory, less than half of the people in this country would accept it. However it is a scientific fact.

  • Absolutely we both understand it. Your climate change example was a good one

    I used the dictionary definition: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group
    Full Definition
    Usage: often attributive
    1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border —
    b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

  • Hmm…My question to you is this: Normally, when one speaks of “selection”, it implies someone who did the selecting, yes? And when something is “formed”, it’s formed by someone(or something…)— So…who, or what, did all this selecting and forming, Karl? I await your reply…?

  • Actually, this person is right in their assertion that Jesus the Christ is the God of the Old Testament; that’s easily demonstrated in at least a verse and a passage in the Gospel of John(I don’t have the passage handy so…)—In John 8:58, Jesus told His audience, ” Before Abraham was, I AM” Now, as the rest of the verses make clear, they knew exactly what Jesus was saying; also, in the famous Johannine Discourse, John chapters 14-17, Jesus declared that…”When you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father”…and, “I and My Father are One”…So. Mull and Reflect. PEACE. ???

  • The reality of Jesus the Christ and the impact this One Life has made, and is making on the world in general, and Western Civilization in particular,is evidence enough, Bob…but let’s try this: My challenge to you is: Explain the origin of the Church, an entity that did not exist prior, WITHOUT THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST—GO!! ?

  • This is just me and I’m no theologian that’s for sure. When I read the Bible I read it like it’s a true account. Jesus walks on water, I read it like it’s true. Peter walks on water and gets in trouble for falling in, i read it like it’s true. Am I suppose to believe Peter walked on water and when he started to sink Jesus chastised him for having little faith? I don’t know. To me having the kind of faith to believe Peter walked on water is about as useful as Peter walking on water. Especially since everyone made it back to shore by staying the boat. Later it says Jesus saw three or four guys carrying their paralyzed buddy on a pallet and was moved by their faith.
    What are people doing? Why are they doing it? Why did someone bother to remember it and write down? To answer those questions I want to know what everyone’s emotions are? That’s just me.

    Thanks for being that up about the Hunts. My kids have been giving me a hard time about not inheriting millons of dollars and giving them two middle names. It could have been worse I could have named them Nelson and Bunker. I think I’ll tell them that tomorrow.

  • No “one” selected. Random chance, dear. Over billions of years.

    If there was a god who did the selecting, then the results would be very different from what they are.

    Don’t try to argue Creationism with someone who understands Evolution. It never works out ‘well’ for the creationist.

  • So here you are, very aware of what Christ’s power has done in many people’s lives, including people freed from LGBT. It happened in the Bible, and it happens today. Jesus is totally powerful. Nothing too hard for Him.

    So you and your activist pals, desperately seek fresh stories of tragedy and human failure. Hoping to keep all the chain-ganged slaves convinced that there ain’t no Underground Railroad to save them. No hope. “Once Gay Always Gay.”

    (But that lie ain’t working. 1 Cor. 6:11 and 1 Cor. 10:13 are destroying Gay-Self-Identity and LGBT-ism all across America, even now. God IS moving. And don’t bother hiding behind Josh Weed; God sees and speaks to you anyway.)

  • I took statistics class (got a “B”, as I recall), but the fact is that the God of the Bible doesn’t give a hoot about anybody’s statistics.

    He’s never limited or stopped by that stuff. He’s got all-power that is sufficient for ANYBODY (and ANY number of people), that will reach out to him for salvation and healing via Jesus Christ.

  • But being fertile or having the ability to reproduce is a very important concept in Roman Catholicism. There are plenty of Roman Catholic priests who refuse to officiate a marriage where it is obvious that the couple cannot reproduce. It is their obligation to refuse such marriages, as the primary reason for marriage in Catholic theology is reproduction.

  • Seriously, Karl? You’ll have to explain how “random chance” can”select” anything. What, did the”god” random chance go”Eeny,meeny minny mo”? And, how do YOU know what the results would have been, given that YOU weren’t there? Are you kidding me? Whether I believe in creationism or not (Which, frankly, is a huge assumption on your part, almost as bad as the one you just made), even your hero Charles Darwin didn’t believe in the absurd premise of random chance being selective; that reminds me of that old chestnut about sending a tornado through a junkyard and expecting a 747 to magically appear…You need to re-work that faulty concept, my friend. How long would it take a hundred monkeys typing to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare? A million years? 2? 10? BY CHANCE? Give me a break!! ???

  • Tell it to josh Weed. He can tell you all about Christ’s power. Unfortunately, the magic didn’t work. He could also tell you about the years he spent, reveling in all that heterosexuality. Where he wanted a put a gun to his mouth and kill himself.

    That, my dear brother in Christ, is what you want to accomplish.

  • If you don’t understand the biology, you’ll fail.

    And you have. Yes. You believe in Creationism, which is magic. You think that life is what it is because a magical being spoke an incantation and ‘poofed’ Adam and the animals into being.

    I don’t have any ‘heroes’, but you do. And all of your heroes are fictional.

    You do not understand evolution, which is why you ranted about an airplane. You don’t understand time, which is why you said millions, instead of billions. Actually, that also tells me that you don’t understand basic mathematics.

    A ‘hundred monkeys’? You don’t even understand that reference.

    The fact that you don’t understand the science, doesn’t invalidate the reality of it. It only exposes you as a willfully ignorant fool.

  • Thanks, Karl; I get it now…I should have said it would take a billion monkeys 10 billion years to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Shucks, why not a trillion years? You can stoop to the level of a child and call me all the names you want (That seems to be de rigueur with the atheist mindset, as though that somehow elevates you above your fellow citizens), but that won’t make your case. I suggest that you read what Darwin said about the complexity of the human eye, and how he dimissed the absurdity of so-called “natural selection” in its formation. But, perhaps I am wasting my time; after all, it is the atheists’ presumption that they know everything about everything, right? As far as heros go, yes I can state unequivocally and without apology: Jesus the Christ is indeed my hero,and there is NOTHING fictional about Him…random selection without a selector? Chance just somehow threw everything together? Primordial soup? Now, THAT’S serious fiction!! At any rate, I’m done with this fruitless, boring conversation, and I won’t be replying to you again. Believe what you will, as will I, and we will agree to disagree, yes? Au Revoir, and Peace in Christ to you. ☺

  • They’ll just have to make an adjustment, I guess. Two stories:

    I understand that Bill gates is leaving something like a million of his 60 billion to each of his kids. The rest goes to charity. I applaud that.

    And….

    My dad used to have a sign over his bar. It showed a man who was wearing a barrel, becuase he was too poor to own clothes. (That used to be a common image back in the first decades after the depression). The sign said, “The world owes you a living. but you have to work hard to get it!”

    Wise words. Your kids will thank me some day,

  • NAh. Bigots give me hives. Bigots talking about natural law as if it were a real thing just give me the giggles.

  • That’s the way to do it. Proudly display that you don’t understand the concept. Argue from ignorance.

    You don’t want to understand how the world works, and are happy with a fictional story.

  • There’s a difference between having faith in your money and instilling faith in your kids. I think Bill and Melinda Gates understand that to a degree that the rest of us will never have to consider.

    Just relating it back to my earlier comment. 60 billion you probably start to believe you can walk on water. Seeing three or four guys carrying a paralyzed buddy for help and being moved, that makes you believe in something greater than walking on water.

    I applaud them too.

  • To get you started on your new journey:

     “In its 4.6 billion years circling the sun, the Earth has harbored an increasing diversity of life forms:

    for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
    for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
    for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
    for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
    for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
    for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
    for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
    for the last 475 million years, land plants;
    for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
    for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
    for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
    for the last 200 million years, mammals;
    for the last 150 million years, birds;
    for the last 130 million years, flowers;
    for the last 60 million years, the primates,
    for the last 20 million years, the family Hominidae (great apes);
    for the last 2.5 million years, the genus Homo (human predecessors);
    for the last 200,000 years, anatomically modern humans.

    Periodic extinctions have temporarily reduced diversity, eliminating:
    2.4 billion years ago, many obligate anaerobes, in the oxygen catastrophe;
    252 million years ago, the trilobites, in the Permian–Triassic extinction event;
    66 million years ago, the pterosaurs and nonavian dinosaurs, in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.”

    Bryson’s best seller, “A Short History of Nearly Everything” will fill in the details in language that we the common man understand.

    Also, peruse the following online course:

    https://www.coursera.org/learn/genetics-evolution

  • “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan
    The claim for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ comes from the Gospels. Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not witnesses to this alleged event. It seems they wrote down the stories that had been spreading by word of mouth. Since there is no information on sources, we can guess that this is “fake news”. You have not presented credible evidence for the existence of God.

  • Then why does it run in families? Why are there specific genes that increase the likelihood of being gay? Why are identical twins likely to both be gay or both be straight? Why are fraternal twins more likely to both be gay than adopted siblings are?

  • Sharing Christ’s love is helping someone else to become a member of the family, Carol. If we don’t tell them the truth – Christ’s word – they don’t have a chance.

  • The selection is done by nature. That is to say, it is selected by a combination of factors such as weather, competition from conspecifics and other species in the same ecological niche, pathogens, local resource availability, predation, availability of mates, geography, and various other events that occur naturally but at unpredictable times (aka chance). There’s no top-down decision making here. It all depends on a series of individual struggles to gain resources and reproduce, as viewed from a large scale.

  • And you, sir, did not answer MY question, but I don’t mind asking it again: Can YOU, or anyone else for that matter, explain the origin of the Church(In ALL its configurations: Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox et.al.), and leave out The Resurrection of Jesus the Christ? It’s a seemingly simple question on it’s face, but believe me: There is no other factor that can account for the rise of an entity that did not exist prior to the advent of the Christ Figure and His subsequent death, burial and resurrection, Bob. Jesus the Christ IS the “evidence” for the existence of God, take it or leave it, believe it or not. Whether you or I were there, whether Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John witnessed the “alleged” event or not (No one witnessed the Resurrection itself; they would have had to actually been in the tomb), there’s NO refuting the reality of The Church, and no accounting for its origin without the Resurrection of Jesus the Christ—it’s just that simple, and if you think you have a credible theory that refute that, I would love to hear it, Bob…GO!! ?

  • Wow…If that is the best you can do, Bob, let’s just end this and move on, shall we? Au Revoir, and God bless you! ?

  • It’s the normal design for the class Mammalia: male, female, heterosexual.

    Otherwise the various species would self extinguish. It’s called “natural selection”.

    I think it has something to do with “natural law” and “form follows function”.

  • There are not “plenty” of Roman Catholic priests who do any such thing. I’m fully confident that you could call-up the first 100 parishes in your vicinity, and you would not find a single priest who would refuse to officiate a marriage on the basis of reproductive capacity, since such is not the teaching of Rome. Rome teaches that where procreation is possible, the procreative capacity cannot be artificially frustrated. Agree or disagree, that’s the teaching, and that’s why Rome allows NFP (natural family planning) for fertile couples.

  • So let’s start with the truth of His love, His grace and leave the judgement and damnation to Him. He’s big enough to handle that without us. He truly isn’t dependent on us for anything. And He’s surely not dependent upon us to interpret Scripture and damn people. The gospel is good news Sandinwindsor… GOOD NEWS!

  • D for authoritarian religious freaks, society begins at my genitalia. Funny how that works, isn’t it.

  • Yes it is good news but one needs to confess they are a sinner to get to the good news – salvation. Hence, we declare sin to be sin so they can repent and form a relationship with Jesus.

  • And whose job is it to convict of sin Sandinwindsor? It’s not mine and it’s not your’s. If you honestly believe God is Sovereign, then you have an absolute ability to take the weight of convicting other’s off your shoulders and give it to Him. Allow Him to call and to convict. He is about completing the work He began in me and in you and in all who respond to His call. (Phil. 1:6) Trust Him Sandinwindsor — nowhere does He place on your shoulders the weight of conviction and judgment of others. (Although I pray you see the freedom and the joy in this truth, I believe you will still choose to hang onto the truth you seem to espouse on this site, as it appears you have quite a reputation here. So feel free to keep pointing out the speck in others’ lives, but I’m done one-upping with the good news of Jesus.)

  • 2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV)
    16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.

    2 Timothy 4 – English Standard Version
    1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths
    https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fxmassh8trsblog.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F02%2F12631547_1153964451294241_7336981303656910141_n.jpg%3Fw%3D1400&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fxmassh8trsblog.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F02%2F10%2Flove-warns%2F&docid=xuhgXhLfEpin8M&tbnid=TIeGC0Cf0wRYFM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjsyPrwj4PZAhUoyoMKHc76C9oQMwgsKAQwBA..i&w=480&h=451&client=safari&bih=739&biw=1226&q=picture%3A%20Love%20Warns.%20Repent%20for%20the%20kingdom%20of%20Heaven%20is%20at%20hand&ved=0ahUKEwjsyPrwj4PZAhUoyoMKHc76C9oQMwgsKAQwBA&iact=mrc&uact=8

  • Really hurts when folks tell you that you can play all you want, just keep it private, doesn’t it?

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) provided privacy.

    But as the old saying goes, give an inch and something about a mile.

  • Laurence, Christianity’s impact on Western Civilization is certain but it does not point to the reality of Christ. It seems to point to the popularizing of a religion which eventually was given political sanction, became part of the culture and identity of the people and spread accordingly. Other religions likewise spread and impacted many civilizations, such as Buddhism. Of course the Christian Church had its origin in the belief in Jesus but that does not prove his deity.

  • JP, this has been said many times, but atheism is the lack of belief in God. How do you prove such a thing true? It is a nonsensical question but you keep asking it like it will prove your point. Do you have other proof that Christianity is true besides it being over 2000 years old (which isn’t proof as Ben has demonstrated)?

  • Dannette, your examples of complex information codes are all man made so of course intelligence proceeds “information”. But using your argument that God was the intelligent creator of DNA, wouldn’t you expect the DNA to be perfect like God or did God purposely put aberrations in on purpose to increase our suffering and hence, turn towards God?

  • Atheism is a knowledge claim about reality that asserts that no gods exist. For this claim to be true it must have facts to support it or its not true but a fantasy. This is not about your preference of preferring no gods exist but about the facts. No facts proves atheism is true.

  • That is not my understanding. Atheism is one’s lack of belief in a god or gods because sufficient proof is not found. It has nothing to do with preference but rather the lack of facts that prove god to be true.

  • If atheism is not a knowledge claim about reality that no gods exist then its just a preference claim like your favorite ice cream flavor. It carries no weight.

    There is plenty of evidence for God that millions of people find convincing.

  • No your analogy completely off base; it has absolutely nothing to do with preference as much as you would like to believe it does. You can’t prefer one thing over another if one of the items does not exist. If one had proof of god one would likely believe that proof. Since atheists have not found that proof then they can’t believe. Just because millions of people believe something does not equate to proof.

  • Still silly. I’m not here to make you or your church feel comfortable about pretending I’m not here.

  • I really do not care why you’re here.

    What I care about is your pretending what you want is privacy.

  • There is plenty of proof for the existence of God and none for atheism. You need to get beyond your preferences and start dealing with facts.

  • JP, I’m not an atheist but nor can I support a belief in God with facts. Experiences perhaps, but I understand those are subjective.

  • I don’t understand why you right wingers continually need to make up stuff about what other people think and want.

    Privacy, of course, was one of the things we wanted. But of course, not in the highly limited sense that you are talking but, which was not the legal decision at all. And you know what? We won it not only for us, but for alleged heterosexuals as well. YOU can’t be arrested for your sexual acts, either.

    Bu of course, that isn’t what this is really about, or what we want. It’s about being the legal, religious and social equals of people like you.

    And that, dear Christian, dear white person, dear right winger, is what drives you people up the EFFIN’ WALL!!!!

    tee and hee.

  • Do you believe that there is a black hole at the center of our galaxy or that Alexander the great conquered the world in his time?

  • There is significant historical evidence for Alexander and I’m comfortable with trusting scientific evidence for the black hole. I have not found any objective proof for God’s existence that resides outside of my own subjective experience. If that evidence was clear and indisputable we would not be debating this.

ADVERTISEMENTs