MSNBC wonders: Christian love for Jesus is kind of homoerotic, huh?

posted at 10:01 am on December 26, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The Phil Robertson/A&E flap has produced some silly commentary, but perhaps none quite so silly as this exchange on MSNBC earlier this week. Joy Reid filled in for Ed Schultz on his show last Monday and invited Michael Eric Dyson to discuss the contretemps over Robertson’s comments on homosexuality and religion.  Dyson argues at the end of this clip that Robertson attempted to “us[e] Jesus in making Jesus co-sign all of this bigotry here,” and then almost in the same breath accused Christian men who profess love of Jesus as being, er … you know (via The Right Scoop and Truth Revolt):

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and the rest of those folks ought to be ashamed of themselves. And gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people ought to speak up and link their own fate to African-American people because ultimately we’re in the thing together.

JOY REID, SUBSTITUTE HOST: But what do you think of this attempt to recruit essentially Rosa Parks?

DYSON: Oh my God.

REID: Because this is something that has been done before on the Right.

DYSON: Right. Right.

REID: Like in anytime that something they say is taking as offensive by African-Americans or taken as offensive by the LGBT community…

DYSON: Right.

REID: …you get, “Well, Martin Luther King, Jr. would’ve been on our side…

DYSON: Right.

REID: . …or Rosa Parks or, you know, Phil Robertson is the next Rosa Parks.” What do you think of that as a tactic?

DYSON: I mean it’s — well, first of all, it’s scurrilous, but it’s the same as using Jesus in making Jesus co-sign all of this bigotry here. Jesus was a Jew who, around whom a religion was made. So the anti-Semitism of many of the Christians is ironic to begin with.
And then secondly, the gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual stuff – look through the Bible. There’s a lot of interesting things. The same men who will stand up in the church of all men. “I put my God, Jesus, overall women. I love him more than I love her.”

Hmmm. Do you really? That sounds interestingly homoerotic to people who are outside your religious traditions. I’m not suggesting it is but I’m suggesting that there are some very interesting, subtle, narrative tensions within the Bible itself and within Christianity beyond that.

I tried to get offended by this argument, and ended up laughing every time I tried. I mean, it takes a lot of effort to take this kind of trolling seriously, doesn’t it? According to Dyson’s CV, he’s a professor of sociology at Georgetown University, a Catholic university, but he must be the first professor at Georgetown to have never studied the difference between agape, philos, and eros.  Not all love is sexual, as even most people “outside your religious traditions” understand. Most normal people would scoff at the idea that a son’s love for his father would “sound interestingly homoerotic,” let alone that of sons for The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This is the kind of commentary that only occurs in profoundly unserious circles, with MSNBC among the leading examples. I doubt that Dyson buys this schtick, which is just intended to tweak Christians who believe that Corinthians is scripture by using the “you guys are so gay!” insult, but it’s more an insult to his own audience. It’s the kind of ivory-tower sneering at those hoi polloi in the sticks that reveals more ignorance of the speaker than of anyone else. Exactly who does Dyson think would believe that professing a love of Jesus Christ equates to a homoerotic experience? Christians laugh at this, but perhaps it’s people “outside [our] religious tradition” who should be more insulted at Dyson’s assessment of their intelligence and common sense.

This displays a surprising amount of bigotry in and of itself, but it leads to a better and more subtle point, and one that Dyson should have explored rather than just using the tired “you guys are so gay!” attack. Dyson argued that people are using Jesus to “cosign” bigotry by focusing on homosexuality as the be-all of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and there may be at least a little bit of truth in that. It is important to understand Corinthians and its place in Scripture, especially with Jesus’ teaching on consecrated marriage, and the context of the nature of sin.

After all, 1 Corinthians doesn’t come in a vacuum. Paul wrote the letter because the church in Corinth had fragmented and lost its way, especially on moral issues. Corinth was the Las Vegas of that era, where the leading culture promoted sexual excess and other activities that conflicted with the doctrine of Christianity. In one section of this letter, Paul delivers an acid scolding to the Corinthian church for turning a blind eye to an incestuous relationship involving one of its members, calling for what would be termed now an excommunication for its unrepentant member rather than “tolerance.” He was not at all interested in dumbing down the doctrine in order to expand membership, but urged the Corinthians to live and preach the truth to save souls.

For this reason, Paul spells out the dangers facing Corinthians and all of us in sin — leading off with “the immoral,” which in the original was “fornicators,” and processing through a number of other sinful activities:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral,[b] nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[c][d]10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

“Fornicators” refers to any sexual activity outside of consecrated marriage. And Jesus himself was clear on the definition of consecrated marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, referring back to Genesis and the Creation. Therefore, “fornication” applies equally to heterosexual and homosexual activity outside of that defined structure of marriage, which is intended to serve the purpose of Creation first on the model of the self-sacrificial love of the Trinity. (Paul later gives a definition of the roles of husbands and wives which emphasizes this.) It’s all sinful, because God created sexuality to be expressed within consecrated marriage, as Jesus and Paul teach in the Scriptures.

But that’s not the end-all, be-all of sin either, as the rest of Corinthians makes clear. In 1 Cor 6:10, we get a longer list that have nothing to do with sexual activities, and even in 1 Cor 6:9 we see “idolaters.” Even for the sexual sins, Paul doesn’t make any further distinction. In the passage that immediately follows (1 Cor 6:12-20), Paul asks the Corinthians to consider the fact that they are joined to the Body of Christ when they act immorally against their own bodies, but doesn’t bother to distinguish one form of sexual sin from another. “Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body,” Paul writes, with the “immoral” again translated from “fornicators” of every kind.

Distinguishing one form of deadly sin over all the others is a fool’s errand. It’s akin to arguing whether the Houston Texans or the Washington Redskins are a better football team this year; what’s the point? They’re both terrible. A better analogy would be to think of salvation as a 100-foot leap between cliffs, with deathly rocks hundreds of feet below. Salvation is only possible, in the Christian faith, by the intercession of Jesus Christ as payment of our sins. If two people remain in mortal sin and one leaps 25 feet and the other 50, it’s pointless for the latter to claim primacy over the former all the way down.

Sin is sin, and we all fall short of the glory of God. That should make us humble rather than narrow, Pharisaical readers of 1 Corinthians, and produce love of our fellow sinners in such a way as to preach and live the truth as best we can. (For Dyson’s benefit, that’s philos.) Categorizing sin in order to cast judgment is merely counting beans on the plummet downward. All of us have an inclination to sin, which is why we have Christmas — the gift from God of our salvation through the Easter sacrifice of His Son, Jesus Christ.

With that in mind, Merry Christmas. I certainly need it, enough to know that we all do, and hope that as many can be saved as possible while still proclaiming the truth of the Scriptures. We are called, in this season especially, to lift up in truth more than condemning, let alone in categorical scale. Let us love our God and Jesus Christ with that agape love showered down upon us by the Creator, and help others to see it as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9 11

Type name adds cereality.

Murphy9 on December 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s funny to see how selective the uber religious are when it comes to science. Nary a word against Atomic theory, gravity theory, germ theory but evolution and cosmology? They’re so wrong because the bible/koran/insert ancient poetry novel here says so.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Now it’s the uber religious, what about believers who readily accept scientific theories but still, you know, believe in a god? Crazy, huh?

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Anthony flew changed his mind about the existence of God. He became a theist because

almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence

No, by good science.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM

What a strange, irrational fellow this SauerKraut is.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

I’m looking to de-convert people from inane theologies and superstition.

SauerKraut537
on December 26, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Let me give you advice…….coming online relying on insults to convince, and not answering factual challenges with opposing facts (using only putdowns in response)…..doesn’t get you any converts.

avagreen on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Kent Hughes, in his book Romans, comments on on the phrase suppress the truth in Romans 1.

…This suppression of the truth is not passive. It carries the idea of holding something down….The idea of suppression here is, continual and aggressive striving against the truth. Paul opens our eyes to the fact that all who are without Christ are in the constant process of holding down the truth and therefore are subject to God’s abiding anger.

This concurs with A. T. Robertson’s translation and comment:

Hold down the truth (ten aletheian katechonton). Truth (alētheia, alēthēs from a privative and lēthō or lanthanō, to conceal) is out in the open, but wicked men, so to speak, put it in a box and sit on the lid and “hold it down in unrighteousness.”

INC on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Now it’s the uber religious, what about believers who readily accept scientific theories but still, you know, believe in a god? Crazy, huh?

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:30 PM

If it’s the Christian god, or the Islamic god, or any other god we find being worshiped around us today, yeah…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

When I put the suppressor in my rifle, God shushes the cartridge.

Murphy9 on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

No it’s an example of a former believer trying to help his former co-religionists see the error of their ways.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Yet you said earlier you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Why would you try to convince someone to believe something that you yourself can’t prove, seems sort of unscientific.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Yet you said earlier you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Why would you try to convince someone to believe something that you yourself can’t prove, seems sort of unscientific.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Well he does have 3 or 4 Mark Twain quotes that are super convincing.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Paul states that God’s wrath is revealed against man by an action God has taken towards man, and he repeats it three times.

…they… exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images…
Therefore God gave them up…

…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie
and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator…
For this reason God gave them up…

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God,
God gave them up…

See Romans 1:22-26, 28 (ESV)

A. T. Robertson states,

[This is] not three stages in the giving over, but a repetition of the same withdrawal. The words sound to us like clods on a coffin as God leaves men to work their own wicked will.

To what did God give them up?

…in the lusts of their hearts…

…dishonorable passions…

…to a debased mind…
See Romans 1:24, 26, 28 (ESV)

In His wrath God gave them up to their own hearts and minds. And in Romans 1 Paul lists observable, undeniable facts about man’s resultant behavior—in this behavior we see God’s wrath revealed. The behavior is both physical and metaphysical; it involves physical acts and mental thoughts and attitudes. Most of us would also admit the behavior can be described as immoral behavior. God’s wrath is revealed…and we can see it in these acts and attitudes.

INC on December 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Well he does have 3 or 4 Mark Twain quotes that are super convincing.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Lot of good that did for MB4.

Murphy9 on December 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM

If it’s the Christian god, or the Islamic god, or any other god we find being worshiped around us today, yeah…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Agreed, it would be super crazy if a religious college or facility were to fund efforts to find scientific answers for problems such as disease, malnutrition, or poverty.

Yep, sure would be strange considering all religious types are backward dolts pounding on Bibles and denouncing the use of unholy devices such as microscopes.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Thank you SauerKrautnumbernumbernumber for the opportunity for the Gospel to be shared again.

Peace!

Murphy9 on December 26, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Yet you said earlier you don’t know whether God exists or not.

Why would you try to convince someone to believe something that you yourself can’t prove, seems sort of unscientific.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

We can prove that the god of the bible doesn’t exist. Just like Christians can prove the god of islam doesn’t exist, or the Hindu gods, etc.

Same methodology applies across all renditions of the god that could be.

We can be scientific about these man made gods… Christians already “are” about all the other gods out there, but when the same tools are used against their god they cry foul and whine.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:39 PM

What a strange, irrational fellow this SauerKraut is.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:32 PM

The following has nothing to do with SK537, according to SK537! :)

obsessive

adj
1. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry motivated by a persistent overriding idea or impulse, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing
n
1. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry a person subject to obsession
2. a person who is continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM

How witty! You’re good at trying to turn things around, but it fails with me, and predictably wins with those on your “side” of the argument.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Lot of good that did for MB4.

Murphy9 on December 26, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Whatever happened to him–did he run out of Twain quotes or something?

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Well he does have 3 or 4 Mark Twain quotes that are super convincing.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:36 PM

One of which referred to “stupid people”; however, no one should get offended because it’s only you religious types who look down on those who choose to believe differently.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:42 PM

We can prove that the god of the bible doesn’t exist. Just like Christians can prove the god of islam doesn’t exist, or the Hindu gods, etc.

Same methodology applies across all renditions of the god that could be.

We can be scientific about these man made gods… Christians already “are” about all the other gods out there, but when the same tools are used against their god they cry foul and whine.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:39 P

Dude! Lay it on me.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Same could be said of the religious. If I’m obsessive then so are all those arguing against what I say because if memory serves it is usually you guys who start with the inanities and then I step in and give my two cents.

I’m not the person posting these articles about religion. I’m just commenting on them. If that makes me obsessive about it then so are you dolts.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:43 PM

. We can prove that the god of the bible doesn’t exist.

Have at it. Prove it.

I believe God created evolution, so both camps probably hate me.

You argue poorly with insult to others beliefs. Doesn’t work well.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Poor sauerkrap part of his problem seems to be thinking personal opinions = scientific fact.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Have at it. Prove it.

I believe God created evolution, so both camps probably hate me.

You argue poorly with insult to others beliefs. Doesn’t work well.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 9:44 PM

I’m pretty sure I already addressed this in the very comment you quote mined from. Maybe you have a reading comprehension disorder?

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM

In the chapter “The Man Without The Bible” from Death in the City, Francis Schaeffer analyzes how Paul speaks to men without the Bible (Paul does this three times in the New Testament in Acts 14:15-17, 17:16-32; and Romans 1:18-2:16) and states we must learn to speak as Paul did.

The first thing Paul says to the man without the Bible is this: “You’re under the wrath of God because you hold the truth in unrighteousness.” Notice that he immediately begins to preach the wrath of God. Think now of this man without the Bible (and he is no different then than now). If you merely say what Paul did in 1:16 and 17, “Here’s salvation,” he will shrug his shoulders and say, “Why do I need salvation?” Or if modern man thinks he needs salvation, it will be some modern psychological salvation. But Paul says, “No. What you need is moral salvation. You are guilty. You have true guilt in the presence of God.”

Postmodern men and women are living against truth. They have put truth in a box, and they sit on the lid as they suppress truth in their unrighteousness. They are continually and aggressively striving against the truth. Some will be aware of tension within because they realize they are living against reality, and some may even know that contradictions within are tearing them apart, but all have true moral guilt before God whether they feel it or not. That is why they need to hear God’s wrath is being revealed against them.

And then they need to hear that in the Gospel of Jesus Christ God’s righteousness is being revealed for them.

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ….

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

Romans 1:1–7, 16-17

INC on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

How witty! You’re good at trying to turn things around, but it fails with me, and predictably wins with those on your “side” of the argument.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I “turned things around” by referencing religious institutions which fund efforts to find scientific answers to the world’s persistent problems?

There’s nothing to fail with that other than you failing to realize it destroys your claim that believers are all anti-science Bible-bangers spouting scripture to everyone they meet.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Poor sauerkrap part of his problem seems to be thinking personal opinions = scientific fact.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Most people under the age of 30 have been taught that…

We are living through Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. SauerKraut is good example.

tetriskid on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

In the chapter “The Man Without The Bible” from Death in the City, Francis Schaeffer analyzes how Paul speaks to men without the Bible (Paul does this three times in the New Testament in Acts 14:15-17, 17:16-32; and Romans 1:18-2:16) and states we must learn to speak as Paul did.

The first thing Paul says to the man without the Bible is this: “You’re under the wrath of God because you hold the truth in unrighteousness.” Notice that he immediately begins to preach the wrath of God. Think now of this man without the Bible (and he is no different then than now). If you merely say what Paul did in 1:16 and 17, “Here’s salvation,” he will shrug his shoulders and say, “Why do I need salvation?” Or if modern man thinks he needs salvation, it will be some modern psychological salvation. But Paul says, “No. What you need is moral salvation. You are guilty. You have true guilt in the presence of God.”

Postmodern men and women are living against truth. They have put truth in a box, and they sit on the lid as they suppress truth in their unrighteousness. They are continually and aggressively striving against the truth. Some will be aware of tension within because they realize they are living against reality, and some may even know that contradictions within are tearing them apart, but all have true moral guilt before God whether they feel it or not. That is why they need to hear God’s wrath is being revealed against them.

And then they need to hear that in the Gospel of Jesus Christ God’s righteousness is being revealed for them.

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name’s sake, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ….

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

—Romans 1:1–7, 16-17

INC on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

It’s such a shame to hear all this religious blathering… At the end of the year 2013, a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb, and still believe that he will get seventy-two virgins in Paradise or be given the keys to the kingdom of god just because he believes that god sacrificed his “only” son.
SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:11 PM

I’ll gladly take Aristotle’s and Newton’s contribution to science over any other names and their respective contribution(s). Both ethical monotheists.

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Poor humpbot, part of his problem seems to be in thinking personal opinions on a book that forwards the ideas of witches, wizards, people walking on water, sticks turning into snakes, etc = fact.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM

At the very least, the studies of Tracy and Leftow show that the idea of an omnipotent Spirit is not intrinsically incoherent if we see such a Spirit as outside space and time that uniquely executes its intentions in the spatio-temporal continuum.~Anthony Flew

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM

I’m not the person posting these articles about religion. I’m just commenting on them. If that makes me obsessive about it then so are you dolts.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Yet more of that looking down on non-believers coming from the Bible-Bangers.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

All one has to do is mention Aristotle or Newton.

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM

The following has nothing to do with SK537, according to SK537! :)

obsessive

adj
1. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry motivated by a persistent overriding idea or impulse, often associated with anxiety and mental illness
2. continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing
n
1. (Psychiatry) Psychiatry a person subject to obsession
2. a person who is continually preoccupied with a particular activity, person, or thing

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Yeah, can’t be…he said so so it must be true. :)

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM

The methodology isn’t perfect, and the history of science is riddled with abject failures of scientific objectivity (ie Vogt, Haeckel, etc). But these have been failures of science, discovered and corrected by-what, religion?

No, by good science.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

.
For the sake of honest debate, the following evidence alone does NOT prove Creation to be true, … but it does destroy the current “Evolutionary Model.”

listens2glenn on December 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Most people under the age of 30 have been taught that…

We are living through Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. SauerKraut is good example.

tetriskid on December 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Oh great…next I’ll learn that SK is a greeter at Costco.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Poor sauerkrap part of his problem seems to be thinking personal opinions = scientific fact.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

For me, it’s gotten to the point I feel I’m poking at the caged animal with a stick…

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 9:52 PM

I believe God created evolution, so both camps probably hate me.

You argue poorly with insult to others beliefs. Doesn’t work well.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 9:44 PM

For what it’s worth I agree. The notion that god has to be confined to any specific mechanism is ridiculous. But there is evidence of progress…..

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/ancient-humans-bred-completely-unknown-species-001059

They’re beginning to admit they don’t know everything.

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Poor humpbot, part of his problem seems to be in thinking personal opinions on a book that forwards the ideas of witches, wizards, people walking on water, sticks turning into snakes, etc = fact.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Poor sourkrap, part of his problem still thinking his personal opinion on the bible = fact.

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 9:54 PM

I’m pretty sure I already addressed this in the very comment you quote mined from. Maybe you have a reading comprehension disorder?

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:47 PM

So you are admitting you can’t prove it.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Yet more of that looking down on non-believers coming from the Bible-Bangers.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:50 PM

LOL! They’re affectionately dolts…

They keep trying to peg me as some obsessive compulsive person when they’re commenting on these threads way more than I ever would or could. Just because I pop my head up now and again and comment on a thread or two related to religion, somehow I’m the one who’s obsessive?

It’s laughable, and their dolts for not realizing how wrong they are.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Theistic evolution is a dead end.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

So you are admitting you can’t prove it.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Let me ask you a question first david…

How do YOU discount the Islamic god so easily? What tools do YOU use to dismiss the Hindu gods?

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

We comment on any and all of these boards, whether you’re here or not.
Yes, you’re obsessive. LOL

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:57 PM

All one has to do is mention Aristotle or Newton.

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM

It’s a long thread but the circling by kraut has been close to spectacular, shooting himself in the face on just about every point he tried to make about Believers.

The self-inflicted coup de grace was when he admitted he can’t prove whether or not God exists and so can’t make a determination either way.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Yeah, can’t be…he said so so it must be true. :)

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Yes, we’re the obsessed ones, for pointing out that SK537 is a laughingstock at HA because of his obsession with not trying to convert anyone to his religious views! :)

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 9:58 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Show us first every empirical test you’ve run to prove that God doesn’t exist.
(starts another sundial)

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Let me ask you a question first david…

How do YOU discount the Islamic god so easily? What tools do YOU use to dismiss the Hindu gods?

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Oh, no. By all means. You go first. You are so certain. I am waiting for an atheist, any atheist to tell me how he/she knows that God does not exist.

So, since you are right here, tell me, How do you know that God does not exist.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:59 PM

m pretty sure I already addressed this in the very comment you quote mined from. Maybe you have a reading comprehension disorder? SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm

No you didn’t. And now you hurl unwarranted insult.

Which God is mine? You presume much.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 9:59 PM

We comment on any and all of these boards, whether you’re here or not.
Yes, you’re obsessive. LOL

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 9:57 PM

That sounds way more obsessive than anything I do.

I actually have a job that I work day to day, I’m very rarely in here anymore commenting up a storm…

You guys have a problem with me talking out against your religion and instead of ever trying to address the thoughts I provocatively put out there you cast aspersions on me as an obsessive kook and quote scripture at me as if it’s axiomatic and some unimpeachable truth backed up by god.

And I’m the fool here? I’m the obsessive one here?

Pfft!

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Theistic evolution is a dead end.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

care to elaborate?

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

They keep trying to peg me as some obsessive compulsive person when they’re commenting on these threads way more than I ever would or could. Just because I pop my head up now and again and comment on a thread or two related to religion, somehow I’m the one who’s obsessive?

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Ok, you’ve reached non-nonpartisan’s level of trolling now! :)

Anti-Control on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Ah, so you referred to everyone as dolts but in a good way, understood.

I know you weren’t simply trying to cover your own ass to keep from being rightly called a hypocrite.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Pfft!

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Yes, you stupid, silly, obsessive, foolish, strawman inventor.
And those are your good qualities. HA!

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:03 PM

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:59 PM

I don’t say a god or gods don’t exist david. How hard is it to understand?

What I do say is in the same vein as what YOU say about Islam, or Hinduism… You use “logic” and “reason” to dismiss all those other gods out there but fail to apply the same standard to your own.

I’m just applying your same standard you employ against Islam and Hinduism to your own religion.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Sauerkraut537,

Science seems to be a topic of focus explaining your skepticism. If you don’t mind indulging me for a moment, I’d like to engage a bit in a teleological discussion. What do you find most objectionable about the statement;

a watch implies a watchmaker.

Thanks.

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Theistic evolution is a dead end.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

care to elaborate?

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

The same problems that atheistic evolution re. complexity theistic evolution has. See the Anthony Flew quotes I referenced earlier.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Pfft!

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM

By the way, I doubt you have a job. Everything else you’ve said here is bull.
You’re probably Panther Pajama Boy’s Pajama Boy twin!

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM

I’m done with the Paley watchmaker argument, but I’m not here to discount god, I’m here to discount obviously man made gods like the Abrahamic variety, the Islamic variety, the Hindu varieties, etc…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:09 PM

By the way, I doubt you have a job. Everything else you’ve said here is bull.
You’re probably Panther Pajama Boy’s Pajama Boy twin!

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Believe what you will, you’ve already shown yourself quite capable of doing so.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Believe what you will, you’ve already shown yourself quite capable of doing so.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Funny little boy you are. :)

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Still waiting for your reply David…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:04 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

You guys have a problem with me talking out against your religion and instead of ever trying to address the thoughts I provocatively put out there you cast aspersions on me as an obsessive kook and quote scripture at me as if it’s axiomatic and some unimpeachable truth backed up by god.

And I’m the fool here? I’m the obsessive one here?

Pfft!

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Your first comment on the thread:

That’s cute… Trying to belittle the guy for speaking out against your religion. Don’t you just feel persecuted?! I bet you’re wondering where the lions are…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

So by “provocative” did you mean stimulating or irritating?

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Answer my earlier question first.
Every empirical test to prove there is no God.
Lay out that you ran all of them and the results.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Thanks. Will do, but later. Copied for now. Will probably remain skeptical, but will read.

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

I’m done with the Paley watchmaker argument, but I’m not here to discount god…
SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:09 PM

Fair enough. So if I’m understanding correctly, your invocation of science is about discounting theology?

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

I don’t say a god or gods don’t exist david. How hard i it to understand?

Ummm, actually yes you did. And you claimed it was provable.

Quite the corner surrounded by paint. Lol.

Maybe your reading comprehension,, of your own posts are suspect?

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

I stepped into the thread and as usual someone speaking out against the religion of the majority of commenters here was being trampled under by inane comments. An inane comment was called for in return and we progressed from there…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Alright, done engaging the antitheist. Can only interest me so long.

This thread will be over soon.

He’ll be a legend…in his own mind.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:17 PM

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Show me my quote where I said gods definately don’t exist? I’ve always been careful to only say that bible god doesn’t exist, that koran god doesn’t exist.

In the distant past I may have said a god definitely doesn’t exist but not lately I havent. If it appears as if I did then I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong is saying that.

I’m agnostic on the idea of god, but I can see a god as a distinct possibility. What I’m damn sure of is this… Bible god does not exist, nor does koran god, nor do any of the other gods we see being worshiped around us…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:19 PM

I stepped into the thread and as usual someone speaking out against the religion of the majority of commenters here was being trampled under by inane comments. An inane comment was called for in return and we progressed from there…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

In other words you didn’t put out stimulating provocative thoughts about religion but rather irritating provocative thoughts.

Did you really expect everyone to engage you in reasoned debate when your first comment was so snide, especially when you spent half the thread calling believers a herd of deluded fools only to later admit you can’t prove and so don’t know whether or not God exists?

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Theology is ignorance with wings.

Theology will be humanities downfall. All the advances we’ve made as a species will all be wiped away as some religious nutjob smuggles a nuke into one of our cities…

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating…

It is not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a “silver-lining” in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ.

It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves – socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.

Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religion dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:21 PM

You can’t reason somebody out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.

People like to characterize it as being reasoned into it but it’s a self serving reason at best. Self preservation with a tinge of Pascal.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Theistic evolution is a dead end.

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 9:56 PM

.
care to elaborate?

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:02 PM

.
In Genesis 1: 1-31, the phrase “And the evening and the morning were the (1st thru 6th) day”, appears six times; once at the end of each of the first six days.

Those are literal “days”, as per one rotation of the earth.

If you want to claim that the earth’s rotation may have been much slower during this time, what the hang … then go for it.

Strictly speaking, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this kind of Biblical interpretation has anything to do with your relationship with God. If you know Jesus, and He knows you, then everything else can be corrected when you and I meet Him, later.

listens2glenn on December 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Where did David run off and hide?

He hasn’t addressed, maybe I missed it, my last comment to him.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:25 PM

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

That is what did it for me. That, and the symbiotic relationship of mitochondria, which should be a species unto themselves, and are surprisingly similar between all species.

But I don’t see how this precludes Intelligent design in evolution.

I’ll start backreading.

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM

show me my quote where I said gods definately don’t exist? I’ve always been careful to only say that bible god doesn’t exist, that koran god doesn’t exist

Translation: God may exist. But mine and not yours.

Fvcking hypocrite.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 10:31 PM

You can’t reason somebody out of something they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Which you presented yourself to be the moment you hit “Submit Comment”. You could have made your case and ignored the person you responded to, but no, you came in with guns blazing and now you’re feeling all put-upon because the fire was returned.

Anyhoo, didn’t you claim to be a former Believer turned atheist with your mission being to assist others in seeing through the delusion as you have; saying that someone else can’t be reasoned out of their belief sort of obviates your stated purpose for being here.

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM

listens2glenn on December 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Sorry. I don’t take it so literally. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot begin to comprehend the intelligence behind creation. What is a day to God?

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:09 PM

You definitely are one sick puppy. Do you ever post on just a regular thread?

Can’t wait until the end. If I’m wrong, no harm no foul—I’m just gone. If you are wrong—-oooow, ouch.

arnold ziffel on December 26, 2013 at 10:36 PM

I’ve said it before but it bears repeating…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM

LOL, and it was pointless drivel when you said it the first time. You’d need a nuke to set fire to all the strawmen you put out in those comments.

Tell us how your mission to de-convert the muslim community is going? Share the sites and the username you use to proselytize. Oh wait, you lack the courage to share your nonsense there, amiright?

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM

I could care less what these people think about me Bishop, I really care not one iota. I’m not feeling put upon by what they say about me, I’m put upon by the lack of logical consistency in what they say in response to me and others who speak out against their religion.

I’m actually more of a deist, but to me a deist IS a de-facto atheist in the sense that while a deist believes in a god as the start of it all they don’t believe in theistic gods with revelations and the requisite dogma usually associated with theistic belief.

Deists reason their way through life. Theists emote. The religions that theists have erected throughout history have painted everything not of itself as unholy and sinful while it beautifies and dignifies its errors, lies, and bigotry (like a pig wearing the finest robes).

Look at what religion has made us do, to ourselves and to each other. Religion stole our love and our loyalty and gave it to a book — to a telepathic father that tells his children that love means kneeling before him.

I’m not against the Creator(s), if they exist, if they ever existed. I’m not against the search for the Creator(s). What blows MY mind is that people think religion has anything whatsoever to do with finding god.

As Bishop Lancelot Andrewes once said, “The nearer the church, the further from god”

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Theology is ignorance with wings.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I understand you believe that to be the case. My question was not an inquiry on what your conclusion is. Rather, you arrived at this conclusion somehow. Was your invocation of science meant to demonstrate that?

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:41 PM

Sorry. I don’t take it so literally. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot begin to comprehend the intelligence behind creation. What is a day to God? WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM

We think alike. I just marvel in the beauty of it all.

Like trying to comprehend infinity. Interesting exercise, but we can’t.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 10:42 PM

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

davidk on December 26, 2013 at 10:08 PM

The title reminds me of this song (which seems timely, considering where this thread has led). Hope you like Gospel Bluegrass: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y62dWHM6egM

This is my favorite band, and I just love the song, though it is simple.

Othniel on December 26, 2013 at 10:43 PM

HumpBot Salvation on December 26, 2013 at 10:36 PM

ahhhh! There it is! The “you atheists never attack Islam” argument…

You’re totally wrong. I’ve come across many muslims in my day in forums and whatnot, and have worked with more than a few in the IT field, and have not shied away from any discussions with them at all.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:44 PM

Look at what religion has made us do, to ourselves and to each other. Religion stole our love and our loyalty and gave it to a book — to a telepathic father that tells his children that love means kneeling before him.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:40 PM

ROFL

What? Why do you continue to stereotype on a template of your own religious experiences?

Bishop on December 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM

It is not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a “silver-lining” in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ.

I certainly do see a silver-lining. One of the biggest centers of progressive thought is now gone. Since that isn’t based in faith, does that also make it a moral and intellectual emergency?

It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves – socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically.

How so? Hopeless people don’t participate in the free market. Faith is a risk vs reward game. Some people play, you don’t.

Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the US government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religion dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:22 PM

The end of this world isn’t the glorious part, or did you actually read the rest of Revelation?

nobar on December 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 10:41 PM

The only reason science is ever brought up in these discussions is mostly as a distraction when somebody doesn’t like what I, or someone else, are saying about their religion.

Most of my science based arguments have only been to defend against the continual onslaught of specious arguments the religious give when trying to defend their faith.

The M.O. is to attack any and all subjects that seek to dispel the belief that we were poofed into existence by a supreme being who intelligently designed us. Science just happens to be one of those subjects which amply poke holes in the theological claims of most religions re origins, etc…

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:49 PM

nobar on December 26, 2013 at 10:47 PM

ugh… facepalm

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:51 PM

A good theologian is never unsettled by any legitimate scientific discoveries.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:52 PM

A good theologian is never unsettled by any legitimate scientific discoveries.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Good theologians are apparently in very short supply. The demand is through the roof though!

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:55 PM

ugh… facepalm

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:51 PM

That was a well thought out response. Shall we count on you to do more?

nobar on December 26, 2013 at 10:56 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:55 PM

The supply of lazy commenting by one particular idiot is great, though.

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:57 PM

sauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:49 PM

I specified no particular Religion. Said I believed in evolution.

You still pounced. Called me illiterate.

You are a first order hypocrite. Boxed in,, clawing your way out.

wolly4321 on December 26, 2013 at 10:59 PM

22044 on December 26, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Well that’s an interesting admission of guilt on your part ;-)

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

listens2glenn on December 26, 2013 at 10:24 PM

.
Sorry. I don’t take it so literally. We, as imperfect human beings, cannot begin to comprehend the intelligence behind creation. What is a day to God?

WryTrvllr on December 26, 2013 at 10:32 PM

.
Re-emphasizing ….. either (or both) of us being wrong about this, won’t change our relationship with God.

‘Linear-time’ as we know it, means nothing to God. That’s one point we agree on.

But I believe that Gen 1:4 to be the beginning of ‘time.’

I believe those six days were literal days, as defined by our current understanding of time measurement, which I believe to be the same as Adam’s and Mose’s understanding of time. One rotation of the earth was the only unit of time measurement Adam had, at the time of the creation.

BUT … (repeating) being wrong about this won’t disqualify anyone’s relationship with the Living God, assuming they have one already.

listens2glenn on December 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM

That was a well thought out response. Shall we count on you to do more?

nobar on December 26, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Give me something to work with that requires more than a facepalm and you’ll get more. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Science just happens to be one of those subjects which amply poke holes in the theological claims of most religions re origins, etc…
SauerKraut537 on December 26, 2013 at 10:49 PM

But here’s the thing: that is corollary of trying to refute scientific claims by using metaphysics. We scoff at that and rightly so. They’re two wholly separate systems of epistemology.

anuts on December 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8 9 11