University blasted for intolerance of Christianity
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a trial at the district level for a graduate level counseling student who was dismissed from her program for asking that a client with “gay” issues be referred to another counselor because as a Christian she could not affirm that lifestyle choice.
Officials at Eastern Michigan University took that action against Julea Ward, a student approaching the end of her degree program with a 3.91 grade point average, even though, as the appeals judges noted, the school’s own practices in fact permitted such referrals.
The result is that a jury needs to make a determination on whether officials at the school attacked Ward because of her Christian beliefs or not, the ruling said.
“What exactly did Ward do wrong in make the referral request? If one thing is clear after three years of classes, it is that Ward is acutely aware of her own values. The point of the referral request was to avoid imposing her values on gay and lesbian clients. And the referral request not only respected the diversity of practicum clients, but it also conveyed her willingness to counsel gay and lesbian clients about other issues – all but relationship issues – an attitude confirmed by her equivalent concern about counseling heterosexual clients about extra-marital sex and adultery in a values-affirming way,” said the opinion, written by Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton.
Continue reading at www.wnd.com
At least the court was wise enough to recognize discrimination in this case. But it’s sad that in so many cases where Christians are accused of being discriminatory that the courts summarily pass judgements and penalties, while here they passed the burden down the chain.
-PaulTry and discriminate against a Muslim and you get all sorts of complaints and politically correct bending over!
Why the difference?
-retiredcoachIllegitimi non carborundum
-RonNow that is humorous. It is unusual to find someone with a sense of humor here.
-Jeff DixonWhat is the aim of this school? If yuu are not gay, get used to it, we will train you to be gay, maybe force you to be gay? Teach you that your standards went out when Obama came in??. They should change their mottos of be shut down.
-MyrtlelinderDoesn't it just make you wonder why God created gay people in the first place?
-davesDave, HE didn't create gay people. He created people and gave us the right to choose what we want to be.He did not make us perfect, because of our right to choose. We, everyone have short comings. Mine is temper, intolerance to ignorance of the antichrist. He told me I could live for HIM or for Satan/the world whoever I choose. HE promises me great things for living for HIM. HE, somewhat like us, rewards us for what we do. HE is so special HE gives us all of the help we need to get into HIS kingdom because we cannot earn that, but with HIS Grace and because we have faith in HIM, HE will give us a home with HIM forever.
Now, if you want to serve the world or Satan you must look for the rewards that they offer. I am not too sure what all he offers but I do know it is nothing that I want. I want what my GOD and HIS SON JESUS CHRIST OFFERS. That is my right just as it is your right to serve whoever you are serving.
Now my question to you, why are you so concerned about what I believe??
-MyrtlelinderMyrtle wrote: "He created people and gave us the right to choose what we want to be."
Really? So you remember actively thinking about it and deciding you were going be hetrosexual instead of gay?
For me hetrosexuality is far from a choice – it's just who I am. I can't imagine "choosing" to be gay any more than I can imagine choosing to like celery – these things aren't choices.
Myrtle cont'd: "if you want to serve the world or Satan…"
Satan is as imaginary as Zeus, Baal, Allah etc… when will the adults within our species let go of their silly myths??
Myrtle asked: "why are you so concerned about what I believe??"
Because you don't live in a bubble. ~Your~ beliefs have consequences for the rest of us. If you kept your beliefs out of your public life (something I don't believe you should do btw) then your beliefs wouldn't concern me in the least… but that isn't the case – especially in USA at the moment.
-jatheistNo, that idea never entered my mind, it was too filthy to allow entrance. My short coming is my temper, I really have to hang on to that thing. I choose to hang on to it so that I will not use in a way that is displeasing to GOD.
You know if you don't have a little temper you are worthless. I try to channel my temper into HIS WORK and control it and use it for the "GLORY OF GOD. "
By the way as long as GOD can use my service, "I WILL KEEP ON KEEPING ON!"
-MyrtlelinderMyrtle wrote: "No, that idea never entered my mind"
So there you have it. Your sexuality was ~NOT~ a choice of yours… you say so right here, the idea never even entered your mind.
So why do you think it's a "choice" for everybody else when it clearly wasn't a "choice" for you??
Of course it ~isn't~ a choice, as you admit, and it's just a part of who we are…
-jatheistJust as YOU don't live in a bubble, jatheist. Just as YOUR beliefs have consequences for the rest of us.
-Linda F.And when you hear about my ideas that you disagree with I fully expect you to denounce them… just as I'm doing here. That's how a healthy society functions.
-jatheistSome liberals that whine about intolerance are themselves intolerant. Some logic, huh.
-TomLieberals are incapable of logic – it is all about feelings with them.
-BobseeksThat is a pretty funny comment coming you bobby. All you do is rant and foam at the mouth.
-Jeff DixonComing from an ignorant, deluded, atheist liar, I will consider that to be a compliment.
-BobseeksOf course you would. You embrace delusion on a daily basis. What you would consider to be a compliment does not need to make sense either.
-Jeff DixonAs usual, babble and blather from little jeffie.
-BobseeksAh, bobbie, it is always enjoyable to read your rants. It just reinforces how delusional you really are.
-Jeff DixonLiberals teach, our way is the only way! Let go and accept it, get used to it or you may wish you had.
Christians teach from the Bible: teach the truth and if it is accepted, walk away and let them have their choice.We do not force. We believe every person can choose to live for GOD or for Satan. GOD give us that choice but he does ask up to promote HIS WORD, not force it. JESUS SAID,"THEY HATED ME BEFORE THEY HATED YOU"
-MyrtlelinderMost Christians who whine about intolerance are also quite intolerant themselves. Some irony, huh?
-Jeff DixonA lot of times even more intolerant than non-christians… Hypocrisy..
-Deep_ThinkerOne man (or woman) with courage is a majority ! It's time to stop backing down from the perverts. If your mind is so warped as to not be able to understand that it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve you need some SERIOUS counseling. Even animals , who are on the low end of the intellect chain, are aware that there is a distinct difference between male and female. I believe this is just another sick and perverted way to control population. The person who started Planned Parenthood started it with one of the main purposes to eliminate the black population. Homosexual behavior is just another way of accomplishing the same outcome only it's intended for ALL races. They can't reproduce they can only recruit. It is sick and demented and I applaud the young womans actions in this post. God said that homosexuals are an abomination and I couldn't agree more ! ! !
-EddieIn the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. Any homosexual behavior you care to name – anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
I don't think so. This must have been one of those studies done by the LGBT scientists of the Liberal World Order. Justifying homosexual behavior as something that occurs normally in the animal kingdom, is hogwash. Homosexuality is strictly a human trait, flawed, but human just the same. Animals and humans are not, I repeat not the same species, nor do they exhibit like behaviors for the same reasons. Humans do things with conscious awareness, animals do not. Only people who assume they come from monkeys can make a ridiculous statement that animal sexual instinctual behavior is the same as reasoned human sexual choices. C'mon, Jeff. Please, be an Atheist is you so choose, but don't believe everything you read.
-SargeE5Amen – people like little jeffie the atheist bufoon pick the conclusion and then twist the facts to fit the conclusion.
-Bobseeksbobby, what would you know about facts? You have never used facts.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into."
-Jeff Dixon- author unknown
This quote is patently false Jeff, and can easily be demonstrated to be such.
-Joe AnzilottiIt probably only applies to you as I have never seen any evidence that you reason.
-Joe AnzilottiIt is quite obvious the Bible was not considered a part of this liberal study, which was in an attempt to make same sex, a good choice. If the Bible had been used they would have found that homosexuality is an "abomination to GOD" In the Bible it is recorded that He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because it was bogged down in homosexuality.
-MyrtlelinderBobseeks, thanks for your comment.I do not think that Jeff is a buffoon, only a misguided lost person.He strongly believes in his science, but has some flaws in his discernment techniques.After many months of disagreements with him, I think he is intelligent, and unfortunately also liberal, which really throws me off.Jeff is smart and has a right, ironically a God given right of freedom of choice.His choice is “not to believe”.Keeping in mind that you and I also have the right of choice, and we should not be chastised for what we choose to believe either.Jeff has a problem with that sometimes too, as you may have noticed.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5SargeE5: You and I must be talking to two different people because the jeffie I respond to is a liar, a twister of the truth, a fool, and a buffoon. He has a reference library of lying atheist "arguments" that he cuts and pastes for his "proofs" and "arguments" which you wrongly assume to be evidence of his intelligence. He is a blasphemer and a liar and tolerance for lies, blasphemy, and false teachings is not taught in the Bible in any way, shape, or form. Tolerance is not a virtue except in the mind of those who are weak. Find me a Scripture passage that praises tolerance of these things and maybe I will agree with you.
-BobseeksBob, I never said I tolerate anything.”Tolerance is the final virtue of a dying society”.All I can say to you is that you appear to be very bitter.My Christ me to love my enemies.I hate the sin Bob, not the sinner.Jeff has made his choice.I have made mine.You have made yours.Time to come to the realization that not everyone will be in heaven.If Jeff Denys his savior, then he certainly will not share heaven with those of us who have accepted the gift of salvation.I pray for Jeff Dixon as I pray for the conversion of Islam, every day, and sincerely.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5Bobbie, you can call me a liar all day and night, it matters naught to me. The fact of the matter is I support my statements while you rant against imaginary evils in the world. You live in a world of your own devising, while I live in the real world. So, continue to sputter about things that have no basis in reality and I will continue to laugh at you every time you do so.
-Jeff DixonJeff you are nothing but an absolute CANARD. Simple Fact.
-Joe Anzilottica·nard noun kə-ˈnärd also -ˈnär
Definition of CANARD
1
a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report
b : a groundless rumor or belief
2
: an airplane with horizontal stabilizing and control surfaces in front of supporting surfaces; also : a small airfoil in front of the wing of an aircraft that can increase the aircraft's performance
I might be stating something that is a canard, but I would not be a canard myself. The actual simple fact is you have no idea how to use the word in a coherent sentence.
But that has been evident for months.
-Jeff DixonJeff you prefer then that I use the word hoax to describe you. Have it your way; you are a hoax–another meaning of Canard. Lying about a definition as well. And furthermore you also state canards all the time.
-Joe AnzilottiI would prefer that you use words that mean what you are attempting to say. But I know that is beyond your ability.
-Jeff DixonJeff you are the epitome of Canard.
-Joe AnzilottiCanard=World English Dictionary=Hoax. Again and Again Jeff that is you.
-Joe AnzilottiJoe, your replies get more and more asinine with each passing day. But, please, continue on. It is always nice to be amused with your drivel.
-Jeff DixonJeff,
-A. ReginaldYour definition and etymology ar incomplete. The origin of the word "canard" is French. It is the French word for the fowl we call "duck."
That is true. I also saw that towards the bottom of the defintion I used. However, it did not seem to fit with the description that Joe was trying to tie onto me and so I did not copy that part.
However, I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
-Jeff DixonThat you don't know what you are saying all of the time Jeff. That is the point. You are not into facts–just twisting the facts.
-Joe AnzilottiActually Jeffo you are a sitting duck if you will.
-Joe AnzilottiLook into the issue. There are many reports that show the same information. Many animal species engage in same sex behaviors.
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love heterosexuals, it’s just that they need more supervision.
-Lynn Lavner
-Jeff DixonJeff, you and I both know that animals do not, and can not make judgement calls on their sexual instinctive behavior patterns.I will look into the issue, but I'm sure your dog isn't any more capable of making reasoned decisions regarding whose butt he sniffs, it's strictly a recognition reflex instinct, nothing more.Only humans are capable of making reasoned decision about anything.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5I am not claiming that all animals engage in same sex sexual behaviors. The percentages are generally small within each group where it is observed. I am also not claiming that all behaviors such as butt sniffing constitutes same sex sexuality activity. What I am claiming is that scientists who study the topic almost universally agree that some animals engage in same sex sexual activity.
I have posted links to articles that discuss this. If you have information that refutes it, then provide it. However, just simply stating your opinion that it is not occurring is hardly a compelling argument.
-Jeff DixonNo animals engage in sexual behaviors, they all engage only in instinctual behavior none are associated with sexual satisfaction and none require a thought process.Homosexual behavior is not instinctive it requires thought and reasoning, and only human beings have the ability.I do not require an expert, I am an expert in animal husbandry and have been a rancher for over 40 years.Animals react strictly to stimulation of olfactory senses.They do not kiss, they do not engage in anal sex as a preference to normal reproductive sexual intercourse.This is not just my opinion,it is the result of many years breeding numerous species of animals.There are scientists who study climate change too, and anyone who has half a brain knows that the climate has always changed, is changing and will continue to change.So, like I mentioned before, Jeff, do not believe everything you read, regardless of who writes.There is no teacher more thorough than on the job experience.Trust me, animals have absolutely no sexual preferences one way or the other, and therefore cannot and should not be considered when talking about human homosexuality. “Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5And zoo keepers, who have much on the job training, also agree that animals engage in homosexual behaviors.
You keep offering me your opinion on the topic. There is nothing you have provided to indicate you any qualifications on this topic.
-Jeff DixonOnce again, who are in denial, it's your typical and expected behavior.You are always right and everyone else is always going to be wrong.I guess that's what makes you who you are.Let's move on shall we.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5Of course I believe I am right. Which is why I stand behind my comments. Which ones of your beliefs that you arrgue in favor of do you believe is wrong? I would hazard a quess that you also believe your beliefs are right.
However, it is not a matter of whether we believe ourselves to be right. It is what the evidence supports. Which is why I have not been offering my opinion, but the research of experts in the field.
-Jeff DixonI have read all the info sites you provided for me, and your sources are even more questionable than your motives.Once again, please move on, you're beginning to bore the heck out of me.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5If you want to move on, then do so and stop responding to me. However, I will post as I see fit.
So, my motives are questionable? Just what do you believe my actual motives to be?
-Jeff DixonForget it SargeE, that leech is hanging on for dear life, he ain't going anywhere.
-MyrtlelinderSo I've noticed, I'll still pray for him though.”Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society” AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
-SargeE5"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals, and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t love heterosexuals, it’s just that they need more supervision." No, it's because there are 362 heterosexuals for every 6 homos.
-keyboardsharkI guess you don't believe in Darwin's Theory. "Survival of the fittest." It's a little difficult for most species to continue their homosexual practices and benefit the future gene pool.
-DennisIf 100% of a species was homosexual, that would create a reproduction problem, however, the percentages are generally low. Just as with humans.
There are also straight people who are born without the ability to reproduce. However, those numbers are also quite small and do not create any real problems.
-Jeff DixonSo because some animals 'may' exhibit homosexual behavior, that means its hunky dory for humans? If we follow that logic, then it must be OK for humans to kill each other, because many animals do that. We don't derive our morality from animals or we will become amoral just like animals.
-keyboardsharkWe derive our morality based on whether the actions in question cause harm or not. Murder is wrong because it harms others. Two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sex are not harming anyone.
-Jeff DixonJeff sez; "Two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sex are not harming anyone." That's simply your opinion. Homosexuality destroys the structure of the family because they are unable to reproduce, and studies have shown that children are much more well adjusted with both a mother and a father to parent them.
Plus, homosexuals have a much higher rate of AIDS than the general population, resulting in a disproportionate share of medical care, which burdens society with high costs. Plus they die at a much younger age than the general population, so it is certainly harmful to them, as well as their families.
God's laws were designed for our protection. When He says that sex is to be between married persons of the opposite sex only, He is doing it for our protection. God is completely in favor of sexual relations (since He created it), but He has lovingly placed boundaries around the sexual relationship for our own protection, not because He is a cosmic killjoy.
As a bonus, married men live several years longer than unmarried men, have less auto accidents, and earn more $$/year than unmarried men. Homosexuals, on the other hand, face a much shorter lifespan, most have dozens, if not hundreds, and some even thousands of partners in their lifetime, and are poorly adjusted psychologically (easy to see why with few having a stable relationship with a mate). Most have had a poor relationship with their own fathers, or no father was even present in their upbringing.
I can certainly see the harm in homosexual relationships. Anyone that that honestly looks at the results of their lifestyle should easily be able to see it as well.
-keyboardsharkWhile it is true that homosexual spread of HIV accounts for the majority of AIDS cases in the United States and Europe, in Africa it is primarily a heterosexual epidemic. Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world. An estimated 22.9 million people are living with HIV in the region – around two thirds of the global total. In 2010 around 1.2 million people died from AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and 1.9 million people became infected with HIV. Since the beginning of the epidemic 14.8 million children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDs.
So, it is evident that your premise is wrong. AIDs does not impact homosexuals more. It actually impacts straight people more.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://aidscience.org/Science/Cohen288(5474)2153….
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-africa.htm
Need I remind you Jeff, that AIDS started in the homosexual community, then spread to the heterosexual community through bisexuals, drug use, etc. The damage definitely came from homosexual activity even though it has now spread to heterosexuals. My original premise stands–that when you break God's Laws regarding sexuality, or in any area, harm will result. This is clearly evidenced by the spread of AIDS and other STD's from the homosexual community.
-keyboardsharkThis is exactly what you said: "Plus, homosexuals have a much higher rate of AIDS than the general population, resulting in a disproportionate share of medical care, which burdens society with high costs."
I showed you that heterosexuals actually have a higher rate of AIDS. I have also showed that this has caused much damage to families and the children in those families. That certainly also burdens societies.
Therefore, while your comment that homosexuals are harmed by AIDS is true, heterosexuals are even harmed more. AIDs is not just a homosexual disease or even a predominantly homosexual disease.
Now, you can try and change the issue, but the fact remains that you are wrong with that premise.
Now my original comment was that two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sexual activity are not harming anyone. You inserted the AID’s issue to try and create harm occurring. If neither of them had AID’s, that would not be a concern, now would it? However, ANY sexual pairings when one of the partners has AIDs or any STD will cause harm, whether that is a homosexual or heterosexual pairing.
-Jeff DixonNotice I said a higher RATE of AIDS, not a higher number. Since you are educated in financial matters, I'm sure you understand the difference between the rate of occurrence vs. the number of occurrences. As the vast majority of people are heterosexual, the raw number is meaningless.
Heterosexuals have been harmed by AIDS only as a result of it first having begun in the homosexual community so everything I have stated previously stands. And you're conveniently ignoring the other harmful effect of homosexuality I listed above, so it's not just AIDS that's the problem.
-keyboardsharkThis woman has stood up to intolerance, as she should, even though it cost her a great deal. Where is the ACLU in this instance? Oh, that's right, they only care if it is in support of a gay or lesbian student (don't start on which religiions they support) who is bringing the case. I don't believe in bringing a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. However, in this case I think she should sue the living daylights out of the University. Include in her suit the ACLU, her American Civil Liberties were greatly abused and trampled.
-pcsrockyA little off the case Jeff. The topic is not the homosexual activity of any species, it is the right of the someone to exercise her rights, supposedly guaranteed by the very university which is abridging them, to refer cases with which she finds herself uncomfortable, to other counsellors who may be comfortable. The University should be forced to take her back, mark her without bias and award he the degree, as her marks to the time of her dismissal suggest she is definitely capable. As well it should be forced to bear the burden of her tuition and pay her a a very substantial sum for the embarassment it has caused her and the damage it has done to her future career!
-A. ReginaldEddie made this comment earlier "Even animals , who are on the low end of the intellect chain, are aware that there is a distinct difference between male and female"
I was showing that he is not correct. Many animals engage in same sex behaviors.
-Jeff DixonThat's a damn lie and you know it! You are obviously not only an athiest but homosexual as well. I suppose that is why you are arguing so hard. And BTW how do you know that animal do or do not engage in same sex behaviors??
-Dorrie LipkinI do not know it to be a lie at all. And I am not gay. Happily heterosexual with kids even. Was watching my son play rugby this weekend.
I get asked a lot why I stand up for gays.. I defend many people that are not the same as me. I defend liberals when the attack on them is unwarranted, but I am not liberal. I stand up for women and blacks even though I am not a woman or black. . I stand up for Christians when their right to free speech is infringed, as I would stand up for anyone’s right to free speech, and I am certainly no Christian. And when gays are attacked, I stand up and defend them, even though I am not gay. It is called being an American citizen. You should try it sometime.
As far as knowing what behaviors animals engage in, I rely on the information presented by experts in the field. Here is a site with information on the topic. Read it and learn something.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
Jeff : "Being an American citizen" and "defending people that are not the same" as ourselves certainly does not need to include agreeing with destructive behaviors they engage in, such as homosexuality. With freedom comes responsibility, not unfettered license to do whatever we please. I believe all humans are of infinite value, and further believe that God, who created them, gave us His Laws for the protection of those people. Sorry if I don't buy into your "anything goes" mantra.
-keyboardsharkI do not believe that "anything goes". I am against raping of women and children for example. Guess why? Because the actions harm women and children. I am against killing people. Once again, it is an action that harms people. I am against arson. Yep, it harms people. I am against discrimination. (Hint, it harms people).
However, I could not care less if two adult men or two adult women want to pleasure each other as long as it is consensual.
It is not a matter of allowing anything. It is a matter that unlike all the other activities mentioned, no one is being harmed.
-Jeff DixonNo one is being harmed? Better go back and read my previous post, which I won't repeat here. It is only those who are sold out to sin and want to engage in sinful behavior, no matter how harmful it is to themselves or others, or what the cost, who have a problem with God's Laws. They want what THEY want no matter what. And they want it NOW.
-keyboardsharkDefine harm in your little scenario… Emotional grief is not harm.
-Deep_ThinkerCausing harm can be physical, financial or emotional. I did not use the word grief in my description.
-Jeff DixonDeep_Thinker says: "Emotional grief is not harm." I take it you have asked someone who has just experienced great emotional grief whether they felt any harm? You seem pretty dogmatic.
-keyboardsharkSince I have not used grief in any of my posts, your question is silly.
-Jeff DixonMy reply was intended to be directed to Deep_Thinker . He was stating that emotional grief was not harm, and I was asking him if he had actually talked to other people who had experienced this grief to arrive at his conclusion.
-keyboardsharkOk, I see that now.
-Jeff DixonSo should I be put in jail for saying something that makes you sad? And no, you are responsible for your emotions. Hence something that is done to you might be personally harmful, but I have no responsibility to you to make sure that you aren't emotionally saddened. Hence gay marriage can emotionally make you feel all sad inside, but that doesn't give you a right impose your morality on others.
-Deep_ThinkerIt is not our morallity Not-so-deep, it is GOD's morallity. In you worthless opinion, it must be better to remain silent and let someone walk into Hell rather than warn them of the consequences of their sin?
-BobseeksYou can warn them all you want, but you have no right to use violence to impose that morality on others.. Morality holds no value when the choice is out of fear of oppression vs. a free choice..
-Deep_ThinkerWhat difference would it make? Can anyone change their behavior without your god allowing that change?
-Jeff DixonDorrie, get use to Jeff contradicting everything people say on this sight. He thinks it gives him satisfaction to put people down because they believe in God and His Word. He is only here to try to disprove God. What he doesn't realize is that people on this site never believe a word he says. In fact, I don't even read what he says any more.
-msjallenAtheist want to convince everyone that there is no God since they probably think they would make them feel better but it won’t.
If you are going to post nonsense, you should expect to be provided more accurate information on the topic.
I hardly contradict everyone. Why just today, Ken paid me a compliment and I did not contradict him at all over that.
-Jeff DixonYou lie once again little jeffire. Your lying about GOD contradicts most of the people on this website.
-BobseeksI do not lie about god. I point out the absurdity of your beliefs. They are not even close to being the same thing.
-Jeff DixonThe only "animal" I know of that engages in homosexual activity is a bipedal primate known as Homo sapiens. And I have been around animals all of my life! So called "Homosexual" activity is dogs does not involve penetration, it only involves mounting, which is a show of dominance and has nothing to do with sex. And dogs sniffing the genitals and backsides of other dogs is a method of identification, not sexual, homo or otherwise, activity. I have a strong suspicion that studies that purport to find homosexual activity in animals are agenda driven.
-A. ReginaldThese people have to find some way to justify their actions!
A. Reginald: In Jeff's mind, and with the fanciful definitions of biased researchers with an axe to grind, anything that remotely involves animals getting near to another animal 's genitals of the same sex is construed to be 'homosexual'. With such a broad definition, they think they can equate that with the conscious decision of humans, who have a conscience and know that it is wrong, to purposely engage in that behavior.
-keyboardsharkGlad to see that you are spreading out into simply making up information now.
-Jeff DixonJeff, all researchers have a bias of some kind. From the link you provided previously, it is obvious the researchers have a heavy bias toward justifying homosexual behavior. I'm not making anything up.
-keyboardsharkYeah – peer reviewed science is SOOOO biased! (roll eyes).
Look – everyone is biased. This is why science is so good at getting to the truth – because the peer-review process weeds out any bias a scientist might have had.
-jatheistI hate to be so blunt, but let me spell it out for you and Jeff. What constitutes 'sexual' behavior between two animals of the same sex? If two male penguins hug, is that homosexuality? If one male penguin sniffs the butt of another male penguin, is that homosexuality? If one male penguin mounts another male penguin without penetration, is that homosexual behavior? I don't want to get too graphic here, but I think you can see where this is going.
Since we have no way of knowing what is going through a penguin's mind when he is in close proximity to another of the same sex, we can only interpret the behavior through our own reasoning and biases. Many people would say that the three examples I just mentioned are NOT homosexual behaviors, but others, who may have a pro-homosexual bias, might consider all three as 'homosexual acts'.
In other words, what we would consider to be a homosexual act vs. what we observe in animal behavior may be two very different things. Defining behavior in animals as 'homosexual' is very subjective, depending on the mindset and biases of the observer.
I think we might agree that actual penetration (again I don't want to get too graphic) may constitute homosexual behavior, but others' would probably also include the first three examples as 'homosexual' in order to 'pad the books' to support their pro-homosexual bias, and make the numbers look much larger in their favor.
-keyboardsharkBe as blunt as you like. You are not going to offend me.
While I would agree that a single observer or even a few can be biased, that is not the case here. That some animals engage in homosexual behaviors is almost universally accepted by people who study the topic.
-Jeff DixonMy point is, that what constitutes 'homosexual' behavior in animals is highly subjective. Note my examples above. And researchers are not some superhuman race that is free from bias and error. All humans have biases and are subject to error.
I did not say there was no instance of animals exhibiting behaviors we might consider 'homosexual' , I simply said that what constitutes such behavior is open to interpretation by the observer. And whatever biases that observer may have will certainly have an effect upon what he or she deems to be 'homosexual'.
-keyboardsharkNo, researchers are not superhuman. Who said they were? Nice attempt at diversion. However, when a scientific group almost universally agrees with an idea, it is generally true.
-Jeff DixonLook up penguins instead of dogs… or maintain you ignorance if you prefer.
-jatheistHi jatheist, haven't heard from you in a while. Welcome back.
My main beef does not have to do with whether animals engage in behavior that is construed by humans to be 'homosexual' or not. My beef is that they are using this supposed behavior to condone homosexuality in humans. If we follow that logic, then it should be OK for humans to kill each other since many animals do that as well.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "My beef is that they are using this supposed behavior to condone homosexuality in humans."
No they aren't. They are using studies like this to counter the ridiculous anti-gay meme that only humans engage in this (in their minds) UNnatural act.
When someone claims (like "Eddie" above did) that only humans are degraded and unnatural enough to carry on homosexual relationships it's simply pointed out that this isn't true. There are many animals that maintain homosexual relationships (even raising young ones) – but nobody is claiming that if animals do then humans should too. That's a straw-man on your part.
When ignorant homophobes stop making the claim that only humans do this then we'll stop pointing to the research which contradicts them.
-jatheistUm, I believe it was Jeff who used homosexual behavior in animals to justify the behavior in humans. You are trying to twist the argument around. In either case, behavior in animals cannot be used as a model for behavior in humans. I think you would agree that we humans are capable of more intelligent behavior than animals (although I wonder nowadays, sadly enough).
Homosexuality IS unnatural, whether animals do it or whether humans do it. Anatomy and Physiology alone argues totally against it. Since humans are the only creatures capable of higher reasoning, they are conscious of their actions and know what they are doing is wrong, yet go ahead and do it anyway. Animals have no such reasoning ability and act mainly on instinct and reflex.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "I believe it was Jeff who used homosexual behavior in animals to justify the behavior in humans."
And you would be wrong. Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread and gather your thoughts?
keyboardshark cont'd: "I think you would agree that we humans are capable of more intelligent behavior than animals"
I wouldn't agree actually. We have only just begun to learn about the animal kingdom – just the other day I read a paper which talked about elephants using language to communicate… anumals are more intelligent than you appear to want to credit them with.
keyboardshark cont'd: "Homosexuality IS unnatural"
So you keep saying… in as unconvincingly a fashion as you seem able. I disagree.
keyboardshark cont'd: "Since humans are the only creatures capable of higher reasoning…"
An assertion for which you have offered zero evidence…
-jatheistI did re-read the thread. Jeff was replying to Eddie, who was clearly against homosexual behavior. In his reply, he cited a study purporting to show that animals engage in homosexual behavior. Perhaps you'd care to go back and read it yourself.
You are setting up a straw man. I did not say animals were not intelligent, I said they were incapable of higher reasoning. Our God has created many animals with remarkable intelligence that astounds evolutionists, because there is no 'evolutionary' explanation for its existence.
Please give me some examples of animals using higher reasoning. Also, please be sure you understand what higher reasoning is before you answer.
Homosexuality most definitely is unnatural from a physiological and anatomical standpoint. I thought you had a high regard for science.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "he cited a study purporting to show that animals engage in homosexual behavior."
Yes. Because Eddie brought up the ridiculous meme that animals do ~not~ engage in that behavior (as though that were evidence of it being unnatural). That is why Jeff provided the evidence showing Eddie was wrong – not to use the evidence as justification for humans doing it but rather to show that anti-gay people are lying or are uninformed (ignorant) about homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
keyboardshark cont'd: "Our God has created many animals with remarkable intelligence that astounds evolutionists, because there is no 'evolutionary' explanation for its existence."
Another assertion without a shred of evidence. Please, do tell us which species you are referring to…
-jatheistHere's what Eddie actually said: "Even animals , who are on the low end of the intellect chain, are aware that there is a distinct difference between male and female." Notice he said THEY ARE AWARE of the difference. He did not say animals did not engage in behavior that humans construe as homosexual Then Jeff followed that up with his link to examples of animals that apparently engage in homosexual behavior, clearly implying that if animals did it, then it must be OK for humans.
Which species? Dogs, for one.
By evolutionary standards, chimps are supposed to be our closest living relative, but when it comes to understanding humans, they don’t hold a bone to man’s best friend. Canine researchers at Duke University have been examining dogs for over 15 years to understand just how well the animals learn. As it turns out, they “have figured out how to read human behavior and human gestures better than any other species has, even chimpanzees.”*
Scientists increasingly find surprising intelligence in a wide range of animals—from crows to dolphins to dogs. This intelligence points not to unguided processes acting over millions of years but to the creative genius of our all-knowing Creator. http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/11/18/intelligent….
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark cont'd: "Please give me some examples of animals using higher reasoning."
How about elephants using language? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0…
Chimps using tools? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1…
keyboardshark cont'd: "Homosexuality most definitely is unnatural from a physiological and anatomical standpoint."
How so? Can you be more specific please?
-jatheistUsing simple language is far from higher reasoning.
Using simple tools is far from higher reasoning.
Higher reasoning has to do with making moral judgments, critical thinking, and analysis. No animal can do these things.
How is homosexuality unnatural from a physiological and anatomical standpoint? Uh, jatheist, have you ever compared your body to a body of someone of the opposite sex? How much more specific do you want me to be, considering this is a Christian website?
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "Higher reasoning has to do with making moral judgments, critical thinking, and analysis."
If you don't think using tools (a whole toolkit in fact) involves critical thinking and analysis then I don't know what to tell you…
keyboardshark wrote: "have you ever compared your body to a body of someone of the opposite sex?"
How is that relevant?
-jatheistChimps using their feet to push a stick into the ground to extract termites for food, or using rocks to crack nuts, is hardly an example of higher reasoning skills. Using tools of any kind is far more mechanical than cerebral. I don't know about you, but I can push a stick into the ground with my foot or crack open a nut with very little thought.
How is it relevant to compare body parts? Well, I guess I am going to have to be blunt because you cannot seem to make the connection that male sexual organs are incompatible with other male sexual organs for intercourse.
Try this experiment. Find a willing female subject, remove her clothes, and examine her genital area. Now find a willing male (or yourself, if you are male), again remove the clothes and examine the genital area. Now ask yourself: Which makes more sense? The male appendage fitting into the female cavity, or trying to fit two male organs together? I HOPE you can finally see that it only makes sense anatomically for a female and a male to have sexual relations, not two males nor two females.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "I can push a stick into the ground with my foot or crack open a nut with very little thought."
That's not the point. The point is that these animals figured out that using tools would ~help~ them in their tasks… it's not that ~using~ tools requires higher reasoning – it's that figuring out that tools would help, and then making the right tools, requires higher reasoning.
keyboardshark cont'd: "male sexual organs are incompatible with other male sexual organs for intercourse."
This is absolutely false… for procreation? Yes. For intercourse? No. If you believe sex is ~ONLY~ for making babies then your point makes sense. I happen to disagree and think sex is a lot more than just making babies.
You seem to be hung up on sex being solely for baby making… the "parts" fitting together propely (ever looked at a male or female mouth lately? Think you could fit something in there?). Sex is a lot more than just procreation shark… a ~lot~ more.
-jatheistThis is exactly what I posted in response to Eddie's comment. No where did I say that because animals engage in homosexual behavior it makes it ok for humans to also do so. What I clearly pointed out is that animals do engage in these behaviors contrary to what Eddie posted.
Jeff Dixon · 2 days ago
-Jeff DixonIn the approximately 1,000 to 3,000 species whose behavior has been well researched and described in the literature, approximately 450 have been shown to have clear homosexual behaviors. As we'll learn in this essay, homosexuality is not at all exclusively a western, European cultural pattern as some Christian and Muslim fundamentalists and Afrocentrists (and even some African politicians) have long maintained. It's not even unique to humans. Any homosexual behavior you care to name – anal sex, same sex kissing, long-term pair bonding between members of the same sex, courtship rituals unique to homosexual couples, all these and many more are all commonly found in the animal kingdom. http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
But Eddie did not say animals did not engage in that behavior. Again, here is what he said: "Even animals , who are on the low end of the intellect chain, are aware that there is a distinct difference between male and female."
If you want to insist your post wasn't intended to make a case for homosexuality based on animals apparently engaging in homosexual behavior, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I can't read your mind. Since you didn't specifically say this was the reason for your post, we'll assume you were only challenging Eddie as to whether animals actually do exhibit apparent homosexual behavior, even though he did not specifically state that either. I think we're all getting confused here as to who meant what.
Speaking of confusion, I just thought of something. An animal cannot be homosexual because the prefix 'homo' means 'man' (like homo sapiens). Just thought I'd throw that one in for free. Guess we'll have to come up with another term. A 'gay penguin', perhaps? Ugh.
-keyboardsharkHis entire posting was about how homosexuality is a terrible thing. It is disingenuous for you to claim his comment about animals did not mean that they do not engage in homosexual behavior. It is completely obvious that is exactly what he meant.
-Jeff DixonI was willing to let the whole thing go, but since you brought it back up again, I still cannot find a statement in Eddie's post that he believed animals did not engage in homosexual behavior.
You may have construed that he IMPLIED that, but he does not directly state as much. I also IMPLIED that your answer was a justification for homosexual behavior based on the same such behavior occurring in the animal kingdom, so maybe I was wrong in my implication as well.
I do agree that he did indeed indicate that homosexuality is bad, which it is, which was the point of his post, I believe. Too bad he's not still on this thread so that he himself could tell us what he actually meant, LOL.
-keyboardsharkThe word Trinity is also not in the bible, but that does not mean the concept cannot be understood from reading the fables.
-Jeff Dixon"Figuring out" how to use a simple tool like a stick or rock is still not higher reasoning. If they were to take a stick, carve it in different shapes, test each shape for functionality, record and compare the results, and then carve multiple sticks having the same shape as the one which tested best, then that might be considered higher reasoning.
Did I mention the word procreation? No, I did not. I simply said to observe the anatomy of the sex organs themselves and determine whether a male/female match makes sense anatomically, or whether a male/male or female/female match makes more sense. I am fully aware that sex is for pleasure as well as procreation. A mouth can be used, but it is not a sex organ.
But since you mentioned procreation, then that is also another argument against homosexuality. Both animals and humans are designed to reproduce, and homosexuality is entirely incompatible with that. And since you ardently believe in evolution, what survival advantage would there be to males attempting to have sex with other males when no offspring would result? Rather, a quick route to extinction, no less.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark wrote: "Both animals and humans are designed to reproduce."
FAIL! Animals were not "designed" for anything. They evolved over millions of years – trying to discern a "design" is not rational.
keyboardshark cont'd: "since you ardently believe in evolution"
I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it… there is a huge difference. That homosexuality wouldn't be selected ~for~ (which I agree with) doesn't make it any more wrong than liking sky diving. Clearly enjoying sky diving wouldn't be selected ~for~ either – and yet people still do it! And you don't want to deny them that right… hmmmm.
-jatheistAnd a FAIL! to you too. Animals did not evolve. Evolution is not scientific nor logical. It is supposedly an entirely natural process, yet it cannot be observed, tested nor repeated. You believe in evolution by faith, not because it is scientifically valid.
What does skydiving have to do with homosexuality? Kind of like comparing apples to blue whales. Homosexuality is a moral issue, not to mention a very destructive lifestyle.
-keyboardsharkshark wrote: "it cannot be observed, tested nor repeated."
Not true:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
I'm beginning to think that you aren't interested in learning…
-jatheistI have seen these sources you link to before, and it's utter nonsense. Let me give you an example:
"The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself. "
So, observations like examining a fossil are repeatable. I can pick up a fossil, examine it, set it down, and then repeat the process. Duh. How does that prove evolution is observable?
Comparative anatomy is a branch of science that deals with observing animals or their structures in the present. Can we repeat these observations? Yes, of course. Does this show that evolution, which supposedly occurred in the past, is observable? Of course not.
Another: "Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution." Again, repeating experiments about observable phenomena in the present has nothing to do with evolution itself, which would require the creation of new genetic information in the past.
I can perform natural selection experiments my self in my own garden by allowing different types of squash to cross-breed, and then planting the resulting seeds the next season to see what weird shapes, sizes and colors of squash the plants will produce. Have I proved that evolution is observable? I think not. I can even hand pollinate them and produce artificial selection, but this proves nothing either.
-keyboardsharkThe Gorilla Foundation conducts research in interspecies communication (language), cultural development, and intellectual and emotional awareness—treating gorillas as respected family members, for our mutual benefit.
Koko has learned over 1000 signs.
-Jeff Dixon• She invents her own new compound signs, eg, "finger-bracelet" for ring.
• Koko understands spoken English.
• Koko is not unique: gorilla Michael was very articulate in ASL too.
•Koko's use of grammatical aspects of sign language in complex phrases is evident.
•This teaches us much about human language development/origns.
Koko paints representationally and impressionistically.
• She's painted many self-named works.
• Gorilla Michael painted even more!
• Their work has appeared in galleries and artists and critics are impressed with their use of color and technique.
Koko (and other gorillas) appear to have the same emotions we have.
• She can be happy, sad, jealous, frustrated, angry, willful, funny …
• Koko loves kittens and she still grieves for her first kitten, All Ball.
• Her empathy for others has changed our perception of gorillas forever.
• Gorillas clearly deserve basic personal rights such as protection http://www.koko.org/friends/research.koko.html
Take, for example, the story of a female western lowland gorilla named Binti Jua, Swahili for “daughter of sunshine,” who lived in the Brookfield Zoo in Illinois. One summer day in 1996, a three-year-old boy climbed the wall of the gorilla enclosure at Brookfield and fell twenty feet onto the concrete floor below. As spectators gaped and the boy’s mother screamed in terror, Binti Jua approached the unconscious boy. She reached down and gently lifted him, cradling him in her arms while her own infant, Koola, clung to her back. Growling warnings at the other gorillas who tried to get close, Binti Jua carried the boy safely to an access gate and the waiting zoo staff.
Even more striking, within this huge repertoire of prosocial behaviors, particular patterns of behavior seem to constitute a kind of animal morality. Mammals living in tight social groups appear to live according to codes of conduct, including both prohibitions against certain kinds of behavior and expectations for other kinds of behavior. They live by a set of rules that fosters a relatively harmonious and peaceful coexistence. They’re naturally cooperative, will offer aid to their fellows, sometimes in return for like aid, sometimes with no expectation of immediate reward. They build relationships of trust. What’s more, they appear to feel for other members of their communities, especially relatives, but also neighbors and sometimes even strangers—often showing signs of what looks very much like compassion and empathy.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612…
Surfer Todd Endris needed a miracle. The shark – a monster great white that came out of nowhere – had hit him three times, peeling the skin off his back and mauling his right leg to the bone. That’s when a pod of bottlenose dolphins intervened, forming a protective ring around Endris, allowing him to get to shore, where quick first aid provided by a friend saved his life
http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/blog/content…
There is always a cost of some sort in altruistic behaviour, although the cost need not necessarily endanger the altruist’s life. Two examples of altruism not involving danger come from wild chimpanzees:
•Chimpanzees eat plants and fruit but occasionally catch and eat baboons. A chimpanzee who catches a baboon sometimes gives bits of the carcass to soliciting chimpanzees. By giving away the food the altruist loses potential nourishment.
•The adoption of orphaned infants is another altruism characteristic of chimpanzees, and humans. A major loss to the altruist is the energy put into raising someone else’s offspring.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.zoosavvy.com/altruism.html
I agree that many animals are surprisingly intelligent and exhibit behaviors that confound evolutionists. God has richly blessed His creation with interesting and incredibly complex features in not only the animal kingdom, but also the plant kingdom as well. But this is still not higher reasoning on a par with human capabilities.
How many animals that you know of are posting on Zionica or elsewhere? How many animals are conducting double-blind scientific experiments? How many animals are composing great works of literature? How many animals are debating the existence and origin of the universe? Let me know if you find any, and please let me in on a cut of the wealth that you'll receive as a result of your discovery, since I gave you the idea.
-keyboardsharklol. The behaviors confound Creationists, not biologists, which is the actual name to use for biological scientists who accept evolution.
Since Creationists believe that animals are lower life forms and only humans exhibit rational thought, it is humorous that you try and portray it differently.
-Jeff DixonBiologist is not synonymous with evolutionist.
"David Attenborough’s acclaimed television series, The Life of Birds, provided many examples of remarkable features and behaviours in birds. These provide excellent reasons to doubt the evolutionary philosophy permeating the whole series. Let’s look at just two…..1. Performing plovers….(details omitted-see link below) .2. Shady storks….
It is, of course, not plausible that birds, with their tiny brains, reason these sorts of behaviours out for themselves. Such behaviours are automatic and triggered by the appropriate circumstances. How and when did plovers and storks acquire these remarkable abilities?
-keyboardsharkThere are only two real possibilities — one is that the programming for this behaviour was in the genetic code right from the beginning, from the first of each of the respective kinds.
The other is time plus chance: natural selection, “choosing” from the alternatives thrown up by random inherited copying mistakes, has, in a blind unthinking way, programmed this behaviour over millions of years.
Evolutionary “just so” stories are notoriously difficult to put to any sort of test. One would have to believe in an incredibly fortuitous series of mutations having to occur in the right sequence and at the right time.
The obvious alternative seems much more logical and plausible: just as a computer requires a designer and builder, so this remarkable programmed behaviour required the existence of an intelligence above and beyond itself. The Bible points to this intelligence —the Creator God. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n…
keyboardshark wrote: "just as a computer requires a designer and builder, so this remarkable programmed behaviour required the existence of an intelligence above and beyond itself."
Ugh… really? You overlook one HUGE difference between computers and animals – animals reproduce by passing on genes (which mutate). Computers don't have a mechanism by which they can reproduce…
-jatheistAnd where exactly did those genes come from??
-keyboardsharkUm… God??
But then where'd God come from??
No, not god(s)… chemistry is the reason genes formed. Science FTW!
-jatheistAnd where did these chemicals come from?
-keyboardsharkDying stars mostly… where are you going with this? Are you going to ask me for a lesson in Big Bang cosmology next?? If that's your plan you better brush up on Quantum theory because that solves the 'something from nothing' problem that still plagues your God theory!
-jatheistWhere did the stars come from? My point is, everything had to come from somewhere. Something had to pre-exist everything. Quantum theory still starts with 'something'–energy. We know from the Laws of Thermodynamics that energy is not eternal, so whatever created the energy had to be eternal.
That 'whatever' is God, the eternal being who created the universe and all that is in it. If matter and energy are not eternal, then the only logical explanation is that there is a God, namely, the Creator God of the Bible, who is. He always has existed, and always will. He is outside of time because He Himself created it.
-keyboardsharkLet us talk about the odds of fortuitously even being alive.
If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10100 or
1 in 60000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000.
In gambling, even a chance of 1 to 100 is not worth a gamble.
Statistically, it is impossible for you to exist.
Right now you do exist, so the actual chance is 100%, but the predicted likelihood in the past of you being born would be essentially zero.
Here is a link to a great article on this topic. It is a little long, but very much worth the time to read.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/
Interesting article, yes. Accurate, well, maybe not so much:
"It's been estimated that it would take longer than the age of the entire universe for a monkey to actually type a page of Shakespeare. But this argument contains a hidden assumption: that the entire page has to be typed at once, or that the entire amino acid sequence has to be assembled at once. What if you can build it piece by piece? What if our hypothetical monkey is allowed to keep typing letters until they assemble a word in the sequence, and then goes on to the next word? Does that change the odds?"
It doesn't work that way, however. First, how would the monkey know when he had arrived at the 'right' word and then could stop or go on to the next? Who would decide what the 'right' word even was? And randomly generated words would still have to be placed in the proper sequence all at once, or else they would continue to be constantly shuffled out of order with each addition.
Even if the individual parts were somehow able to be created at random (the odds against which are astronomical to begin with) then they cannot be simply kept floating around until at some point in the future they were all miraculously assembled into the right order, the odds against which are even more astronomical. So there are several flaws with this overly-simplified explanation.
Probability certainly does argue against evolution. Here's an even clearer example:
"Further tests exist to measure how efficient chance is at producing design. The following is fascinating. The question is: What is the expected probability for chance to spell the phrase—“the theory of evolution”?
This phrase by chance would involve the random selection and sequencing of letters and spaces in the correct order. Each letter from the alphabet plus one space (totaling 27 possible selections) has one chance in 27 of being selected. There are 20 letters plus 3 spaces in the phrase—“the theory of evolution.” Therefore “chance” will, on the average, spell the given phrase correctly only once in (27)23 outcomes!
This computes to only one success in a mind boggling 8.3 hundred quadrillion, quadrillion attempts (8.3×1032) (gasp!). Suppose “chance” uses a machine which removes, records and replaces all the letters randomly at the fantastic speed of one billion per microsecond (one quadrillion per second)! On average the phrase would happen once in 25 billion years by this random method.
If, as evolutionists would have us believe, the earth has been in existence for approximately 5 billion years, then “chance” could take five times this time to spell out its own success, even at this phenomenal rate of experimentation. And this phrase is infinitely simpler than the smallest life form, and children of average intelligence could perform this same spelling task within a minute or so. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v4/n2…
-keyboardsharkUgh! Natural selection is NOT "chance"! Evolution isn't driven by chance, it's driven by natural selection among other things…
-jatheistNatural selection is the process that reshuffles existing genetic information into new or different combinations. But evolution would require the creation of a tremendous amount of new genetic information.
I definitely agree that we can observe natural selection in the present, but I do not agree that we can observe the creation of new genetic information that results in new forms or functions in the present.
I would agree that natural selection is not chance in that it only has a fixed number of genes in a given organism to work with. There may be a large number of combinations possible, but not an infinite number.
-keyboardsharkkeyboardshark moves the goal posts: "this is still not higher reasoning on a par with human capabilities."
First you claimed that animals (except for humans) didn't possess "higher reasoning". When multiple examples were presented to you you've changed your mind (moved the goal posts) and now it's that their higher reasoning is not "on par with humans". Classic goal post moving, just classic.
This must mean that you agree that non-human animals possess the ability to use higher reasoning… thanks.
-jatheistI have not changed my mind. You are twisting my words. I fully agreed that animals are INTELLIGENT. What I don't agree with is that they have higher reasoning on a par with humans. There is a huge difference between animal intelligence and human reasoning, which you don't seem to grasp.
How many animals that you know of are posting on Zionica or elsewhere? How many animals are conducting double-blind scientific experiments? How many animals are composing great works of literature? How many animals are debating the existence and origin of the universe? Please show me some examples, and then I might consider your argument.
-keyboardsharkshark wrote: "I don't agree with is that they have higher reasoning on a par with humans."
This is where you've moved the goal posts… you originally claimed that animals had NO higher reasoning abilities… once it was pointed out to you that this was false you moved the goal posts and are now claiming their higher reason isn't "on par" with humans.
Here is a quote from your comment at the beginning of this thread:
"I did not say animals were not intelligent, I said they were incapable of higher reasoning."
Did you read that? "incapable of higher reasoning" – that's what you wrote, nothing about being less than par with humans… you have moved the goal posts which is a highly unethical move.
-jatheistINTELLIGENCE is not the same as HIGHER REASONING. Is it clear now, or do I have to repeat it again? Higher reasoning is a capability only possessed by humans, not animals.
I don't see why you continue to harp on this simply because I inserted the phrase "on a par with humans" AFTER certain individuals did not seem to understand the distinction between animal intelligence and human reasoning.
-keyboardsharkBy inserting "on par with humans" into your claim you admit that higher reasoning is there, but it's just not "on par with humans". Why else would you write that??
I don't much care… you aren't getting anywhere whether you insert your little caveat or not.
-jatheist"on par with humans" is not a caveat. It was added for additional emphasis/explanation so it would be clear that I was distinguishing humans from animals. I never said higher reasoning was present in animals. That is your spin.
-keyboardsharkQuite amazing actually, but this still does not qualify as higher reasoning powers that humans possess. Dogs also understand English commands and gestures from their masters, and parrots can even speak the English language. Any animal that is able to grasp could conceivable paint a simple picture with training. Does this prove they use higher reasoning abilities, such as making decisions based on morality, or understanding the Laws of the Universe? I think not.
-keyboardsharkOne can disregard any and all facts presented on a topic. That does not mean they are providing a valid alternative viewpoint.
You have not shown anything to rebut that these are actual higher reasoning powers except your desire that they not be that.
-Jeff DixonAnd you have not provided examples of animals that can post on web sites, conduct scientific research, debate philosophical differences, or produce a work of fine literature. I totally agree with you that many animals are remarkably intelligent, but to get from animal intelligence to higher reasoning capabilities on a par with humans is a huge leap.
Even the lowly honey bee has remarkable intelligence. Their intricate hives with its amazing honeycomb is a marvel: "Honeycomb is the foundation upon which the bee colony is built. It is used to receive eggs, grow brood, and store honey. The very young bees make the wax for the honeycomb. For 18–24 hours, they cling together until the hive temperature reaches about 27 °C (80 °F), when tiny wax flakes appear on their abdomens from eight small pocket-like glands.1 These youngsters scrape off the wax with their forelegs, chew it into a soft, pliable ball and place it at the base of a sheet of foundation. Another bee takes over and begins drawing it out. A third will finish the process. The wonder of it all is that this work is happening throughout the hive, in total darkness, while the bees are upside down and clinging to a partner above!
Both sides of the foundation are being done by crews working independently, yet the base of each cell is centred at the point where the three sides of the cells on the opposite wall meet. This has led researchers to believe that there is some kind of complex communication taking place!1 This building design is critical in obtaining the greatest strength. The finished wax product is in the shape of a hexagon. This truly is the optimal design, for it holds the maximum amount of honey with a minimal amount of wax. Though the cell walls are a mere 50–70 thousandths of a millimetre (2–3 thousandths of an inch) thick, its strength is such that one kilo (2.2 pounds) of beeswax, which contains about 105,000 cells, is capable of holding 22 kilos (50 lbs) of honey!
It is significant that the major ingredients of beeswax are known, but chemists have not yet been able to duplicate it in the laboratory." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v21/n…
But even these complex, amazing abilities are not on the same level as human reasoning abilities.
-keyboardsharkNonsense. Killing someone harms them. Once again, two adult homosexuals engaging in consensual sexual activity are not harming anyone.
-Jeff DixonBetter read my post above again if you think your statement is correct. Sure, maybe one isolated incident of sexual activity may have no apparent harm, but it is the whole concept of homosexual relations itself where the harm originates. I totally agree that killing someone is definitely harmful, and in that case the harm is immediate, whereas the harm with homosexuality is gradual and long-lasting.
-keyboardsharkMany heterosexuals engage in the same exact behaviors that homosexuals engage in. They also engage in oral and anal sex. Many women can only climax from anal sex.
-Jeff Dixonhttp://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/pdfs/an…
Jeff: We all know that, and I know what you are trying to prove. But there is one huge difference between homosexual and heterosexual relations. Heterosexuals can have relations entirely by using only the sex organs themselves, whereas homosexuals have to use the alternate forms because their sex organs are incompatible. You even used the word "many" when talking about heteros, not all, and "many" is a subjective word.
Heteros can go through life having a perfectly happy sexual relationship (with a married partner, BTW) without ever using anything but the sex organs. Homos? No, they have no choice but to use unconventional means due to their incompatible body parts.
Not sure about your claim regarding women, since I am not a woman, but it doesn't seem like it would be all that pleasurable to me. Sounds more like an opinion rather than a fact. They didn't use the word "many" in your PDF you link to. They only said "25% of heterosexual undergraduate students have experimented with a.s. (I'm abbreviating here) at one point in their lives" and "A minority of men and women can achieve orgasm from a. s. without direct genital stimulation." Doesn't sound like "many". Nor does the fact that some heteros employ this method make a case for saying homosexuality is OK.
-keyboardsharkI do not know what you mean when you say that homosexuals use alternative forms, but heterosexuals use the sex organs themselves.
Homosexuals are also using the sex organs.
Can you clarify your comment?
-Jeff DixonI was trying not to get too graphic here. I was hoping you'd catch my drift, if you know what I mean. But I guess I'll spell it out, then. Sex organs = penis, vagina. Mouth and anus = alternate openings sometimes used in pleasure. Get it? The primary functions of the mouth and anus is not sex. Hope this post doesn't get censored.
-keyboardsharkSo tell us what the harm is that is caused by homosexuals?? Be Specific!
-Deep_ThinkerMost of the harm is done to the homosexuals themselves, but it also affects society in general and children in particular. See my previous post for specifics, which I shan't repeat here.
-keyboardsharkThen I guess when I buy a Honda I am harming American society… I guess Obamacare is legitimate then if your measure is does my action INDIRECTLY harm society… Are you a leftist? You have no authority to use government violence to enforce something that causes indirect harm to "society", society which is made up of individuals. Without individuals there is no society. Hence why our constitution states we have individual freedom.
-Deep_ThinkerBuying a Honda does not alter the basic structure of a family, i.e. a married man and woman. Children are much better adjusted and productive later in life when raised in an intact family setting.
Obamacare is socialized medicine, which I am definitely not in favor of. No, I am not a leftist. Probably best way to describe my political position would be Conservative Christian/ Libertarian/Independent. I believe both the Democrat and Republican parties have failed us as a whole, and liberalism has been very destructive.
Who said anything about "using government violence to enforce something"? We have to have the rule of law or else there would be anarchy, but this does not require violence to enforce. Without individuals there is no society, true, but without laws there is no society either.
I fully agree that our Constitution gives us individual freedom (although it is being seriously eroded), and if homosexuals want to engage in that type of destructive behavior in private without involving others or receiving accolades (gay 'pride'–what a misnomer) or special privileges (like they are now) or indoctrinating school children (like they are now in the public schools), then I do not believe we should throw them in jail.
However, since clear evidence has been show of the harm that it causes themselves and society, they should be strongly discouraged from participating in that activity and certainly not encouraged by the government like we are seeing now (being allowed to marry, tax and other marriage benefits, special laws to protect them when there are already laws on the books protecting everyone, etc.).
Nor should they be allowed to legally 'adopt' children since it would cause them harm. They should also be warned by their friends and peers that they are sinning against Almighty God and that their behavior is very destructive. But no, I don't believe in a heavy-handed government approach to law enforcement, and I am in favor of decriminalizing behaviors that are destructive to an individual as long as they accept full personal responsibility for the harm they may cause to others as a result of their self-destructive behavior. But the rule of law must prevail.
-keyboardsharkLots of things can alter the basic structure of a family. Unfortunately it is none of the governments business, nor yours, nor anyone elses what a family chooses, and what those consequences are to the family. Just because it doesn't follow your moral viewpoint doesn't make it a crime.
You are certainly not Libertarian, and please don't insult other Libertarians by stating so. What you fail to understand is that every law is enforced ultimately by coercion and violence! The government doesn't suggest you don't speed, you don't pay your taxes etc. They ENFORCE it, violently! Furthermore, your idea of what is a law is flawed. A law, is meant to stop direct harm from another. Outlawing drugs, prostitution, gambling, and gay "marriage" is not up to the government. Those are moral issues. And morality holds no value when the choice to be moral is a choice out of fear from our rulers.
-Deep_ThinkerLibertarians do not believe in lawlessness. They believe in the Constitutional freedoms that our present-day administration is busily trying to remove, but with the personal responsibility for the consequences of such decisions . I doubt you understand what a Libertarian is
"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same." http://www.libertarianism.com/
I have already stated that if homosexuals want to conduct their destructive behavior among themselves in private, they should be allowed to do so WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS LISTED ABOVE in my previous post, including not being allowed to marry and thereby change the definition of marriage as specified by the Bible (where marriage originated).
It sounds like you would rather have no laws at all and simply let everyone do what they want. That's certainly not a Libertarian philosophy. Let me state it one more time: I believe that people should be allowed to engage in self-destructive behavior if the wish (such as homosexuality, drugs, etc) so long as it does not cause harm to others. AND, they must be fully accountable and responsible for the consequences of their self-destructive behavior.
If someone wants to drink or take drugs, for example, I say fine, as long as they do it in private and do not harm others. But if that person gets into a car while stoned, and causes an accident, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for any harm he causes.
-keyboardsharkI agree with what you are saying, however, Libertarians believe in the Non Aggression Principle. Again, as I have stated. The state has no right to be involved in marriage, education, the family. They are there, as per our constitution. to defend liberty, and that is it! Take the state out of marriage and you wouldn't have your problems. The solution is not more interference by our government, but less..
-Deep_ThinkerI'm not sure of the definition of the Non Aggression Principle, nor have I said that I agreed with every single Libertarian idea. But I do agree that government should stay out of marriage, education, the family.
But marriage must be in accord with the Biblical definition of marriage–one man and one woman. If we are going to participate in a God-given relationship then it must be in keeping with God's definition of said relationship. If homos want to engage with each other in private, so be it, but they cannot expect to receive God's blessing by calling it a marriage.
-keyboardsharkNo one says that the right view of marriage isn't between a man and a woman. However, if two homos were to call themselves married, is it any of our business? Is it any of our business if two parents don't get their child baptized? There are many false teachers out there, and surely there are pastors that would "marry" two homos. That doesn't mean that they are married before God. But again, it's none of our business. It's a moral issue, God will judge, not us.
-Deep_ThinkerHomosexuality is more than just a harmless moral issue. Two individuals practicing homosexual behavior between themselves is one thing, but changing the very definition of marriage to include their perverse ideas is quite another. Man has no authority to alter the terms of a contract that God has written for the benefit of mankind. It's none of our business if they practice their behavior in private, but it IS our business if they attempt to alter the definition of marriage.
In the case of baptism, yes, that is none of our business. That is a private decision to participate (or not) in a religious ritual. An individual's decision in this case does not alter the definition of anything. You are correct that there are many false teachers and so-called 'pastors' that will marry homos despite the clear teachings of the Bible.
-keyboardsharkWhat part of marriage is not of the government do you not understand? There should be no definition of marriage as far as our country is concerned, because it is not up to the government to define it. It is up to individuals and their churches to define what is marriage and who is married. How hard is it for you to understand that?
And altering the structure of anything, family, society etc. is subjective and not criminal, nor should something be codified into law pertaining to it!
-Deep_ThinkerMarriage should not be controlled by the government, but should be defined by the Bible since that is where it originated. Since marriage is a contract, there has to be a recognition of it's existence by the government, as it does have legal ramifications (for taxation, for example) but as far as government defining what a marriage is, that is not it's place.
The Bible's definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman has been widely recognized and followed for centuries. It is only our modern-day governments, goaded on by the radical homosexuals, who are now trying to change its definition. So yes. I agree that government should quit meddling with the definition of marriage as thay are attempting to do now.
-keyboardsharkAnyone can enter into a contract. I could technically enter into a contract with another man that has the same possible outcomes should we decide to void the contract (divorce if you will). In other words, you need to start separating the christian religion, with our laws. Marriage is through the church, and not through the government. It doesn't matter if you have a little piece of paper that says you are married, unless you are married before God.
And as far as taxation, there should be no benefit nor non-benefit to being married. Subsidizing marriage is not something the government should have its hand in. The problem is not that we need a contractual definition, it is that we need the government not to be involved in that contract.
-Deep_ThinkerMarriage is a contract, but there are three parties, not two–the man, the woman, and God. Therefore man has no authority to void the contract (divorce) even if the man and woman both agree to it, because God has not given His ascension.
"What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9)
I agree that the government should not be subsidizing any activities. In fact, they should not even be collecting a tax. There was no Federal Tax until 1913 and the government found a way to survive for over 100 years previous without one. It is basically a wealth-redistribution scheme anyway. We should all be able to keep our own money.
-keyboardsharkI completely agree. I dont believe in divorce. I also believe that with anything of the church, let's say communion, just because two people call it communion doesn't mean it is proper or right if they partake of it the wrong way. But the government has no say in communion, and with marriage it should be the same. Sure, two males can call themselves married, but under gods eyes it is not marriage. I also don't believe in any taxation (theft).
-Deep_ThinkerI agree that there should be no gay marriage, but not because you think it has destructive behaviors. Every action I take has consequences, and it is not up to anyone to determine if I COULD harm someone. Until I actually do, it is not a crime. Divorce hurts the family, fast food hurts society, should we outlaw those? Marriage should not have any involvement with our government. George Washington did not have a marriage license, and either should we. Marriage is of the church, not the state.
There is a difference between subjective harm and direct harm. What you think should be in law is subjective (emotional, painful) harm. Crimes are only those actions which cause direct harm against property or person.
-Deep_ThinkerOnce again, I have not said personally destructive behaviors should be outlawed, I have simply said that those who conduct these behaviors must exercise personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Homosexuality has not been a big social issue when it was practiced in private in the past. But now, in the last few decades, the militant homosexual lobby has taken things to a new level. Now they want to change the definition of marriage, allow homosexual adoption, make it against the law for anyone to speak negatively about homosexuality ('hate crimes' laws), and teach their ideas to GRADE SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (yes, its happening already) so it is definitely having a negative impact on the family.
Plus they have already forced the military to accept openly homosexual soldiers, causing disruption and resignation of many fine servicemen who do not want to be put into the situation of living in close quarters with them, which is affecting our military readiness.
So the issue is not criminalizing the activity, it is the special laws granting them the ability to force their agenda on the citizenry, against the majority opinion, that is the problem. Under libertarianism, the heavy hand of the government would not be used to force their agenda down everyone's throat. so to speak. People should be free from government coercion and tyranny that forces them to accept a sinful lifestyle they do not agree with.
-keyboardsharkGovernment should have no role in marriage or education. Problem solved.
-Deep_ThinkerI agree on both counts. And in that case, we must follow the Biblical definition of marriage–one man and one woman, not two men or two women. After all, the concept of marriage originated with the Bible.
-keyboardsharkNonsense. People have been getting married long before the bible was written.
The oldest written reference to the institution of marriage comes from Hammurabi's Code of Ancient Mesopotamia (broadly covering modern day Iraq), and where the first permanent cities were established.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/3961171
-Jeff DixonPeople may have been getting married before the Bible was WRITTEN, but the command came at the time of Adam and Eve, long before Hammurabi even existed. It was only written down centuries later.
-keyboardsharkThe command was implied. Nothing wrong with that. But by that logic, I have to ask, how did Adam and Eve's children continue their offspring? They must surely have had sexual relations. Does that imply that incest is ok? I am not saying you are wrong, I am just pointing out you need to come up with a better logical argument as to why God says marriage is between a man and a woman.
And again, even if Christians believe it, it does not mean it gets put into law, either by definition or by statute.
-Deep_ThinkerThere were no laws against incest at the time of Adam and Eve for very obvious reasons. Those laws were added later, but the definition of marriage has always remained constant–one man and one woman. Incest would not change its definition.
Of course Adam and Eve's offspring eventually would have had sexual relations, or else the human race would have perished. Once the population became large enough, then it was no longer necessary for brothers to marry sisters.
-keyboardsharkMorality does not come from just following a law. If the law was you cannot worship Jesus, would you stop? Stop equating that biblical morality is what should be put into law in the world today. Law and morality are two distinct issues. The bible tells us to help the poor, should there be a law against not doing so? Homosexuality, incest, drugs, etc. are moral issues, not crimes.
-Deep_ThinkerYes, Christians should follow what the Bible says, but that doesn't mean others must be forced to follow it..
-Deep_ThinkerIf they don't want to follow what the Bible says, then they shouldn't take an institution that God has specified from it then. Nor should they be allowed to change what God has written. He very clearly specified that marriage was to be between a man and a woman.
If man wants to alter it for his own sinful desires, than he cannot legitimately call it a marriage. Remember, a marriage is just like a legal contract between two parties. Since the contract was written by God, mankind has no authority to alter its terms.
-keyboardsharkAgain you are confusing morality with governmental, God instituted baptism. Should we force all to conform and be baptized at birth? Have you ever heard of separation of church and state? Yes, you and I agree on what marriage is, we disagree on who is in charge of it, who enforces it, and where it comes from. It comes from the church, not the state. George Washington did not have a marriage license, and either did Mary and Joseph. putting religion into law is the problem, not the religion.
And you are free to believe that their "marriage" is not legit. But you are not free to force any belief via the state. Just like all are free to have their own religion.
-Deep_ThinkerWhether the state recognizes a marriage or not, it is still a marriage in the eyes of God. No, I am definitely not in favor of government-enforced baptism, nor have I ever hinted that I was. Our government has chosen to recognize marriage but it dose not give them the authority to change it like they are trying to do now.
-keyboardsharkBy "harm", we mean only direct harm. That is, harm I do to others by harming myself does not count, unless I thereby fail to fulfill some specific, concrete obligation.
In fact, the right definition is aggression.. The only thing that can be put into law is against AGGRESSION. Harm is not the factor for laws.
-Deep_ThinkerHarm is not the factor for laws? I'm glad someone other than you is making the laws.
-keyboardsharkNot using your definition for harm..
-Deep_ThinkerActually, killing humans is quite alright with atheists as we can see from their support of abortion and the fact that the most viscious murderers of all time, hitler, stalin, mao, and pol pot were all atheists.
-BobseeksNo, Hitler was not an atheist. He was a Catholic. Stating the same lie over and over does not suddenly make it true.
-Jeff DixonHitler 'joined' the Catholic religion for political purposes. He was informally excommunicated as a result of his horrific actions. The argument is purely academic anyway since Catholics are not Christians. Hitler's ideas and philosophies were definitely atheistic/evolutionary/humanistic, not Christian. Christians do not declare a race of people (Jews) as subhuman (less evolved than 'regular' humans), like Hitler did, because the Bible teaches we are all fully human and made in the image of God.
-keyboardsharkGo do some research on Mein Kampf.. He was a devout Catholic…
"Christians do not declare a race of people as subhuman…" Ya, except you think its okay to kill in the name of christianity against muslims…
-Deep_ThinkerI haven't read Mein Kampf nor do I intend to, but I know enough about his beliefs and actions to know without a shadow of a doubt he was not a Christian. He was a member of the Catholic church until his excommunication, but that is irrelevant for several reasons:
1. Catholics are not Christians.
2. Many people who are not Christians attend Christian churches.
3. Many politicians claim to be Christians in order to appear religious and get votes because most people believe in God.
4. Christians do not engage in mass murder or other egregious behavior that is clearly in violation of the Bible.
You claim that I "think its okay to kill in the name of christianity against muslims…" even though I have never said that. I don't know what planet you're from, but if you had even the tiniest awareness of what is occurring on planet earth in these times, you would see that the situation is exactly the opposite of what you claim I believe–muslims are persecuting and killing Christians in the name of Islam:
" There are 2.2 billion Christians around the world. The Christian non-governmental organization Open Doors calculates that 100 million of them are being threatened or persecuted. They aren't allowed to build churches, buy Bibles or obtain jobs. That's the more harmless form of discrimination and it affects the majority of these 100 million Christians. The more brutal version sees them blackmailed, robbed, expelled, abducted or even murdered." http://abcnews.go.com/International/christian-mar…
-keyboardsharkFirst, you contradict yourself. 2.2 Billion is implying that all who say they are Christians really are, and you are including Catholics. 2nd, the religion of Islam is not evil, the people that kill in its name are. But like all christians are not really christians, not all muslims believe that. You can defend Christians certainly, but those that say we need to attack Iran, because they might have siad thety might have a weapon, and might hurt another country is nonsense. And none of our business. And by the way you and your colleagues treat Muslims, they obviously are sub-human if you want to see them killed.
-Deep_ThinkerI never said all 2.2 billion actually are Christians. It is merely a statistic of those who identify themselves as Christian, including Catholics. One thing I can guarantee is that only a fraction of those actually are Christians, because the Bible tells us that many will claim to be Christians but few will actually be saved, even though the total number will still be large (Matthew 7:22).
The muslims who kill are evil, but it's worse than that. The religion of Islam itself is evil, because the Koran contains the instructions to kill the infidels (anyone who doesn't believe Islam). So if a Muslim was actually to be true to his religion, then he WOULD kill others.
And where do you keep coming up with this idea that I want muslims killed. I have NEVER said any such thing here or elsewhere, so please stop setting up this straw man idea that I have supposedly pronounced. Nor have I said one iota about attacking Iran. Nor have I said anything about Muslims being subhuman. And who are my "colleagues" who also supposedly think Muslims are subhuman?
-keyboardsharkBobseeks… That guy puts a bad name on Christianity.
-Deep_ThinkerIt is people like Ms. Ward who show that there are still those within the American Church who understand that being a Christian means believing in what the Bible teaches and who are willing to stand up for Christ even when doing so results in persecution. If the rest of us had her courage, we could turn America away from the evil our country has embraced.
-BobseeksOne of our greatest problems in America is that there are so few people like this young lady. " WE SIMPLY WILL NOT STAND ON WHAT WE BELIEVE!" I wish I knew why this is. I am afraid it is fear of the liberals. They are so determined to change America from our Christian standards, to their evil beliefs they will attempt, any dirty trick.
-MyrtlelinderRight, Myrtlelnder, and if people knew what the Bible teaches they would not be afraid of the liberals and take a stand against them. Jesus Christ is in control of history.
-msjallenI Cor 10:26 FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS.
Col 1:17 He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.
Money talks the loudest. It's time for alumni and other financial supporters of the university to withhold their contributions and make sure the administration knows why they are doing so.
-LoisLaneThe funds provided by our tax dollars should also be with held,because no college or university that receive tax money are allowed to discriminate no matter what the reason. If this young lady had been a Muslim there would have been no case ,it would have all been covered and she would still have her job and probably a substancel raise,but since she is a white Christian this was allowed to happen and was brought before the public with a story that favored the queers
-skipfossMS. Ward as a Christian I thank you for your stand for the Bible, rare these days, especially with people who call them selfs Christian you are a wonderful example of Gods pleasure with his child my hats off to you stay faithful!
-SHARONI'm glad Julia stoood her ground. Liberals and moslems are among the most intolerent people I know of; Read Bare Naked Islam and see for yourselves. Warning, if you do read it you may have convulsions of anger.
-PazuzuJulia has millions of Christians behind her.
-MyrtlelinderCongratulations, Ms. Ward! We Christians are supporting you. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitueion and the Declaration of Independence based upon those principles.
-Wendy TuchThe Bible plainly states that homosexuality is a sin. Ergo, Christians embrace that principle. In addition, the First Amendment guarantees that "no law shall be passed infringing upon freedom or speech, religion"…..and so forth.
No government or organization can tell me what I can and cannot do with regards to my god-given freedoms! It is time that we firmly stand and speak for those principles and renounce all those who are 'politically correct' and those wo would limit our freedoms.
We are no longer the silent majority. Wake up people! (sic) I heard somewhere that the majority rules! Let us make certain that we do.
May God bless America.
It wasn't founded on Judeo Christian beliefs – what a load of made up BS. There are no gods to give you freedom. You are confusing that with anarchy.
-ChrisWhat unique Judeo-Christian beliefs are these? Christians are always making this outlandish claim, but they never actually bother to provide any information on these beliefs. They would, of course, need to be exclusive to the Judeo-Christian history and not be found in any other religion or society.
So, enlighten me. What beliefs are these?
-Jeff DixonShe needs to keep her "beliefs" out of her job. Because beliefs are just that. They are warped interpretations of life that have been stuffed into her head by homophobic parents and religion.
If her religion said that being a man was a wrong lifestyle then clearly she would appear to be stupid. As it is she is reckoning on the religious to come save her rear end and support her ridiculous narrow minded views. All clients should be treated equally. Somehow Christians seem to believe that they don't need to treat people equally and give preference to there own.
-ChrisI wonder, Chris: are you capable of leaving your atheistic point of view at the door when you go to work? Or do you carry that POV with you all day, even while you're at work?
Either practice what you preach, or get off that cardboard soapbox of yours.
"If her religion said that being a man was a wrong lifestyle then clearly she would appear to be stupid. As it is she is reckoning on the religious to come save her rear end and support her ridiculous narrow minded views. All clients should be treated equally. Somehow Christians seem to believe that they don't need to treat people equally and give preference to there own."
I wonder, Chris: if you were training to be a counselor (goodness forbid that should ever happen), how would you treat a Christian who sought your help? Are you telling me that you wouldn't treat that person the same way you've treated us, Chris: with hatred, intolerance, and bigotry?
Yeah! I didn't think so!
That cardboard soapbox of yours is looking a little shaky, Chris. Hope you don't fall off of it and hurt yourself!
-Linda F.I don't treat "YOU" with hatred – just your silly warped ideas as expounded on this website.
My "atheistic view" is that all people should be treated equally – unlike YOURS – with all your "Christianity" which marginalizes people of other ideas on a daily basis. You refuse to hire people of other religions – I do not. You mistreat gays – I do not.
-Chris PThat is a load of garbage, Chris, and you know it! You have said NOTHING that makes me believe that you DON'T hate Christians. All you've done is post one ignorant, hateful remark after the next – and ALL of them have been directed toward Christians.
Man up, Chris. The least you could do is admit that you hate us. That, at least, would make you a LITTLE respectable.
-Linda F.Linda, you assume that anyone who does not believe your insane view of Christianity is actually expressing hatred. That merely shows your inability to grasp reality.
-Jeff DixonChris just read your own writing and you will see who is being the bully, sorry your athiest views are blind siding you
-Believefrom the truth, I will pray for your awakening.
Just because a Christian may have a job in a secular institution doesn't mean they must leave their Christian beliefs at home. Sincere Christians are so with a fully orbed world view…and applied in all situaltions and all places at all times.
-WinstonChris,
Just for once, maybe you could put forth an argument that doesn't rely on:
(1) Using your conclusions as a premise
(2) Resorting to the straw man fallacy and reducto ad absurdem ("…being a man was a wrong lifestyle?!")
(3) Blanket generalizations
(4) Name calling
Maybe you could take a lesson from some of the other atheists who post on this site who, although I don't agree with their views, can at least be civil and present well-considered points.
-KenChris is an athiest, he doesn't think rationally and you are wasted your time replying to his idiot rants.
-KalevKalev — yes I know, he's one of the hit-and-run variety, who if he responds at all it will be with more name-calling and non-sequiturs.
Some atheists I like to have discussions with and I even have friends among them; others I just like to tick off.
-KenYou have no proof of a god at all. This website is full of people (Christians) who cannot even agree about their own religion. What is there to discuss? Do you have evidence of information being maintained after the death of your brain? No – of course you don't. You cannot point to a single paper in a biology journal that supports your crazy ideas and therefore you are deluded. Creationism is the same way. You cannot debate nonsense.
-Chris P"You cannot debate nonsense."
That's right, Chris. You cannot debate atheism and evolution, which are nothing but pure nonsense.
Finally, we agree on something.
-Linda F.Tell you what, Kavel. When you "rational" theists can get together and decide which of the thousands of different Christian sects as well as your Jewish version is the correct one, then you might have a starting point to call someone else irrational.
Then you can explain how the human race procreated with incest even though your god says that incest is a sin. And not just once, but twice since Noah and his group would have to be breeding with themselves as well.
Otherwise, it is just meaningless drivel.
-Jeff DixonJeff,
While I can't speak for Kalev, and while I'm sure that my claim to the mantle of "rational" is subject to debate…
… my answer to the incest question would be that you're right — at some point back in time there would have had to be kissin' cousins (or brothers & sisters…yuk).
But while not an ideal situation (and indeed, the times were it is mentioned in Genesis are associated with some pretty negative consequences), it was not specifically prohibited until the coming of the Mosaic law.
-KenConsider Cain. Why was Cain guilty of murder although the Mosaic Commandment had not been given (and why were the Sodomites guilty of sexual sin before the Mosaic commands against homosexual behavior)?
Many have argued that Cain simply married one of his sisters. I believe that this answer is an impossibility. Those who hold to this answer concede that God gave laws forbidding sexual acts between close relatives (Leviticus 18; Deuteronomy 27), but they argue that God did not give these laws until the time of Moses, and so early humans (including Cain) were excluded from these laws.
-Jeff DixonHowever, this argument fails for the reason that God’s moral law is unchanging. If the moral law of God has no meaning until it is given, then Cain also did no wrong in murdering his brother Abel, and yet God holds him responsible for it. For the ‘sister argument’ (if I may call it that) to work, incest must be considered ceremonial or civil law, but it is clear from the context of Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 27 that we are to consider incest to be moral law. If it is indeed moral law, then it is impossible for God to have commanded mankind to multiply and fill the earth by means of incest, for God would have been commanding disobedience unto Himself.
-Jeff DixonFurthermore, we must consider the reason that God gives for forbidding incest, or as the Bible expresses it, uncovering the nakedness of a relative: ‘for their nakedness is your own’ (Lev. 18:10). Those who argue that Cain married one of his sisters claim that the law against incest was only given at a later time in order to protect people from biological defects, but that is not the reason that God gives for His commandment.
The argument is often made that incest could not be inherently against God’s moral law if He blessed the marriage of Abraham and Sarah, who were half-siblings. This argument can be refuted quite simply. Does God only bless people and their actions if they are sinless?
-Jeff DixonThat's what I like about you, Jeff, you don't abide intellectual laziness, and I have to concede that I don't have off-the-top-of-my head answers for you. You're making me have to hit the books again…
-KenI appreciate the comment.
-Jeff DixonThe comment flies in the face of some of the comments we normally get where we're told that nobody considers what we write seriously… Thank you Ken!
-jatheistGods Law was well known by mankind before and after the flood. When Israel went to live in Egypt after the great famine they forgot the Law, as did the rest of mankind, so God gave the Law, again, to Moses to give to the children of Israel after they came out of the house of slavery, Egypt. Every man did what seemed right in his own eyes, something we do to the present.
-KalevTo assume that the shedding of innocent blood was not proscribed by God prior to the children of Isreal receiving the Mosaic law is a grand assumption indeed! God reveals his laws through prophets. Moses was not the first prophet. Adam was the first prophet. Did God forget to tell Adam that murder was a sin? Did Adam forget to tell his sons that murder was a sin?
Just because we do not have an account of Adam teaching his sons right and wrong doesn't mean he didn't do his fatherly duty. Does my assumption that Adam did his fatherly duty, trumpt your assumption that he didn't? You evidently are betting your eternal salvation on it.
Why would my assumptions be better than yours? Consider this before you answer, I am a Christian, a player in this contest to win eternal life. You as an atheist consider yourself above the fray and do not recognize that God exists. Who better accepts inspiration from God? Christians or atheists? You are playing with a severe handicap, my friend. You are depending solely on the arm of flesh (or a very fleshy brain in this case).
-VladimirYou are working on the assumption that there is a god that can provide you inspiration. You however, have no proof that this is accurate.
-Jeff DixonAnd you have neither the proof that it can't happen nor the actual inspiration. I'd say you don't have a prayer.
-VladimirThe stories in the bible most certainly can be shown to be fables.
The laughable Flood of Noah. A flood for which there is no evidence for, by the way. A flood that not only did not happen, it COULD not happen the way it is told. If the entire world is covered in water, that means it is covered in seawater. (Really, try it for yourself. Mix a bowl of salt water and fresh water and see what you get. Here’s a hint – you get salt water.) If the entire Earth is covered in salt water, it will poison the ground. That is why armies used to salt the earth of lands they invaded, so that it was ruined to try and grow more crops. There is no fresh water for anyone to drink because all the fresh water supplies have been destroyed by the ENTIRE EARTH BEING COVERED IN SALT WATER. If it rains, it rains into salt water bodies. The fresh water fish could not survive in the salt water environment. The salt water fish would be at risk since the salinity of the water would be reduced. So, we have no fresh water to drink and cannot grow new crops. If you start eating the animals from the ark, you keep them from reproducing. Of course, that does not stop Noah from sacrificing some of them immediately. Not that it matters. Keep in mind that two animals are not enough to provide the genetic diversity needed to sustain an animal population. Some animals like termites need an entire colony to sustain themselves.
-Jeff DixonThe physics of Noah's Ark are impossible. The flexibility of the wood being used opens gaps wide enough to dump hundreds of gallons of water a minute into the "ship."
As a ship that large floats, there are tremendous strains and stresses over its length, and wood is flexible enough to make it impossible to keep the hull together. Wood is fairly flexible when subjected to large strains – trees caught in torrential floods bend and don't break. It's why wooden ships only reached certain sizes during real-life world history, bigger ships had to be made out of steel.
Even many of the largest wood ships (still mucho smaller than the ark! According to the Biblical description, it was a barge roughly the size that would fit inside of one of our football stadiums!) built by master shipwrights at the peak of the shipbuilding art required numerous pumps and countermeasures to avoid sinking.
Here's one reason large wooden ships have a limit: Hogging.
From that site:
"Until the 1920's a large percentage of the world's shipping consisted of large wooden ships and their plague, after plain old rot, was "hog". A ship floating quietly in still water is subjected to external forces. These are the weight of the vessel on its cargo (downwards) and the buoyancy force (upwards). Archimedes showed us that for a floating vessel, these two forces must be equal in magnitude. For a floating rectangular piece of wood, they are also equal in distribution. For most normally shaped ships, the distribution is not equal. For example, when an empty ship has more weight (relatively heavy structure, engines and equipment) in the ends, and more buoyancy in the middle. This "excess" of buoyancy in the middle cause the middle to rise up and the ends to bend down — a hog in profile. The opposite condition is sagging. For old wooden ships, this resulted in a long term, plastic deformation. The total curvature could be a meter or more in larger vessels. Some vessels like the Wapama hogged so much that they nearly broke in two. Hogging is no longer the problem it was in the 1920's when it threatened the nation's merchant fleet — because those ships have sunk!
"Wooden ships, even wooden warships like USS Constitution, are actually quite weak even when new. Although solid shot may have ricocheted from their sides, they are generally unable, over time, to resist the fairly small forces they are subjected to moored in still water. There is a false idea that amazingly still has some following, that wooden ships were strong because they would flex. In fact, relative movement between structural members allows fresh water to enter the hull structure, carrying rot fungus spores deep inside.
"Engineers have often attempted to analyze the structures of wooden ships as if they were homogeneous box girders. This is a common misapplication of beam theory. Actually, a wooden ship, especially as it ages, more closely resembles a rather weakly bound bundle of reeds. These reeds are free to slide past each other. If traditionally built wooden ships were box girders, then one would expect to see many tensile failures amidships in the upper deck of a severely hogged vessel; however, this is not the case. Failures in longitudinal structure are infrequent and tend to be scattered almost uniformly throughout the vessel. The idea of "strength decks" or "extreme fiber" is largely irrelevant to the meaningful analysis of old wooden ships. Microscopic investigation reveal a generally low level of stress in "hogged" structural members. There often is evidence of plastic behavior, creep, around fastenings. Large overall deflections in the hull can be achieved with a very small amount of creep around the fastenings.
"The bundle of reeds metaphor implies that the ship is comparatively poor at resisting longitudinal loads due to a weakness in shear. Wooden ships are generally stiffer in lateral loading since the transverse frames are like individual beams. As a vessel ages and softens, even these relatively stiff beams can suffer large creep deflections. USS Constellation is an extreme example of an old, soft wooden ship and probably has large lateral deflections as well as hog — behaving more like a wet wicker basket than a bundle of reeds. Pushing up on the bottom of the basket causes the sides to bulge out and the bilges to drop. This is evidently the case since the keel has deflected over two feet and there is much less curvature in the upper decks. The vessel is also soft transversely. That is apparent from the curvature of the gun deck which is hogged in several distinct undulations. The upward force on the bottom comes from an unequal distribution of the weight and buoyancy forces on the vessel. In a newer, stiffer vessel it is possible to minimize this net force by the judicious placement of ballast both longitudinally and transversely in the bottom of the vessel.
-Jeff DixonTowards the end of the voyage, Noah sent a dove out to look for signs of life.
Genesis 8-
<><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
But an olive tree could not survive the flood. And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period. In fact, they would have no chance to grow at all. Remember, all the land is now filled with salt.
-Jeff DixonSomeone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.
Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:
Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.
Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:
E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)
E (normal) = 215 E (increase) = 391,935.0958 T (normal) = 280.
Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.
The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F…lead melts at 880 F.). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.
Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.
It is an absurd story from any perspective.
-Jeff DixonI don't adhere to any Christian sects nor any Jewish version. I practice the faith like the 1st century (A.D.) believers did, Sabbath keeping, Torah obedient like Yeshua commanded His Apostles to do. The Bible records some of the disobedience of the Israelis as a lesson for us NOT to do likewise.
-KalevSemantics. The people who claim to follow Jesus can not even agree on how to do that. That was my point. I could really not care less what particular brand of delusion you believe is the right one.
-Jeff DixonReally – and what is that view – yet another version? So you dreamed up another version that everybody else is atheistic to. So where are we – now we are at 10001 religions and everybody but you is atheistic to 10,000 of them.
Do you see what a silly game this is.
-Chris PUmm Jeff, by and large all Christian & Jewish sects are "right". They only differ in emphasis. Besides one can easily prove the existence of G-d by science & logic. Those who cannot are are either ignorant or liars.
-GuestWell, then please provide this evidence.
-Jeff DixonThere may be many Christian sects, whatever that may mean, there is one GOD who is part of the trinity, "THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. Christians all over the world honor this "TRINITY AS THE HEAD AND THE MAKER OF THE UNIVERSE!" if we remember this, as Christians we will have much more fun honoring and worshiping and stop worrying about the differences in other sects. This is not GOD'S plan for HIS people to pick apart each little sect that is different for your little sect.
-MyrtlelinderAre you aware that the doctrine of the trinity originated from Gnosticism? While there is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they operate in unison, not separate from one another. A better term would be Tri-Unity. And before you throw Matthew 28:19 at me, realize that text was added some 400 years after Matthew was originally written to support the trinity heresy originated by the Church in Rome, the early Roman Catholic Church.
-KalevThat's right – I'm really clueless because I don't believe in silly sky gods. You are great a name calling without knowing anything about me.
-Chris PFunny, Chris. Isn't that what you do to Christians on a daily basis?
-Linda F.When Christians compromise their beliefs to succumb to pressure by human secularist schools and other organizations you have a weak faith and unworthy of God's blessing. Praise God for this one woman for standing her ground.
-WinstonThen don't get a job if your god says to not go to work. Just as silly as the Ultra Orthodox Jews in Israel. Like the protected cows in India. religious mumbo jumbo should have nothing to do with what you do at work.
-Chris PAll Liberals who whine about intolerance are intolerant in some ways; and most are intolerant of Christians. Why? Because they are so afraid that we might be right about Christ, Christianity, the Holy Bible, and eternal punishment. Instead of being afraid that we are right; maybe they should be afraid of GOD's wrath for their turning from HIM.
-Billy F.No – we are not intolerant of Christians – we are intolerant of them forcing their beliefs onto the rest of us. STOP PLAYING THE VICTIM CARD.
-Chris PWhen is the last time someone forced their opinion on you. Sounds to me like you can do a fairly good job of taking care of yourself and cannot imagine anyone taking advantage of you by forcing something on you. As for me, if you don't want any of my ideas I certainly, can assure you, I won't bother you. Most of my Christian friends feel the same way.
-MyrtlelinderYou can suspect things all day long. Until you demonstrate it to be accurate, your suspicions are irrelevant.
And whether you have personally see animals engaging in same sex behavior or not is also irrelevant. I am sure there are many things in the world that occur daily that you have never seen.
-Jeff Dixonethics is never intolerance
-mwoodYou cannot earn a place in heaven, whatever you do or however righteous you are. You get it only by the grace of GOD, through your faith in HIM!! BUT you must stand your ground as a Christian, as this young woman did, you must not give in to the evils of the world. If you give in you are accepting their way, which is not GOD'S way You must live according to what the WORD OF GOD teaches, not in any self righteous way but as a repentant sinner, which all Christians are. We gladly humble ourselves to our SAVIOR and MAKER, yet HE does not expect us to grovel but stand strong for and before HIM. Every individual must take his/her place is standing for GOD, nobody can do it for us.
-MyrtlelinderNicely said Billy F. God's wrath is for eternity………..no thanks, because it isn't gona be pleasant. Think of the flood in the Old Testament. How many survived? Not many will survive Christ coming back and having alliegence to Him and His Father.. It will be another sad day.
-LaurIf I were Ms. Ward I would not want to go back to that university since they would not treat her fairly. They should help her find another university and a job with high recommendations where she was free to choose whom she would counsel. There were other people who would take the cases she could not counsel because of her belief. That should never be questioned since nonbelievers have the right to say and do as they please. There is no final help for anyone in this world except through Jesus Christ. I use to counsel young people and have read too many self help books for training and believe me they were no help because it is all human viewpoint. The Bible has all the answers one needs to get their life staightened out. However, there are those who do need to be medicated before they can be helped.
-msjallenCan you pick and choose what you do at work or do you do what your manager tells you to? If this idiocy spread we'd have mailmen not delivering to gays. We'd have doctors not giving care to Muslims.
It's a stupid concept using religion as an excuse to not do your job.
-Chris PHere's an old saying poeple, ' WHAT WOULD JESUS HAVE DONE?'. Some Christian's can act like Phairases, they forget they are sinners to.
-Byron PotterYou're further from the truth than you could ever imagine mr Potter. Christians are not sinners. Furthermore if they are sinners they are and cannot be christians. Start using your head for something beside a hat-rack son. This is so interolant of christians. When Jesus forgives a person they become a child of God. They do not remain in sin, otherwise they never got saved.
-MartinWe do sin after salvation but God in His grace gave us the opportunity to confess our sins and get back into fellowship with Him. We were born with a sin nature and will have one until we die. The following verses were written to believers:
-msjallen1 John 1:8-9 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
I am a believer in Jesus Christ and I know I sin each day but I also confess those sins each day. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, God the Father judged our sins and when we confess our sins God the Father forgives them.
"If you say you have no sin you lie and the truth is not in you." Not my words, this is Bibical
-MyrtlelinderIf this would have happened to a Muslim student I wonder what their decision would have been to dismiss her? I already know and so does America. Americans need to stand up against this bigotry, hatred towards christians and the christian religion. Its time to arise and stand for value, our Godly principles and ask others to stand with us. I'm sick of being downtrodden and hiding my head in the sand.
-MartinOh – playing the victim card again.
-Chris PAmericas universities and colleges sole purpose today is to minimize all religion so that a secular government can take over all our " GOD given " rights to themselves , increasing their power and control . This is ALL part and parcel of the progressive agenda , that is why America has to be destroyed as the constitutional republic at is . And of course Christianity being a big part of our national heritage must be strongly fought because they need to impart their immoral standards over the morality that stands in their way . Today , and for the last thirty years only fools send their children to college or universities unless it is to eliminate all sense of morality .
-buckNo it just happens that the more intelligent and knowledgeable you are the less likely you are to believe in a skygod. Fact.
-Chris PHey clueless ones – it has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Stop playing the victim card. It has to do with one individual's refusal to do her job. other Christians' might have no problem – just this clown who has been brought up to be homophobic.
Would Jesus have refused treatment? You people are antisocial.
-Chris PNo, it has everything to do with Christianity. How can someone advise or counsel someone in an area they are not comfortable with? Would you go to a Christian counselor for advice on your life? Also why is referring someone to another who is better suited to counsel a problem for the program? Doctors and lawyers do it all the time. They have specialized areas that they address. A prosecutor is not going to represent a estate in a case, nor do oncologists work in E.R.s. That's not to say they can't, but that is outside of their field of practice.
-TaquoshiWhen one man can give another man a baby ; I will believe it's natural. Then they can get married
-blackhawkMen have been giving other men babies for years. It is called adoption.
-Jeff DixonAnother example of multi-culturalism gone wild. If the woman did not want to associate with homosexuals she ought to get into another field. This is going to end badly for her and for people of faith but it will re-enforce the holirollers' hypocriscy. There will be no winners out of this one.
-e.rebus