In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Monday, June 24, 2024

Lots of anger over questions on ‘God’s law’



A fair amount of passionate wrath of Christians angered by my column about what I believe is the misuse of religion by those who claim “God’s law” overrides the law of the land and must be followed without question or verification.

Many assumed that since I wrote a piece that raised questions about the practice that I must — of course — be an atheist.

The column, at no point, indicated what I — myself — believed in.  It simply reported questions that I felt could, and should, be raised.  As for my more specific beliefs on deities, they are none of your business.  My religious beliefs are my business and not yours.

I do not believe in organized religion. That does not mean that I don’t believe in God. In covering religion over the years, I have observed that organized religions are too often business enterprises that twist the words of God for personal and commercial gain.  I have debated that belief many times over the years with ministers, at meetings and on TV and the Internet.  I have written about it may times.

The mistaken assumptions of my atheism  comes as a surprise to a my minister friends — Christians, a couple of rabbis, a handful of priests and others — who enjoy debating religion when we gather, have lunch or drink coffee.  I carry a 21-year chip from Alcoholics Anonymous, a recovery group based on religion.

I’m also a newspaperman.  Have been one for more than half a century, except for a decade-long venture into the dark side of life as a political operative.  Legendary Chicago newspaperman Findley Peter Dunne once wrote that it is the role of a newspaperman to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

If Tuesday’s column, The Terrorism of God’s Law, afflicted some of you then perhaps you are too comfortable in your assumptions about life around you.  It’s my job to raise questions in the minds of readers.  Mission accomplished.

While a few readers seized on a typo (corrected) on the year of the bombing of the World Trade Center, more than a few made incorrect assumptions about me, this web site, or the focus of the article.

I laughed at the assumption by one complainer that Capitol Hill Blue is a “new web site.”  In fact, CHB is the oldest political news site on the web — established on October 1, 1994.  We will be celebrating our 21st birthday in a few weeks.

Others demanded I be fired for what I wrote.  That’s difficult.  I own the place.  The only person who can fire me is me.  Ain’t gonna happen.

Several assumed I’m a “liberal” or a “Democrat.”  Wrong again.  I’m a political agnostic.  I’ve never registered with any party, I vote for the person not the party and my beliefs are all over the place.  I’m a gun owners who often carries a concealed weapon (legally), a man who believes in a woman’s right to choose and the right of anyone to marry or have sex with members of the opposite or same sex.  I’m pro-business on many issues, support capital punishment and oppose legalization of drugs, including marijuana.

The column byline stated the article was an opinion piece.  Apparently some of you missed that part.  I wrote my first newspaper column for The Roanoke Times in 1966.  Been writing opinion columns ever since.  My newspaper career began when I sold my first news photo to The Farmville Herald in 1959.  Started working for a newspaper, The Floyd Press, in 1963.  Joined The Roanoke Times in 1965.

One poster, whose comments were not cleared by our spam filter, suggested “your mind is destroyed by too many blowjobs performed on your gay buddies.”  That came as a surprise of my wife of 35 years.  Yes, I have several gay friends but I’m a flaming heterosexual.  Always have been.  I do support gay rights and gay marriage.  Always have.

As a newspaperman who also writes for the Internet, shoots photographs for publication in print and online and shoots video for TV stations and the Web, I approach all assignments with an open, but speculative, mind.  My first City Editor once told me:  “If your mother says she loves you, confirm it with a second source.”  Over the years, I have found that ignoring that piece of advice can cost you.  The only retractions I have had to write came from pieces that were not confirmed with a second source.  My bad.

My skepticism applies to religion as well.  Much of what is preached by ministers and other members of the clergy is thinly sourced, often third-hand information.  The Bible is touted as “the word of God.”  In my opinion, it is the word of individuals who quoted others about what God might have said, assuming that anyone actually talked to any deity.  It is a book of tall tales with stories about parting seas and other natural phenomena.  Both the Old and New Testaments talk of water turning to wine, demons spouting threats and warnings, men walking on water and unassisted ascensions into the skies.

Imagine the responses if any news media source reported such as part of today’s news.  Let’s see the video.

In 1977, I took part in a panel discussion in St. Louis on news media and religion.  The panel had a protestant minister, a priest, a rabbi, an atheist and myself.  One member of the audience asked the priest: “Father, why are there so many religions?”

His response:  “In many cases, it depends on what portion of the Bible you choose to accept as gospel or if there is another document you find as a holy guide.”

That brought a question from me: “Father, if you are saying it is acceptable to accept or not accept parts of the Bible, how can you then disregard the atheist here who chooses to not accept any holy book or religious belief?”

He paused and then replied: “I don’t know.  I can only answer that I believe.  Others should make their own choices.”

Lots of talk about freedom of religion but not much about freedom of choice.

Too bad.


Copyright © 2015 Capitol Hill Blue


56 thoughts on “Lots of anger over questions on ‘God’s law’”

  1. “the KJV is the perversed word of god…”

    I can’t help it, but I’ve got to say that I love the irony in this typo.

  2. A well-reasoned article, Mr. Thompson. I wish more of today’s reporters could reason as well.

    I, too, don’t fit into any “category.” Some might refer to me as a Christian, but I don’t look like any Christian I’ve ever met or read. My maternal grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister, but I divorced from that dogma at age 9 — 56 years ago.

    The problem with most people who read the Bible is that they take it literally, instead of spiritually. This includes both atheists and Christian fundamentalists. It includes most Jews.

    Most people have never seen a true miracle. Many people will never believe unless they first see one. And this is a shame. Why? Because the point of the Bible and most religions (at their foundation) is the elimination of ego and the restoration of the true, spiritual self. That spiritual self cannot be realized by belief or even evidence. It takes faith, which may look like belief to some, but is actually quite different, because belief is dichotomous; faith is not.

    Talking to others about these things is frequently like talking to blind men who have never seen color. They say “color” doesn’t exist. For them, that is relatively true, but not absolutely true. I have seen miracles on numerous occasions. I have experimented with them. There is a very specific state of being required for miracles to happen. It requires a complete lack of selfishness, something that most religions have forgotten. They may say this; but their actions speak otherwise. It requires utter humility and perfect confidence. When I first analyzed some of the miracles I had experienced and derived this “humble confidence,” I thought it was an oxymoron. But this was only because such things were still too new to my own reason. The false, ego self only gets in the way. Only the true, spiritual self can initiate miracles. This might be likened to an artist painting a painting. The image of an artist on a painting cannot create a new painting, but the live artist can.

    Reason is a good tool, but it can also become a barrier. Albert Einstein hinted at this when he said that knowledge is not everything, but imagination can take you everywhere. Some things remain beyond our knowledge, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. To claim such would remain an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy.

    But when we imagine a “what if,” the door suddenly swings open. What if there is some truth to what was written so many thousands of years ago? What if the words on the page are merely some code for a higher knowledge (2 Cor. 3:6)? What could that possibly be?

    Belief in a lie doesn’t make it true any more than dismissal of truth makes it a lie. Truth is what it is. Some believe in lies and call it “religion.” Others dismiss the source of religion, but they are only rejecting their misunderstanding of a form of truth; they never see the truth that they think they are rejecting. And that is the real shame.

  3. I enjoyed your article Mr. Thompson and agree that one’s faith is no one else’s business. I do not attend church, I believe a person’s faith is between them & their maker, if I want to have a conversation with God, the Goddess or the Rain God, I’ll step out on my back porch. The bible is another contentious subject. It was written by man (supposedly containing God’s will) back before any of us were born, it was translated (again by man) and published for the world to read and pastors/preachers/ministers to pass on to their flocks. I have 5 different bibles in my home and you can pick one paragraph in one book and compare all five bibles and they all read differently because when they were published, words were left out! No one in this country has the right to impose their religious beliefs on any other person; nor do the people who have no religious beliefs or those who have other beliefs have the right to force their beliefs down everybody else’s throats. I believe it is my right to believe what I will and as long as I do not harm another person, I have the right to those beliefs. After all, my mama always told me if I couldn’t say something nice, not to say anything at all. Maybe we should all be listening to mama’s wisdom and keep our religions private and personal.

  4. Enjoyed both articles. It is refreshing to see these type of articles in print, but I doubt that the people that should question their blind faith have room to even discuss the possibility that what they think could in any way, shape or form be incorrect. This is true about ALL religions.
    Thank you again !

  5. Glad I found your site.

    Well reasoned response. I’ll be sure to go back and read the original “terrible” article to see how you riled the “faithful” up.

    Please keep on writing reasonable articles, as the MSM has completely gone over to political/financial interests. When’s the last time any one of the commentators on the major news sources started a report “…and today in Congress …”

    They’re too busy with “in depth reports” of the latest viral Youtube video…

  6. I feel ya, brother … I ‘ve been spending all week fighting my supposed fellow believers over this Kim Davis crap – the American Church seems to think that unless you are enlisted in the war against the non-believers, you are not a “true Christian”…

    … I search the New Testament yet I cannot find any order from Jesus to force my belief system upon non-believers around me. What I DO find is commands to “render unto Caesar what is due” and to obey the government of the land, so long as it does not cause me to personally sin”

    Obviously that last bit is open to some level of interpretation. I do not personally feel that Kim Davis is “sinning” if she issues a gay marriage license… however, I support her right to determine that for herself. However, if she truly believes there is a conflict, I believer the proper course is to resign and stop taking taxpayer dollars for not doing your job.

    But, try telling this to the rabid Christian element of this country – you’ll be branded a god-hating liberal in no time.

  7. Fantasic dialogue. I had to go back and read the related article which I had missed. Christians are called to be the “salt” of the world; i.e. “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable”, comes pretty close. As for the “Law”, you have the Old Testament Law and the New Law which came as a result of Christ’s death and resurrection. All the do’s and don’t of the “Old” were to show that as humans, it is impossible to be perfect and thus lead you to the One who paid for our screw-ups. The New Testament states that the “Old Law” is still here, because there are still those who have not figured out the previous statement.
    “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus [New] has set you free from the law of sin and of death [Old].” [ Romans 8 and Eph 2]
    Hopefully the priest didn’t fully explain himself or doesn’t truly understand what he “believes”, just that “he believes”. His first response answers the question posed to him. I do not understand how you came to the assumption that because he stated that others pick and choose that the priest was saying that he believes picking and choosing is acceptable. Indeed, he stated, “… I can only answer that I believe. Others should make their own choices.” [I do and probable always will disagree with the priest. “I can only answer that I believe. Others will make their own choices.”
    And there is the juxtaposition, God made us with a free will; we are not robots. As for me, I thank God for sending Christ to die for my screwed up choices and that He rose to show His power over evil. Yes, I have faith. Faith in things I cannot see, cannot touch and sometimes cannot explain. But may all I do glorify God. I believe the author of Romans says it best when he states the following [New American Standard Bible]:

    “…do not be conformed to this world [don’t follow the crowd just to be accepted], but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
    For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly…

    Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor; not lagging behind in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope, persevering in tribulation, devoted to prayer, contributing to the needs of the saints [believers in Christ], practicing hospitality.

    Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
    Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
    Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly.
    Do not be wise in your own estimation.
    Never pay back evil for evil to anyone.
    Respect what is right in the sight of all men. [be careful how you define “respect”]
    If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
    Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.
    “But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

  8. Doug,
    You make good points about the difficulty with differing interpretations of the Bible by people, but this is the main issue with the Protestant Reformation idea of Sola Scriptura. Prior to the reformation the books in the Bible were included there because what they said did not contradict church teaching. In other words, what determined what was to be believed, what constituted a sin or not, what God wanted to teach mankind was what was contained in the ORAL teachings of those charged with preserving the teachings of Christ. In the first centuries of the church history, there was no primary on written texts (some of which like John’s Gospel had not even been written yet), but on the oral teachings handed down orally from the apostles to the church leaders of later generations ( later referred to as “Bishops”). In other words, what writings there were available, including those from the old testaments, were interpreted by church leaders in the way Christ had interpreted them, or at least in a way that did not contradict the teachings of Christ that had been carefully handed down from one church leader to another, beginning with the original apostles. In other words, the Bible has its legitimacy because the Church decided in a council in the 4th century which books were to be selected as inspired to belong in the Bible, and all other writings, ancient or not, were to be rejected. So the Church, not the Bible, is the ultimate authority for issues of faith and morals.

    Since the Catholic Church has maintained that method of preserving Christ’s teaching to this day, there is no issue of arguing about different possible intrepretations of a Bible passage to decide for example, if homosexual activity is a grave sin, or if gay marriage is allowed. The Church teachings and her teaching authority given to her by Christ leave no doubt on the matter. With the protestants, there is no teaching authority, Each person is the ultimate interpreter of the Bible for himself, so chaos ensues. Liberal protestants can allow gay marriage, conservative ones can reject it. But no one can out-argue the other because no one can claim any special authority to interpret the Bible correctly in matters of faith and morals. Where they all agree ( such as that God is a Trinity), is because they inherited those interpretation from the Catholic Church prior to the reformation and did not change them.

  9. Religion has no place in government.

    Religion is not above government. We are a product of the Enlightenment, not a product of theocrats. We are not a theocracy.

    Any religion that attempts to assert its will over others is a danger and an affront.

    • Neutral Site said: “Religion has no place in government.

      “Religion is not above government. We are a product of the Enlightenment, not a product of theocrats. We are not a theocracy.

      “Any religion that attempts to assert its will over others is a danger and an affront.”


      Bravo! Too much of today’s religion is imperfect and selfish. It remains dogma without the original, underlying truth. Christianity was corrupted by two emperors (Constantine and Justinian) and a lot of “enforcement” in between and since.

      Freedom of religion should, of necessity include freedom from religion. Not everyone is ready for spiritual enlightenment, though, I have to admit, it is sorely needed. Why? Because spiritual enlightenment includes the revocation of selfishness. And selfishness is the source of ALL evil. Think of any evil act of the past and behind it you will find one form of selfishness or another. And no current “religion” is equipped to deliver spiritual enlightenment. Oops!

      The journey to spiritual enlightenment is a personal thing, but sharing discoveries can be important for everyone. If you had discovered a cache of food, would you not share it with your starving friends? Even if they are in denial about their own starvation? Never force them to eat, but let them know it’s available.

  10. Religion should be a guide for Some to follow. Not force on you..Mind your Own Business.
    This Country is of people who want a Gatcha Moment OMG Barf and Grow Up.
    I like reading your articles and laughing at the comments Thanks…

  11. Disbelief in “God” is the only intellectually honest position. Those who believe in “God” should either keep it to themselves or make a good argument (a task they’ve failed at for thousands of years) as to why belief in “God” is justified.

    • Day Knight, no, the only intellectually honest take is “I don’t know”, since God can neither be proven or disproven, as anyone with a background in philosophy will be happy to tell you.

    • Day Knight said, “Disbelief in “God” is the only intellectually honest position. Those who believe in ‘God’ should either keep it to themselves or make a good argument (a task they’ve failed at for thousands of years) as to why belief in ‘God’ is justified.”

      I’d say it’s intellectually dishonest. Why? Because it’s an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy. A lack of evidence never disproves anything. Just ask all of the scientists and reporters who discover something that the world-at-large never knew before. The only intellectually honest position is to report what you know or don’t know. For you it would be, “I don’t know.” Why? Because you cannot disprove the existence of a source of the physical universe. It actually may have such a source. And looking at the nature of the problem, that source would not consist of any space, time, energy or mass. Anything else, from your viewpoint, would remain purely speculation.

      Keep a discovery to ourselves? What! Are you selfish? Some may think it polite or politically correct to keep such views to themselves, but if you were to make a discovery, I would love to hear about it. But hey, that just me. I like sharing. I don’t always believe what I hear, but it helps me to see more of the world. Sometimes even a lie or a misperception can trigger new growth in my own hungry mind. Swallowing something whole is not always a bad idea. Sometimes it takes awhile to digest it. And quite often there is a silver lining in the rough storm of human understanding.

      Why should I base my sharing on your stubborn, arrogant mind? Only the humble can learn something new — those who say, “I don’t know everything. I’m open to learn.” Regularly dismissing all that you know is a good practice. A little “spring cleaning” in the mind is always a good thing. It cleans out the cobwebs and so many people are fake skeptics who remain unable to be skeptical of their own viewpoints.

      To paraphrase Descartes, The universe exists, therefore Source IS.

      A perfect source (cause) is never at effect. It remains like a one-sided coin, like the Buddhist paramitas. It is the perfection of cause that can create the dichotomous realm of cause and effect. You cannot truly understand this unless you have experienced creation itself. But you cannot experience miracles unless you first consider them a possibility. Thus, skeptics (those who doubt) will never understand this; doubt is the antithesis of the required faith. (And faith, like Source, creation and miracles, is not dichotomous.)

      We are all responsible for the thoughts and emotions we have. If we are truly honest, we are also responsible for the actions of others against us. When we take this responsibility, we cease to be victims. How cool is that!

  12. The KJV is actually one of the most flawed versions, translation-wise, according to what I’ve read re: most bible scholars, but not being a scholar myself, I really don’t know. I also have ‘retired’ from standardized religion after being raised strict Catholic and ‘sampling’ about a hundred other faiths, none of which really adequately answered my questions and all of which had dogma that I found questionable and narrow-sided in general. My overriding belief, anymore, is that God (or the universe, or however anyone chooses to view this entity) created all things, all people, loves them all, and we all walk different paths….so it is not anyone’s place to judge the path of another at all. I do know that even the new testament states that it is a matter of conscience….if you think something is ‘bad’, then for YOU, it is…so don’t do it. But don’t impose your own ‘version of bad’ on anyone else’s life because if they feel it is not ‘bad’, then for them, it is not. Each one of us will merely answer for our own actions, words, etc….so I think our biggest ‘duty’ is merely to live our own life according to our conscience and let everyone else do the same. This day and age of everyone wanting to control what everyone else does or doesn’t do is just plain exhausting, to me…I’m tired of all the brouhaha. Love is the only ‘law’ that exists, as far as I’m concerned. If you do what you do out of love for yourself and your fellow human beings, then that’s what counts. This creative force is not the one doing all the condemning of everyone else…it is only people, and THEIR own interpretations of an entity that none of us can understand at all, that causes the strife. There is a place for everyone at the Creator’s table, or they would not exist, so it’s time to quit thinking that any of us has the right to ‘choose’ who will be there. There is no ‘love’ in any of this judging at all, which tells me it is coming from anyone BUT God.

    • “If you do what you do out of love for yourself and your fellow human beings, then that’s what counts” By that estimation, a pedophile who molests a child out of love for himself and his victim is free of blame.

  13. I have to agree with the author….lots of talk about religious freedom (for some) but not much about other’s right to choose who/what/how/why they worship or don’t. The athiest/communist/leftist response is getting old and most of the fools who use it never bother to find out anything about the people they’re attacking.

  14. Great article wish I had seen the first piece. What amazes me in this whole dicussion is that these so called christians feel its okay to shove their beliefs on others but deity help us if some tries to shove diferent beliefs on them. I’m with you I have my beliefs and since I was 12 and realized that the Catholic Religion was just big business have always kept them to myself.

  15. The left should not try to attack Christianity to get their way, it should not matter to you if they are Christian or not, the beauty of democracy is that they can vote for and against what they believe in, if their opinion is based on religious beliefs so be it, but like it or not, its their democratic right to vote even if its against your wishes.

  16. Well most incoming Christians are being taught by just the sort you interviewed,so most thinking Christians search out the scriptures for themselves,not so much for answers at first but to see if what they are being taught is in the bible or just a flat out lie or some tradition made up to man please,they usually find the latter to be so.What to do? be a nominal so called Christian like the rest or find that Religion that teaches from the Bible. Now if they taught from the Bible they would know as in the case of Ms. Davis that it is clearly taught by Jesus that Romans 13:1,2 Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities,for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore he who opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will receive judgement to themselves. We as Christians obey the laws of the land as long as those laws do not interfere with our worship of the true God,in that case we either change them via the court system or we remove ourselves from that which interferes with our moral worship.God is a God of order not disorder.While the bible speaks on the subject of men lying with men and women lying with women,it speaks also of adultery,lying drunkedness,discord etc,with lying being the one thing that God says he hates proverbs 6:16. it also states that when speaking to the Corinthians at 6:16 And yet that is what some of you were,”fornicators,idolaters,adulterers,nor men who lie with men,nor thieves,nor greedy persons,nor revilers,nor extortioners,will inherit God’s kingdom,But you have been washed clean,so we can’t pick and choose our faith and beliefs to suit ourselves but rather to suit the Creator,that is if we choose to do so as God created us with free will,but he also created us with minds and eyes that see the home and universe that was given to us so as there is no excuse to believe otherwise.

    • Thus we see the problem with religion and politics. Tyranny is forcing others to abide by rules of a particular deity. I am not anti-theist, I am anti-fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is the religion of Tyranny.

    • Your true GOD is whatever deity you have anointed, based on your personal perceptions of information encountered. The key is personal perceptions acquired by means of your choosing. It is a personal journey of discovery to a belief system. Once discovered it is not an inalienable right to force feed it to others because their belief system does not align with yours, Thus our constitution and the rule of law provides mechanisms to rise above all the religious currents of disagreements that create such fervent discourse, and unfortunately, bigotry and a distinct lack of brotherly love.

      We are all born individuals with abilities to arrive at our own conclusions. Embrace and respect that individualism. That is humanity at its best….

  17. Great articles, both of them. People seem to forget that country was founded on freedom. Religious freedom not being the least of which, due to suppression of such. But get them to admit that now. HA!

  18. These are the people who are attempting to put their religious beliefs above the rights of citizens as expressed in the Constitution. Kim and her son must be fired. I see jail time in their futures also. How was Kim released without an agreement from her to do the job she was hired to do? Is the whole county government corrupt also? She and her cohort religious bigots seem to be pushing us closer to outright rebellion with the threat of theocracy. This has to stop. Our constitutional First Amendment has to be obeyed. They push lies and distortions of out Constitution, and insist that their version of Christianity become the law of the land, above all others including secular beliefs. They are traitors to our American laws and ideals.

  19. Love your writing and point of view Doug. Thanks for taking on extremism and challenging people who refuse to challenge their own conditioning.

  20. “In many cases, it depends on what portion of the Bible you choose to accept as gospel or if there is another document you find as a holy guide.”

    That brought a question from me: “Father, if you are saying it is acceptable to accept or not accept parts of the Bible, how can you then disregard the atheist here who chooses to not accept any holy book or religious belief?”

    It is quite a reach for one to read into this that the Father is condoning the practice of picking and chosing. The question was, why are there so many religions, not is it ok for one to disregard any portion of the Bible that you will. Either you are not so bright, or you intentionally took it out of context to fit your needs.

    • That brought a question from me: “Father, if you are saying it is acceptable to accept or not accept parts of the Bible, how can you then disregard the atheist here who chooses to not accept any holy book or religious belief?”

      Oh, excellent point. How is it I’ve gone all these years without ever thinking of that before?

  21. It cracks me up that conservatives think they can also be Christians. I am a Democrat BECAUSE I am a Christian. As Paul Ryan says nearly everything debated in Congress is an issue between individualism and collectivism. Exactly. Democrats care about the poor no matter why they are there and Conservatives don’t. Why? Because Conservatives don’t want to pay taxes, and , they don’t really care why people they don’t know (and aren’t their color maybe) are poor. EXACTLY the reason why Jesus in Matt 25.41-46 sends them to Hell. Good luck selfish, narcissistic, self centered Conservatives! They all called out “Lord, Lord” but it did them no good. off to hell. says Jesus not me.

  22. Christian Extremists can’t stand it being any way but their way. Televangelicals have con-vinced the masses of their “privileged” conversation’s with God. How to get rich from seed faith programs. If heathens would read more, they would understand that no one needs a representative to achieve the goals they pay the preachers and televangelists for. It states in the bible several times and places to simply “ASK!” It shall be granted. The bible is a great wealth of faith, love, honor, trust, unity, mystery, illusion and a source of comfort during tribulation. Written second and third hand as folk lore. Contradictory in the first chapter and mostly theoretical philosophic fiction than fact throughout. Easily causing conflict among the strongest of believers in a single verse. When the self righteous find a verse or parable that promotes their cause, they most likely omit the previous or following verse that may contradict them or reinforce opposing opinion.

  23. I took more offense to you equating the protest of gay marriage/homosexuality to “terrorism”. Protesting to terrorism? No it’s not, buddy. Like someone else said, be glad you were dealing with Christians.

  24. I enjoyed the original piece and found the follow up to be of even greater quality…thank you for speaking truth. Freedom in this country seems to be only afforded those who follow the repubterrorist platforms. Well finally We the People have fought back and SCOTUS finally did their job in enforcing that troublesome piece of paper the Constitution; you Repubterrorists know it…thats the one that says I get to have the same damn freedoms that you have. Thank you again and best to your and yours sir!

    • Repubterrorists? I’m conservative and atheist. I found this article right on target. What bothered me most about your comment was the verbiage “enforcing that troublesome piece of paper the Constitution”. We the people have the right to fight against tyranny because of that troublesome piece of paper, without it the ideals of the United States of America would not exist and we would not live in one of the greatest countries in the world. I would love to hear your argument as to why the constitution is ‘troublesome’. Your ire seems to be directed at the religious right, something I agree with. Reagan was responsible for forming the religious right as a voting block to prop up the Republican party, he also started the movement of changing conservative values to mean religious values which is gross representation at best. Ironically, real republicans get labeled as RINO which to me stands for Religious In Name Only and is a better descriptor of the religious right. So I understand the ire at Republicans even if I identify with them. I don’t understand the Ire at the constitution. The problem I have with liberal thinking stems from the view point you expose. That the Constitution and the US are somehow bad/wrong/evil. In closing I will quote Thomas Sowell – “The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read. The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think. The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling” and “Freedom has cost too much blood and agony to be relinquished at the cheap price of rhetoric.” To me these quotes reflect liberal thinking and anti US ideology.

  25. One of the best pieces I have read in the last week or so.

    Too bad someone had to bring out the Muslim card. Seems to be a fallback when a certain type of christian has nothing else to say. They seem to be very afraid of them. The muslims will no more takeover the world than the christians will, despite what they believe.

    I am actually more afraid of the lone white non-muslim gunman that have been in the news the last few years. I wonder how many of them identified as christians? But really, they don’t worry me that much.


  26. The KJV Bible is God’s perserved words. The other versions are close but have some critical mis-translations (long story there). If you do not believe it all how can you believe any of it. The writer has a case here. Again, true Christians would not be hurling insults a the writer either.

    BTW, we do not need signs, miracles and wonders now. We have God’s preserved word. The people did not have the complete Bible back them. However, if someone cannot see this Earth and universe and know there is a creator they do not want to believe.

    • sorry kris but the KJV is not the perserved words ( i think you actually meant preserved not perseved) the KJV of the bible is a revised version that had many changes made to it such as changing wording of some scriptures even the translation from Hebrew and Greek into English altered the meaning and wording plus since the word homosexual was not coined until the late 19th century if your bible has that word in it just shows another way that the KJV is not the preserved word but a revised version of the original. Unless you can read Greek and Hebrew or an accurate translation of the original you are not reading the true words of the bible however if you meant that the KJV is the perversed word of god then yes i would agree with you(that last was said in jest btw) you might want to do some research on King James and how the bible was altered to fit what he and the church wanted rather then making bold claims that are easily proven as false.

      • The ‘King James Bible’ was translated for King James, with a reading plan, the complete lineage of the bloodline of Christ, and many other things. Seeing as the King was educated, and Latin and Greek were both pretty standard, the translators were under pressure to ‘get it right’ for the King. Your myth of the King directing the translation is is just that, myth. The King James version was presented to King James, the from King James…

        • alex fyi the verse thou shall not suffer a witch to live was in fact changed from the original”thou shall not suffer a poisoner to live” because of King James’ fear of witches . try doing some research

    • and kris fyi even today people do not have the full story just what was chosen by a committee of over 5000 possible books written b y various people that the committee cherry picked to get what they they church wanted to be said into a book

    • You’re kidding, right? I mean, such an eloquent and (seemingly) educated person like yourself can’t possibly still believe in the boogeyman stories our parents told us as children. And when you say “preserved,” I think you mean to say “modified, adjusted, cherrypicked, carefully assembled,” or a host of other terms.

    • Kris, the Bible says nothing about not needing signs, miracles or anything else, because we have the Word. That is you injecting your take on how things should work, according to your opinion. The Bible does say that “signs and miracles follow them that believe” Mark 16:17, God has never rescinded that scripture and it is as valid now as it was when Christ stated it. Rather, Christ said He would send the Holy Ghost, which would confirm to you the truth of all things. It is the Holy Ghost that bears witness of the Truth,

      • Bob doesnt the bible include a listing of signs believers are supposd to watch for? i thinkits called Revelations isn’t it ? seems to me that Kris forget to read that particular book of the bible

    • I would say the Vulgate, translated by Jerome, is likely closer to the original Hebrew and Greek. King James took a lot of 17th century poetic license.

  27. So let’s see # 1 Huge mistake this guy is making, Anonymous means just that, level press, radio, films, www. Seriously Dude. Major mistake. Can I disregard the remainder of article over that, I should but you will get my 2 cents worth. Like usual people spout off about Bible and – or God’s law. With no clue of what it says. First 4 commands is Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and Strength. Something NO GOVERNMENT has the right to control or change. Next 6 commands are civil government and civilly ok. Love your neighbor as yourself

    • hal which of gods laws are you talking about? the OT laws also know as the 10 commandments , the laws written out in leviticus, or in other bible books of the OT or the NT laws as said by Jesus which fyi consisted of just 2 laws not 4.and which version of the over 300 versions of the bible are you using for your source of these claims?

    • “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the “inalienable rights” which the Declaration says has been given to all human beings by their Creator, and for which governments are created to protect.

      Now there are several things that should be pointed out about this statement. First it states “”inalienable rights” and “All human beings” NOT just Christians. It also says “by their Creator” I beg someone please show me where it states that this “Creator” is God the father of Jesus Christ, all religions have a Creator of one kind or another not just Christianity, its not an exclusive club. And finally “for which governments are created to protect.” And yet Christians say that Gods Law is above all else and Christians have the right to ignore all Government laws when every they choose but yet Government was created to protect the “inalienable rights” of everyone.

    • Hal, No one is wanting to repress the religious freedoms of Christians. Christians are free to believe whatever they want to believe about god, sin, salvation, life after death, and anything else they feel is important to believe. Christians are free to attend church, participate in religious rituals (such as eating bread and drinking wine, or baptizing people), pray, sing, and otherwise practice their religion. Christians are free to say anything they want in public about their religion and their religious beliefs. So Christians are free to believe whatever they want and to practice their religion.

      What Christians are NOT allowed to do is behave in ways that force others to live according to Christian beliefs and Christian morality. When Christians try to prevent same-sex partners from getting legally married, they are imposing Christian beliefs and morality on others, which is illegal from a religious freedom basis. The founders of this country intended for religious freedom to mean people could be free from the dictates of any particular religion. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: ““No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” (The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson, 1786) For example, people have the freedom to: (a) believe and publicly maintain that Christianity is wrong about same-sex relationships, and (b) not have their civil capacities diminished (e.g., not be allowed to get married) because Christians don’t agree. This example can be generalized. Anytime a non-Christian person is forced to live according Christian beliefs or Christian morals, it’s a violation of that person’s religious freedom.

      And the attempt to force non-Christians to live according to Christian religious beliefs and Christian morals is the same as Islamic nations imposing Islam on all members of their societies. A Christian theocracy is just as much a threat to religious freedom (and freedom in general) as is an Islamic theocracy.

  28. Good thing you are dealing with Christians rather then Muslims. If you placed the middle
    finger on Mohammad you might not be able to write another story.
    Very disrespectful!

Comments are closed.