Reflecting The Book Of Jonah

So a while back I was watching a video about an Atheist talking about certain verses that caused her to question her faith, and I may do a response article to that in the future but while I was watching the video I was thinking about The Book Of Jonah and how real the book is to humanity. What do I mean? Let's discuss;

Let's Speak...But In Tongues!!

So a while back I was at a bus stop coming home from school when I saw a lady who was shouting in a language I did not understand, she was not shouting at anyone in particular and she wasn't aggressive she was just rambling. Now me, being the curious sort I am and a bit of Linguaphile decided to ask what language she was speaking to which she replied "I'm speaking in tongues. You can't do that?" and then she continued to ramble. At this point, I rolled my eyes and continued to wait for my bus. I've discussed speaking in tongues but I don't think I've really talked about it so in this article I'm gonna talk about it, so let's dive in.

How To Read The Bible

So you wanna read The Bible, eh? Well good for you, you should wanna read The Bible because (whether you believe it or not) it's The Word Of God, so kudos to you. However, more often than not individuals read The Bible and are unfortunately unaware of what it is they're reading and how one should go about reading it. This statement is true for unbelievers and unfortunately people who profess to be Christians...and then there are the extremely unfortunate lot who while professing to be Christian look at The Bible as nothing more than a collection of moral tales to live by that didn't actually occur at any point in time.

Certainly anyone can crack open a Bible and read it, but can they read it in context? It's an unfortunate reality that there are some people out there who's minds are blown when they discover The Bible isn't written in chronological order (with some books taking place at the same time as others) and there are some who's minds are blown when they discover that some authors of certain books in The Bible are unknown (that revelation causes some people to lose their faith oddly enough, which is weird because any study Bible will tell you that point blank). So in order to help unbelievers and believers alike, I've crafted this nifty little guide to help you navigate The Bible and get as much out of it as you possibly can. We're gonna go through the entire Bible from start to finish, so strap yourselves in, it's gonna be a long one.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees ?

This was one of the first questions I've ever been (indirectly) asked that made me think about my faith. A long time ago, back when I was in High school, I came across a website titled "God Is Imaginary" and I looked at their long lists of proofs and reasons why God does not exist and this question "Why won't God heal amputees?" was one of the main questions. Since I've discovered that website, I've grown and learned much about my faith and I think I'm mature enough in my faith to answer this question, so let's dive in.

Jesus, Republicans & The Bible...Seriously (Re-post)

DISCLAIMER: This is article previously published Feb. 26th, 2012. I had to republish it due to the high amounts of spam the previous article got, this way I could stop getting spam by altering the URL. Enjoy.

I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.

Interesting...

)

Paganism ?

I'm curious about something, what's the point of being a Pagan if non-Pagans receive the same benefits as Pagans. You see, I've always wondered why there were no Pagan missionaries and why Pagans don't share their faith. Christians are told to share their share with non-believers per the orders of The Great Commission and a sense of urgency. Pagans don't have this urgency as there is no heaven, no hell, no supreme judge they must stand before and no exact benefit to being a Pagan. If there were benefits to being a Pagan, wouldn't a Pagan encourage others to be Pagan? I haven't asked Pagan about this issue because whenever I do talk to Pagans I get a very different idea as to what their exact beliefs are. Which leads me to this;

Theology By Implication

We live in a day and age where consequences are swept under the rug and implications of certain positions are not scrutinized to the point where we reach a core understanding of a person's beliefs. Many of you know I wrote a blog talking about Nominal Christians (Christians in name only) and how they are disrupting the effectiveness of The Gospel by attempting to maintain 2 or more contradictory beliefs and actions. But I never explained in full how they are doing this, hence why I decided to write this blog post about the implications of certain theological positions and what they mean to a Christian. Let's dive in!

According to The Bible...

All too often nowadays I'll be on Facebook and all of a sudden one of these images will pop up on my wall. These images are usually very short, simple texts and or pictures that make several statements regarding Christianity in a mocking, snarky fashion as if to say "Checkmate Christians!". After I shake my head and chuckle at the foolishness of such images, the unfortunate and sobering reality dawns on me that there are people who think in such a fashion and THEREFORE I have to write an article dealing with the "arguments" put forth in the image in order to make the person who made the image think 2 twice about it next time. (not that it'd matter.) LET'S DIVE IN!

The Darkest Night...

So I tried to make a video about this and failed mostly because I was trying to hold back every fiber of my being to keep from shouting, and while shouting is understandable in a situation such as this, I'd rather not damage my voice that way.  We all know about The shooting in Colorado, I won't even elaborate on what happen, and we're all familiar with the Trayvon Martin shooting that happened several months back. Well in one article I'm gonna attempt to deal with BOTH of these and offer a Christian perspective on it.

Lately I've been noticing a series of disgusting images posted on my Facebook that made me want to (at first) make a video and then write this article. The images are meme images, which I won't post here for the sole purpose of NOT spotlighting them, but they say such things as: "They wanted to see the full movie, I gave them clips" worst yet, these images feature the mugshot of Mr. Holmes.



Marzgurl, a Channel Awesome review recently posted a blog about this and I wanted to share a portion of that with you just to illuminate a point I'm going to make later.

"He even seemed to want to do all of this looking like, and calling himself, “The Joker”.
It sounds like he likely did exactly what he wanted to accomplish.  He became a super villain.
Perhaps by me labeling him as such, I’ve given him exactly what he was looking for.  He’s gotten his name in history.  I can’t think of any other “logical” reason behind any of it, other than it’s just want he wanted to do for himself.  After all, he didn’t even kill himself or let himself get shot by the police after the event.  How many mass shootings have you heard of where the shooter doesn’t off himself afterwards?  He let himself be taken in peacefully.  He wanted to see it unfold just as much as any of us do."

And yet, with these James Holmes Memes and things related to it...we've given him EXACTLY what he wanted...FAME. And this is still not the worst part. The next worst part is unfortunately people's reaction. The people who make these memes, the people who post them and the people who laugh at them. We've unfortunately become a society where "If it doesn't effect me, I don't care about it." and we subscribe to that mentally to EVERYTHING, and when something DOES effect us, we IMMEDIATELY want the entire world to pissed off along with us only to receive a simple "Meh." as a reply. Unfortunately this tragedy has gotten the same reaction, and ANYONE who DARES point out that inappropriate nature of making fun of such a horrific situation, you are labled as a "Moralfag".


What has me enraged is the following exchange below, between 3 people on Knowyourmeme.com, a website I frequent due to my enjoyment of "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic", but that's neither here nor there. This exchange was taken from the James Holmes page, and unless Knowyourmeme, deletes that page it will be available for your review. The comments are as followed:
 

"Moralfag". So apparently you're a "moralfag" if you're appalled at the OBVIOUS praise of a mass murderer. Yeah, because you really shouldn't be appalled by mass murder simply because...

Despite the truth of this comment that DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO PRAISE THE PEOPLE WHO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE!! There's a thin line between mockery and praise.

As an example, Hitler is a character of note and is often lampooned and parodied in various ways, most humorously by The 3 Stooges. But understand that Hitler wanted to be taken seriously as a leader and war hero, and by the many parodies Hitler's legacy is one we scoff and laugh at, because of his ridiculous mustache, his constant look of having flop-sweat ect. ect. BUT James Holmes WANTED to become The Joker and these memes and those commentators have given him EXACTLY what he wants, so these ARE NOT parodies, this is PRAISE. I can't get over the fact that these people fail to recognize that this could have happened to them just as easily as ANYONE ELSE.

Personal story, I was recently robbed at gunpoint last month. I'm in a place now where I'm over it and can talk about it, but that's only because I'm alive to do so. I can't imagine the pain and heartache my girlfriend, my mother, my brother, my uncles, my cousins, my friends and so on would go through if I didn't survive that ordeal. Unfortunately for 12 people that night in Colorado their families, friends, husbands, wives, girlfriends, boyfriends, and so on have to deal with that pain...and then for someone sick vultures to poke fun at that by praising the murderer of their brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunt, girlfriends, boyfriends, friends, cousins, and so on ALL for the sake of some stupid "Internet Rule" that states "Nothing is sacred"...it really reflects where our society has gone.

"Doesn't effect me, so it's not my business." only until it DOES effect you and it becomes your business and the second you wanna look for help you run into someone with the SAME attitude...it makes for a bitter world. I'd just like to say that I am sickened and appalled by the individuals in those comments and if you know them personally I'd suggest you find better friends as they are obviously only friends of themselves. I won't extend to them to credit of "Doing it for the lulz" or the dignity of merely "trolling", their comments are sick, sadistic and reflective of who they are as human beings and it truly makes me sad that such people exist.

Which brings me to The Trayvon Martin Shooting, recently shooter George Zimmerman did an interview with Sean Hannity about the shooting, below is the video:

I'd like to address a few of his comments, specifically his comment about it (the shooting) being "god's plan"...this upsets me for MANY REASONS. The first of which, back when I was 13, I was a Dystheist, which means that I believed God exists, I just believed He was evil and more specifically He hated Black People...and given our history I would have quite a strong case to build. Also adding The Klu Klux Klan's utilization of Christian iconography and their use of The Bible to justify their violence, it's no small mystery why I would have such a horrid image of God. Thankfully, as I grew I studied the Bible more thoroughly and discovered that The KKK were wrong about EVERYTHING, and that in fact God loves us all. So when Zimmerman says that it was God's plan for him to murder a 16 year old boy walking home with ice tea and Skittles...I'm sorry but I fail to see how. I'm not going to deny that God hasn't done strange things in history, but I am VERY against the idea of merely throwing His name behind any horrible action to justify it.

And this is unfortunately what gives Christianity a bad name, people who CLAIM to be Christians and then do horrible things in the name of Christianity...namely Anders Behring Breivik, the shooter in Oslo, Norway last year. Everyone claimed him to be a Christian Terrorist and the face of Christian Terrorism (which is an oxymoron), however one look into Breivik's ideology and you can see that he is NO WHERE NEAR CHRISTIAN. 
And yet people will still go on saying "HE SAID HE WAS A CHRISTIAN AND HE KILLED THOSE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF CHRISTIANITY!" despite that fact that from his OWN WORDS he confessed to NOT being a Christian. So what does all of this have to do with Zimmerman ? Well, he's ONCE AGAIN re-enforcing that ideology that you can do horrible things to people, slap God's name on it and everything's fine. That's a little thing we call BLASPHEMY!!

Unfortunately people don't care, they hear the name "God" and immediately assume that the person saying it is representing their faith. The WORST thing about Christianity are Christians themselves, we are fallen, sinful creatures and because of that we will constantly fall short in the eyes of our fellow man. I, myself am a recovering porn addict and I make no qualms about my past, I swear like it's going out of style, and I have a temper, but EACH AND EVERYDAY I am trying to stay away from porn, not to swear so much and keep my temper in check to glorify my God. Because that's the object of Christianity, not to smile and clap your hands in church, but to be CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF CHRIST!

Each and everyday a Christian should be striving to be more and more like Jesus. So once again, how does ALL of this tie in with Zimmerman? Because he used God as an excuse to murder someone...but what does Jesus have to say about that ? John 16:1-4

“ These things I have spoken to you so that you may be kept from stumbling. ² They will make you outcasts from the synagogue, but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think that he is offering service to God. ³ These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me. ⁴ But these things I have spoken to you, so that when their hour comes, you may remember that I told you of them. These things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you."

RIGHT THERE Jesus is talking about HYPOCRITES! People who will use God to commit acts of violence, slavery, and over horrible things and what does Jesus say about that ? "THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN THE FATHER OR ME!". Basically He's saying THEY ARE NOT BELIEVERS!  What else does Jesus say on the matter ? Matthew 5:44

"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"

There's more, Romans 12:16-21 YES! VERY CLEARLY we see that ANYONE who is a Christian is going to grab an AK-47 and start shooting people because God told them to...sadly, I know all of this will fall on deaf ears. George Zimmerman is WRONG, murder is NOT apart of God's plan. God allows sin to occur and murder IS a sin, but simply because God allows it does NOT make it apart of His plan and to say so is hubris, blasphemous and horrible.

The worst part of this is his unrepentant spirit. ASK ANY police officer and they will tell you that drawing their gun in the line of duty is a difficult thing to do. They may not regret shooting a murderer, but they most certainly regret it coming to a point where they have to kill someone. Any SANE people would want to go through life without the knowledge that they killed another person, BUT for Zimmerman to say that he does NOT regret shooting Trayvon and FOLLOWING Trayvon and CAUSING the incident that resulted in his death, for him to NOT regret it PROVES my previous point of him USING God.

A REAL Christian would regret killing ANYONE, even IF they deserved it, WHY?! Because it's truly an upsetting reality when the ONLY way to achieve peace is to take a life or lives (in terms of war). We Christians are called to MAKE PEACE and LIVE PEACEFULLY! Understand that I am NOT saying soldiers should return home from war and lament their actions and ask for God's forgiveness. Not at all! I am saying that soldiers DO however regret it having to come to war, having to leave their families, and face the unfortunate reality of having to kill people. Zimmerman however DOES NOT regret ANYTHING! He didn't return from fighting for our country, he did NOT return from shooting an armed criminal in the line of duty...he shot and killed a 17 year old boy who was unarmed...how could he have NO regrets? How could he even fix his lips to say that?

I remembered I was talking to a co-worker of mine and I felt like I was being a douche to her (she didn't think so) but I felt I was wrong and I IMMEDIATELY apologized to her. I DEEPLY regretted how I acted towards her, I didn't hurt her and she didn't even notice but I apologized NONETHELESS because I regretted how I treated her. But this man...who MURDERED a 17 year old boy doesn't regret it...not very Christian...so his conclusion where he "apologizes" to The Martin Family, how can you TRULY have an apology WITHOUT REGRET?! A soldier SHOULD NOT apologize for going to war but SHOULD regret that it had to come to war. But George Zimmerman REGRETS NOTHING and apologized...how is that possible?

I apologize for the length of this article but I'm going to bring this whole thing full circle, and thank you so sticking with me for as long as you have.

So what does George Zimmerman and this whole James Holmes thing have in common ? The shamefully blatant "I DON'T CARE!" attitude! In Zimmerman's case, he committed murder, killed a 17 year old boy WHEN HE DIDN'T HAVE TO, ON CAMERA said he DID NOT regret doing so, but then apologized, and in the commentors case, they PRAISED a man who MURDERED numerous people and DEFENDED their praise by using such clever words as "moralfag" to shout down anyone who would DARE accuse them of being inappropriate. Both Zimmerman and those individuals LACK human decency. 

In Zimmerman's case he USED GOD to justify his murder and as a Christian I am offended and I rebuke Zimmerman and pray for his repentance that God convicts him and shows him how sinful he truly is. In the case of The Commentors (who are clearly Atheists), ANY ATHEIST will tell you that the BEST rule to live by is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (which is ironically Luke 6:31, but we're not getting into that) UNFORTUNATELY these individuals FAIL to put themselves in such a situation where their loved ones are suddenly slaughtered in droves while innocently trying to watch a movie. Instead they'd rather PRAISE the man who killed those people and shun anyone who tells them they should not. Should those commentors find themselves in such a situation I DARE them to ask for sympathy. I DARE them to ask for respect. I DARE THEM!

Atheist or Christian, you can't deny that we have a LOT of work to do and it's NOT going to get done if we are constantly looking to ourselves for a solution. We as Christians have chosen to look outside ourselves and live by the rules laid out for us by the one we believe is our creator, and we believe that others should do the same, but if you disagree that is NOT a cause for violence or anger. Unfortunately we live in a world where disagreement is synonymous with hatred and violence solves everything. Maybe it's time we should learn to RESPECT each other without resorting to name calling. Maybe we SHOULD consider somethings sacred, if not for our sake but for the sake of OTHERS! Maybe we SHOULD think about respecting and helping other people before we so easily say "Doesn't effect me, not my problem.".

...but then again what do I know ? I'm just another "moralfag"....

No Moral Reason To Be Chaste ? Wrong.

This article hurts me, it hurts me because I'm writing this in response to a friend who made a claim that I could NOT ignore. He stated that there was "NO moral reason to be chaste." Needless to say I found this statement to be entirely false since my reasons for remaining chaste are completely moral, therefore my own virginity refutes his statement. But let's not take my word for it, let's examine the argument. Now, considering this is a Christian blog you're probably guessing that I'm gonna whip out my Bible and appeal to my Christianity to support my reasons for remaining chaste...well in 99.99% of the cases you'd be right, but in this case you're 100% wrong.  I am simply going to appeal to facts. Before I go any further I'd just like to say that me and the person I'm writing this article in response to are on speaking terms and I will send this to him once I am finished. Without further adieu, let's begin.

Can you imagine a world without STDs? Can you imagine a world where EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who their parents were? Can you imagine a world where babies weren't being killed before they even get to see the light of day? Such a world is 100% possible and the ONLY thing keeping that world from existing is our inability to keep it in our pants (and in ladies cases, keep your legs closed). This is NOT to call women whores and men lechers, rather this is to explain a very server problem with a very SIMPLE solution. I have never suffered from an STD, I have never faced the daunting reality of being ill prepared for an unexpected pregnancy, I have never felt the emotional weight of knowing my offspring was aborted. In a like manner I will never spread an STD, I will never cause a woman to become a mother without preparation and I will never cause a woman to get an abortion...Why? Because I haven't had sex.

I'm going to get a little personal here. Myself and my girlfriend are both virgins, neither of us have ever had sex. Considering we plan to get married, the only people we WILL be having sex with is with each other. In that realm the potential of catching an STD and spreading it is ZERO. People will often chime in and say things like "Married couples catch STDs too!" TRUE! But that's only if one of them were getting action outside the marriage. I know someone who recently caught herpes (very unfortunate) now the sad thing is the person he caught them from was completely unaware that she had them and she passed them along to that someone. You're telling me it's not moral to willingly limit the potential spread of a disease? How am I limiting it? By not having sex. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I don't have herpes, because I've never engaged in any activity to potentially get them.

The unfortunate thing about STDs is that some of them show NO symptoms therefore making some men/women carriers. The proper thing to do is to get tested, but how many people get tested after EVERY sexual encounter...I imagine not many...including porn stars. So these carriers are unsuspectingly infecting people, and some of those infected people become carriers themselves and they infect more people...and so on. So one moral reason to remain chaste is to limit the spread of STDs. I made a moral decision in my mind that I was not going to have sex because:

A) I didn't want to get infected.

B) I didn't want to infect anyone else.

Now you may consider this paranoid but I ask you to consider the statistics on STDs and weigh your chances. I know 2 people who had their FIRST sexual experience only to contract chlamydia and herpes. Call me a puritan, call me paranoid, call me negative BUT I know for a fact that when I have sex I won't have to worry about infecting my girlfriend with an STD because I was a carrier and vice-versa. Is that not a moral action to seek the protection of the one you love?

To move on to my next point, let's talk about Progeny. Unfortunately in the African American community there is a HUGE problem with progeny. Too many children are walking this Earth COMPLETELY unaware of who their father is, who their brothers and sisters are ect. ect. This is all because of Progeny. I hate to use this as an example BUT we've ALL seen The Maury Povich Show. This show is an unfortunate carnival of (more often than not) minority women who are DETERMINED to ascertain the progeny of their child...and they do this by parading several men on stage claiming them to be the father...why...because they had sex with every last one of those men. Each of those men have the potential to be that baby's father...and unfortunately the most celebrated moments on The Maury Povich Show are when the words "YOU ARE NOT FATHER!" are spoken, which causes the men to often leap out of their seats in an exclamation of GREAT joy.

I only post this to provide an example...

As darkly humorous as these moments are, we're ignoring a MAJOR problem here...a child is missing out on a father because of the mother's inability to remain chaste. Considering how many African American children DON'T know who their fathers are, each time this happens we should be crying our eyes out. Because children without fathers are more likely to engage in criminal activity (and considering I fall into this category, I have NOT engaged in any criminal activity, but I can't deny that according to statistics I am an anomaly). Not to mention a father's involvement in a child's life is CRITICAL to their development. My Friend (the person I am writing this article to) mentioned that his father died when he was 3, and even he expressed that he'd like to know his father. So even he understands the critical role Fatherhood plays in childhood development. To purposefully rob a child of that is one of the most cruel actions another human can commit without the shedding of blood.

So how can this problem be fixed? Once again, limiting your sexual encounters to ONE PERSON. When I have children I'll know EXACTLY who their mother is and they will know EXACTLY who their father is. If people followed such practices we would not have the abundance of undisciplined children roaming the streets as we do, and we wouldn't have phrases like "Mother's baby, Father's maybe." floating around. All of this can be accomplished by remaining chaste. And is not providing a children with a sense of familial identity a moral action?

But I skipped a step, how do we end up on The Maury Povich Show in the FIRST place? Lots of sex with multiple people and suddenly...maybe the tip of a condom wasn't pinched, maybe it split in some places, maybe he wanted to go raw dog that one time, regardless of how...all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. A baby that you're NOT prepared for AT ALL. A baby's that's gonna need your love and attention  and you've got college, or your job, or your English homework to worry about. This is an scenario that once again is prevalent in the African American community. Too many Too-Soon Mother end up raising children while they're children themselves and those children grow to lack discipline and other qualities that will aide them in being productive member of society. Why does this happen? Because somewhere down the line he/she got it in their heads that they were some how invincible from facing any consequences of having sex.

Sure condoms work, sure the pill works BUT the catch is you have to remember to put one on and you have to remember to take it. Let's be honest here, only the MOST responsible guys are going to stop when they discover they have no condoms. But in most cases, just one innocent "just this one time." ends up become Child support payments for the next 18 years of your life. I'm not currently facing that problem, not because I've always wore a condom or because my girlfriend always takes the pill after, but because we haven't had sex. So when we do get married and have sex we can have a discussion about potentially bringing children in this world (we both want to) instead of constantly having to worry about not having condoms and pills ect. ect. Unfortunately people don't think like this and we end up conceiving children before we're prepared to take care of them. Isn't preparing an environment where both parents are ready and willing to be parents for your child a moral action?

Same scenario as above, lots of sex, multiple people, something happens that shouldn't have happened and all of a sudden you've got a baby on your hands. Except this time things are different, you already have children, you can't afford another, or maybe your job is far too important for you to have to slow down for a child, your Ph.D is near complete, whatever the case maybe, having this baby will irrecoverably set you back a great deal. So you turn to abortion. Then comes the moral question on whether or not abortion is murder (no small clue to figure out where I stand on that issue). I can tell you with 100% certainty that my girlfriend won't have to deal with this issue, mostly because we want children (so the concept of an unwanted pregnancy won't be an issue) and we consider abortion murder. BUT I don't want a baby right now, neither does she and the BEST way to keep that from happening to remain chaste. If people were to do that we wouldn't have a need for abortion clinics.

All of these things I listed to you are NOT fantastically or unrealistic, BECAUSE I AM LIVING PROOF THAT IT'S POSSIBLE. This is NOT difficult (speaking from experience), this is from making intelligent decisions based on things I've learned in Sex education in High School. My mother didn't brow beat me into being Chaste, nor did my Church ostracize promiscuity beyond what any normal church would do. I was not taught that if I have sex I'm going to Hell, nor would I endorse that mode of thinking. I was not taught that sex was dirty. I was taught that Sex is the means of reproduction for (just about) all living species and that in most cases it feels VERY good (that part I'm looking forward to very much). One thing I was taught about sex is that if done wrong, HORRIBLE things can happen and considering the state of our world as it is today, they already have. 

STDs are in abundance, children without fathers, abortions, all of these problem can be solved by the SINGLE action of remaining chaste. Now, as I have said earlier in this article that DO plan of having sex, so I am not actually chaste, I am abstinent. But considering I haven't had sex AT ALL I am chaste de facto (hehe). I am NOT ordering people to NEVER have sex EVER...of course not, not even I would endorse such a suicidal plan. I am however instructing people to limit their sexual encounters to one person. Oh but Ugo, that's unrealistic! Is it? People have done it before...people ARE doing it now...you mean to tell me that having sex with just one person is an unrealistic goal...that's rather sad. Oh but Ugo how are you ever gonna get good at sex if you only have sex with one person? (I've been asked this question before and it makes me roll my eyes.)

To answer that question I'm going to use a video game reference and use some "wisdom" other people have told me about sex. I was told that "Not every woman is the same.", with that in mind let me move on to my video game analogy: If I wanted to get good at playing "Halo", I am NOT going to play "Final Fantasy"! Same system (female), different controls (likes and dislikes), and an over all different tactic to play (positions).  Meaning if I'm gonna get good at playing "Halo" I'm gonna play "Halo" until I learn everything there is to know about "Halo". In a like manner I plan on learning my wife and her learning me and us learning each other when we do have sex. Those who've had sex can't deny that it's a learning experience that only get better with practice, however for me I'll be able to apply what I've learned...the rest of you will have to learn a new woman all over again (that's only if you subscribe to that ideology). This was off topic...just felt like throwing that in there.

Anyway, I hope I've made a clear and logical choice on the morality of remaining chaste...at least I hope I did considering that these are the reasons I am not having sex yet. Now I will admit that if I was in a better financial situation I would be more open to the idea of premarital sex, but even then I'd have other things to consider that money couldn't solve. How's about that, an entire article on a Christian blog that DOESN'T make a SINGLE religious argument for chastity...hrm...almost makes me feel guilty, lol Heb 13:4. Thank you and God Bless.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001620/#adam_000594.disease.causes

Jesus, Republicans & The Bible...seriously ?

I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.

"Peaceful, Non-Violent, Radical, Revolutionary."

Yes, Jesus was peaceful BUT, Jesus was not 100% anti-violent. This is NOT to say that Jesus went around preaching violence, HOWEVER John 2:14-25, Jesus drove heathens out of the Temple. Now, how exactly did Jesus do this? He used a WHIP! It's right there in The Bible, check it out. Jesus attacked them with a Whip. Now you might be asking yourself, Why did Jesus do this? Well, because the heathens were defacing his Father's house. The Jews even noticed this and asked Him what authority did he do this under. This doesn't mean go out and attack people with a whip BUT this does mean that Jesus did react physically against morally corrupt practices going on in His father's house. So much for your non-violent angle. Oh and insult to injury here, Jesus in Luke 22:36 tells His followers to "sell your cloak and buy a SWORD". Which means that Jesus was NOT against self-defense, and understood the need for such things. To support the non-violent aspect though, Jesus did react negatively when Peter cut the ear off of The Roman soldier who arrested Jesus, Luke 22:49-51. However Jesus wasn't having it and healed the soldier's ear. Why ? Because Jesus understood what needed to be done and was willing to go peacefully. So yeah wrong there Mr. Fugelsang. Also, you'll notice I'm using citations to validate point.

 "Hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals"

Yep. Jesus did all those things. Note, He did NOT advocate their activity though.

"Never spoke English and not an American citizen."

Also correct.

"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Wealth"

WRONG! Jesus never taught any exact political system (mostly because Christianity can work in any political system that will allow it to work). Jesus may have not taught capitalism BUT Mr. Fugelsang's words were "ANTI-CAPITALISM" which means He was AGAINST Capitalism. Now where would we find Jesus teaching against Capitalism? Nowhere. Jesus and The Bible do speak a lot about sharing though, Romans 12:10-13, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Tim 6:17-18, Hebrews 13:15-16. So The Bible teaches sharing...but ANTI-CAPITALISM?! Not at all. First of all in order to SHARE something you'd have to OWN something to begin with. Furthermore let's take a look at Acts 5:1-11, specifically verse 4 where Peter reveals Ananias OWNED the land. Therefore Peter was attempting to BUY some land, Buying implies that someone OWNED the land in order to sell it. Now, IF Peter was a follower of Jesus (and if Jesus was ANTI-CAPITALISM as Mr. Fugelsang said) then Peter would have had to rebuke the man and shun him for being selfish with the land that was rightfully everyone's. But no, Peter even told Ananias that if he didn't want to sell the land, he didn't have to! So obviously Jesus was HEAVY on sharing but was NOT anti-capitalism by ANY stretch of the imagination. 

This anti-rich part makes me laugh A LOT. For someone who claimed to have a pretty exclusive Christian background (Catholic...not the same thing) he really doesn't know much about the teachings of Jesus. Let's start at the beginning shall we? Jesus is God in the flesh (this is what Christians believe John 8:48...I could go on). So Jesus is God in The Flesh. In The Old Testament there was a man who was called a man after God's own heart, this man later became King. I'm talking about David. David was King...King equals rich. David was very rich and VERY blessed by God (keep in mind Jesus came from David's lineage)., So what does this tell you about rich people and their relationship to God? God is NOT ANTI-RICH, THEREFORE JESUS ISN'T EITHER! Jesus is against THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Why can't anyone understand this? Just to be redundant let's review the little scene in Luke 18:18-25 (crack open your Bibles, NOW!).

The Rich Ruler calls Jesus "Good.". Jesus answers this with a VERY important question that The Rich Ruler does NOT catch, nor respond to BUT this is a VERY critical part of understanding this text. Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.". If The Rich Ruler were paying attention he would have heard the subtext of the question, just in case you missed it, allow me to clean it up for you. Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler if he was calling him God (once again Jesus is God in the Flesh). Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler this question because He wanted to make this guy knew who he was talking to (and apparently he didn't). So Jesus lists the bottom 5 commandants and ignores the top 5 (I'll explain why in a bit). The Rich Ruler confirms that he has kept those commandants and then Jesus tells him to SELL EVERYTHING he owns and join Him. The Rich Ruler is OBVIOUSLY disheartened by this answer and leaves. 

The COMMON misconception here is that Jesus literally wanted this man to sell everything and join Him, and why wouldn't that be a misconception, that's EXACTLY what Jesus said is it not? Yes, but here's where the topic of those missing 5 commandants come into play. The 10 Commandants are divided into 2 sets. The first 5 are man's responsibility before God, the second 5 are man's responsibility to each other. The Rich Ruler was doing great on his responsibilities to his fellow man but his responsibilities before God were LACKING VERY MUCH SO. How do I know this? Because Jesus was able to see into the man's heart (once again Jesus is God) and Jesus saw that The Rich Ruler loved his money more so than God. If The Rich Ruler DID love God, he would have been more than willing to sell his possessions. Jesus wasn't condemning the man for being rich, he was condemning the man for his unwillingness to part with his riches for eternal life (which to be fair it was The Ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life). Basically if The Rich Ruler REALLY wanted eternal life, he would have agreed. I doubt Jesus would have made him sell everything BUT the willingness of The Ruler would have shown Jesus that The Rich Ruler was down for the cause all the way, instead The Rich Ruler exposed his true nature. JESUS IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BEING RICH! DAVID WAS RICH! SOLOMON WAS RICH! ESTHER WAS RICH! JESUS IS AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Matt 6:24,Luke 16:13,1 Tim 6:10, Hebrews 13:5! Once again, citations.

"Anti-public prayer"

Seriously? Wow...this is a MAJOR swing and miss Mr. Fugelsang...so far you just got a few right. But this is just sad. Okay, let's look at Matthew 6:5 because that's the ONLY one He gives a citation for...and didn't research it completely, so leave it to me to come in and clean things up. Let's get started. Jesus was instructing His disciples to not be like hypocrites who pray for show. Jesus was NOT ANTI-PUBLIC prayer. Now Jesus DID preach to pray in private, Matthew 6:6-14. But Jesus is mostly discouraging making a spectacle of prayer. If a massive gathering of people decide to pray on the beach or at a camp site or event at school, Jesus isn't going to shake a finger at them. Jesus makes that clear when He says "so that they may be seen by men". Once again Jesus is God and He's talking about the intent of their actions, (ie, hoping people see how "holy" they are by praying in public). Jesus discourages this because their intention is NOT to seek an audience with God but rather to make a spectacle of themselves.

"Anti-Death Penalty"

Not true in a broader sense of the term, because Jesus is pretty much the invocation of The ULTIMATE DEATH penalty, (John 8:24). So was Jesus for the electric chair, lethal injection, ect. ect.? No, BUT He will bring judgment and a LOT of people are going to die, not only physically but eternally in Hellfire. But this is a broader sense of the term. However in The Old Testament who do find a Death penalty in effect. Death penalty is a societal issue and each society will judge if they choose to have one. Jesus made no pro or con about a death penalty for murders ect. ect. Death penalties are NOT about punishment, rather they're about justice. They are not meant to be cruel, they are meant to serve justice to those who have taken a life. For those who are anti-death penalty, you might as well be anti-war and anti-police as well because both of these jobs require you to kill when necessary (NOT out of punishment, out of justice and/or defense). God did not condemn David for killing Goliath, which shows that God understands the meaning of war and all that entails. So is Jesus anti-death penalty? No, but He wasn't exclusively pro-death penalty either...not making a very strong case here Mr. Fugelsang.

"Not anti-gay"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay, let's go to The Bible to Matthew 19:4-6. Here we see Jesus outlining what a marriage is. Notice, He says MALE AND FEMALE! And how wonderful is it that the text put those in all caps so I didn't have to. Don't give me that face as if homosexuals weren't as popular in that day as they are now (The Romans pretty much perfected homosexuality). Jesus makes it very clear, MALE AND FEMALE. Still not convinced? Okay, let's go to Leviticus 18. Specifically Lev 18:22. Once again, Jesus is God in the flesh (so if God says it Jesus agrees with it). Oh Ugo, that's the OLD testament! Okay, let's look at the new, specifically Romans 1:18-32. Very clearly there's a major anti-homosexual message here. Now Mr. Fugelsang, I have to GREATLY question your admiration of Jesus at this point. You claim to admire Him and Jesus affirms The Bible as His inspired word...so when Jesus' inspired word preaches a message that is clearly anti-homosexual, you claim that Jesus was never against it. So obviously you're picking and choosing what you want to believe about Jesus instead of who Jesus actually IS. This is NOT admiration. Furthermore 1 Cor 6:9.

"Didn't mention abortion."

If you mean Jesus used the word "abortion" no, He did not. BUT Jesus does state that "Thou shall not commit murder!" Matthew 19:18. I am 100% we can all agree on what murder is, right? Murder is the unlawful taking of someone's life. Prime example:

If a police officer is chasing a criminal and the criminal prepares to shoot a civilian in order to escape and the police officer shoots the criminal and kills him, we do not call that a murder. The Police officer was acting in the defense of a civilian. This is echoed in several other instances. As I've stated before David killed Goliath in the setting of war. In these cases not even God calls that murder. These are simply killings. Murder would be the aforementioned criminal shooting a civilian. There was no law or infraction made upon the criminal to shoot the civilian. Can we all agree on that? Good. So if Jesus commands us not to commit murder, and very clearly God makes a distinction between murder and killing, I ask you a very important question: What law did an embryo break in order to be killed? 

But you're already saying that abortion is NOT murder, okay so in order for it NOT to be a murder there MUST be a lawful reason WHY you're killing someone...otherwise it's murder. And I have done my research, embryos develop heartbeats as soon as 6 weeks! And as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and you actively seek to STOP that heartbeat, that in my mind is murder. And consider this Ex 21:22-23. Please note that this does NOT specify AT WHAT TERM this is acceptable. Now there are people who will argue the following:

This was a comment in response to "180 The Movie" found on Youtube. The username has been blurred out to protect the innocent and the section I am arguing has been highlighted.

A fetus will GROW into a person, so it may not be a person YET but it will grow to be one. In a similar fashion a seed is NOT an apple tree YET, but it will GROW to be one (this is not a disputable fact). So saying that a fetus is not a person is to deny the fact that it will be a person. As far as not having thoughts, feeling, self-awareness or complex interpersonal relationships...first of all, coma patients don't have feelings (how can they? They're in comas). Self-awareness, most mentally retarded children aren't self-aware and once again, neither are people in comas. And interpersonal relationships, the fetus's FIRST interpersonal relationship is with THE MOTHER, so that's a foolish argument to make on all accounts. And considering the logical conclusion I've drawn here, Jesus is against abortion, He just never used the word "abortion". 

"Didn't mention premarital sex"

So that whole thing about looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:27-28 had NOTHING to do with premarital sex. Considering that Jesus emphasized marriage Matthew 19, and condemned fornicators in Matthew 15:19-20. Furthermore, Jesus' points are echoed in Acts 15:29, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and in Hebrews 13:4. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Jesus taught against premarital sex. Once again, I've got citations, all you've got is well..pretty much your word and so far it's not looking very reliable.

"Never justified torture."

You're 100% right. Jesus was not pro-torture.

"Never called the poor lazy."

Right.

"Never asked a leper for a co-pay."

Right.

"Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthy Nazereans."

Right.

"Long haired, brown skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew."

 Okay, quick issue. Although I won't deny that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, going to Revelation to support this is NOT the best way to go and here's why. Revelation is an EXTREMELY coded book FILLED with Jewish iconography and symbology of the day that only The Jews of that time would understand. The verse Mr. Fugelsang is referring to is Rev 1:12-14. HOWEVER, you have to understand that "Wool" and "Bronze" were not straight forward terms like they are today, whether they meant something different in that time. Consider the visions in Daniel 2. Each material and animal was reflective of 4 rising empires. It's all very hard to explain so I suggest pulling out a Bible a research it for yourselves. Long story short, a LOT of Revelation is symbolic language. ONCE again, I am NOT denying that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, I'm just saying Revelation ain't to place to go proving that. Gun to my head, if I HAD to guess what Jesus MAY have looked like, I'd immediately pick:

I'd go so far as to Jesus was probably just as built as Naveen Andrews to, considering Jesus was a carpenter and all.

"Of course that's only if you actually believe what's in The Bible."

Well Mr. Fugelsang, I suggest you stick to comedy as your knowledge of The Bible and Jesus is pretty flawed, which amazes me because you said you admire Him. I think you just admire the image you made up of Him in your mind, because the TRUE Jesus would rebuke you for distorting His word to suit your own political alignment. Now, I'll leave the case to you, the reader, which one of us made a more clear case for our position? The person offering citations, references and logic to support their position or the person who was merely making statement after statement without context? The choice is obvious. I suggest YOU read your Bible Mr. Fugelsang and believe what's in there. Thank you all and God bless.

Poison. Wait, WHAT?!

"What they've been mislead into what they think their Bible tells them." ? Good one Cenk, good one, anyone else who doesn't do any research would get fooled but not me. First of all, I'd like to point out that Cenk failed to provide a citation. Not to resort to internet speak here but if you're going to make a reference to something written PROVIDE A CITATION! ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT VALIDATES YOUR POINT! Basically anyone who just agreed with Cenk without asking for a citation is simply believing what they're told rather than researching it themselves (hypocrisy much?). I'd like to say that at this point in time I am STILL searching for whatever it was Cenk was referencing and have thus far found bumpkis.

*Jan. 30th, 2012, 5:46pm* FOUND IT! Let's take a look at it: Numbers 5

Cenk clearly said "poison" and unfortunately for him the text does not. The text Numbers 5:17 clearly says "dust" from the floor of the tabernacle. Dust and poison are two completely different things for anyone who wants to argue semantics. So what we have here is a symbolic ritual as opposed to poisoning someone. Drinking water with dust in it wouldn't cause a person's thighs to swell ect. ect. and it certainly wouldn't cause immediate death. Furthermore nowhere in here is abortion or forced miscarriages looked upon favorably, once again Cenk I gotta question how thoroughly you researched this.

 Considering that in those ages Child bearing was incredibly important to a woman's worth (I am NOT arguing that it should be now, women are worth a lot more than the ability to have children), at any rate the prospect of NOT being able to bare children is a terrifying concept to a woman in those times. So again, where's this favorable look ? Now being a Bible Believing Christian and not a Nominal Christian I believe that in THOSE time before DNA tests ect. ect. God was that involved with people where He WOULD do as He promised and spare the innocent the consequence of of never baring children again.  Also would a little dirt in the water cause someone to NEVER BARE CHILDREN AGAIN ? Doubtful. Might make you sick for a couple of days but it wouldn't stop you from pro-creating period. Now let's look at what Cenk says in the video;

1) Never mentions abortion specifically...
If you mean in terms of using the word "abortion" it's self, no. BUT Exodus  21:22-23 makes the case that a child in the womb is a living creature. And I'd like to point out that if there's something to take out of a woman there was something growing there as well. Furthermore embryos develops a heartbeat around 5 to 6 weeks of gestation, and as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and something purposefully stops it's heart from beating, I consider that murder. Because let's face it you can't kill anything that doesn't have a heartbeat. So again, it's not  mentioned specifically BUT it is hinted at in more than one way. If people back in those days had the ability to abort babies as we do now the language would be very different.

2) We already discussed the favorable thing, so no need in beating that dead horse.

I find it funny that when a non-believer says something about The Bible everyone is so willing to listen to them REGARDLESS of whether or not a citation is given but when a Christian provides a citation those SAME people will IMMEDIATELY ignore the context and go with what the non-believer said. Funny...

The Bible Is Repulsive....REFUTED !

In this argument, the writer of this article proposes that The Bible is repulsive. I am writing this to both refute this claim and prove why The Bible is not repulsive. His first argument involves several verses from THE OLD TESTAMENT, I'll explain why I capitalized that in a second. Here is the opening argument:
_______________________________________________________________________
Example 1
The vast majority of Americans believe that God exists, that Jesus is his son, and that God himself gave us the Bible and the Ten Commandments. In fact, Supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia has said that "Ninety-nine percent of Americans believe in the ten commandments." He has also said, "What the commandments stand for is the direction of human affairs by God."
If 99% of Americans believe in the ten commandments, how can the Bible be repulsive? Let's take the fourth commandment as an example. It says:

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. [Exodus 20: 8-9]

This, supposedly, is the word of God, the almighty ruler of the universe. Now think about this. Wal-mart is open on the Sabbath. And so is Target. Best buy is open on the Sabbath. And so is Circuit City. Home Depot is open on the Sabbath. And so is Lowes. In fact, millions of businesses in America have employees working on the Sabbath. Even Christian Family Bookstores has employees working on the Sabbath. What should we do with all of these people who are breaking the fourth commandment? In the Bible's book of exodus - the same book that contains the ten commandments – the Bible tells us what to do with everyone who breaks the fourth commandment. Exodus 31 verse 15 tells us exactly what to do:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.

That's right. The Bible commands the death penalty for anyone who works on the Sabbath, and we should obey. Right? This means we have to kill tens of millions of Americans. Should we line these tens of millions of Americans up and shoot them? Should we put them in giant gas chambers? I think we can all agree that the thought of killing millions of innocent Americans is repulsive. A book this repulsive has no place in our society. And make no mistake about it - the bible really means what it says. It fully intends to be repulsive. In Isaiah 40 verse 8 the Bible says:

"The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God will stand for ever." [Isaiah 40 verse 8]

The Bible says the same thing in 1 Peter 1 verses 24 and 25. And in Psalm 19:7 the Bible says:
"The law of the Lord is perfect."

Since the laws of the Bible are perfect, they should never change. And then there is this. In Matthew 5 verse 20 Jesus says:

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven". - Matthew 5:20

According to Jesus, we must follow the laws of the Bible. Do you believe that we should kill millions of innocent people because they work on the Sabbath? If not, do you want a book this repulsive to be quoted in public? Read to children? Used in our courts of law?
________________________________________________________________________
Okay, now of course after reading that, you're wondering how am I gonna refute this ? I mean the argument above sounds pretty solid. Very solid actually. And now I shall debunk this. Remember when I capitalized THE OLD TESTAMENT? Well that's actually very important for interrupting The Bible. You see think of The Bible as no one book but two books. I bet most people who haven't read The Bible can not explain why they separate The Old and New Testament, one answer: Jesus. In the Old Testament, the people if Israel needed a law to follow until the actual law (Jesus) arrived on Earth. The thing is that in the Old Testament, man had to deal FIRST HAND with God's wrath. In order to be safe from God's wrath they had to follow His law. Those who did not follow God's law would be better off dead than deal with God's wrath. The thing is with Israel when one of them screwed up, they all paid. Mostly because they have to look out for each other. Also if the writer of this article actually READ The Bible, he'd realize that once Jesus arrived there was NO NEED for the old law. For further explanation please consult a minister or theologist. Here is the second argument, dealing with people that God wants you to kill. Again quotes from The OLD TESTAMENT. The argument is as followed:
________________________________________________________________________

Example 2
The Bible wants us to kill most people in America. For example, the first commandment says, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." What are we supposed to do with everyone who doesn't believe in God? We are supposed to Kill them. Deuteronomy chapter 17 says that we are supposed to stone non-believers to death.

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky… Take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. – Deut 17:2-7

In 2 Chronicles 15:12-13:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. - 2 Chron 15:12-13

Deuteronomy 13:13-19:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases…you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 13:7-12:
If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods …do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. - Deut 13:7-12

What if you take the name of the lord in vain? Leviticus chapter 24 verse 16 says:
Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. – Lev 24:16

The Bible is quite clear. We must kill everyone who does not believe in God. There are approximately 30 million people in America who do not believe in any God. There are tens of million more who believe in gods other than the God of the Bible. The Bible commands that we kill them all.

And keep in mind that the word of the Lord lasts forever, and the law of the lord is perfect.
Think of this as a Christian Jihad. The idea of killing tens of millions of people because they don't believe in God is repulsive.
________________________________________________________________________
Ouch, once again a very sound argument but riddled with ignorance as to what he's really talking about. This again refers the answer above. If anyone has read The Bible and the book Lamentations, they EXPLAIN CLEARLY that if they screw up will have to deal with GOD'S WRATH. But again, these are quotes from THE OLD TESTAMENT, where The Israelelits were put in charge of enforcing THE LAW or deal with God's wrath. I mean you take your pick, if you're a boat and some guy keeps rocking the boat, you're all gonna die. Now you can ask him to stop and risk him not doing, so you can push him over the edge and save yourself. You understand? But again the write of the article above continues to use The Old Testament to apply to today and WE NO LONGER NEED TO, because Jesus changed the law. Moving on to the next argument:
_______________________________________________________________________
Example 3
If you curse your father and mother you are to be killed:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:9

Example 4
If you commit adultery you are to be killed:
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10

Example 5
If you happen to be homosexual you are to be killed.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death. - Leviticus 20:13
________________________________________________________________________
Again, more quotes from THE OLD TESTAMENT. And Numbers 3 and 4 shouldn't even be included and here's why.

About Number 3, I'm sure we can all agree that sometimes our parents do things we do not agree with. We've all been in that boat before, that's nothing new. However The Bible stresses the point of cursing your mother and father, and by that I imagine saying things such as: I HATE YOU, I HOPE YOU DIE…things along that nature and actually meaning it. Of course parent and children will get into arguments but truth is we should always understand who they are and who they are to us. This maybe hard for those who had hard childhood.

Number 4 is and I'm pretty sure a VERY WEAK DEFENSE. I mean if someone banged you're wife the LAST thing you're gonna think about is "Oh man, this is wrong.". No you're gonna wanna kick that guy's ass. Again this is a cause for concern back in those days because of GOD'S WARTH. And again you really shouldn't commit adultery to begin with, so really that was a dumb argument.

Number 5 has been under much debate and I'll give my opinion on this subject ONCE, and only ONCE. Personally I have nothing against Homosexuals or Bisexuals. To me, People are People, always was, always will be. However, I will never refer to Homosexuality as normal, and here's why. Simply because it renders NO RESULT. Imagine our world and every last woman died. Without some form of female counterpart, EVERYMAN WILL DIE. Same goes for women. A Man and A Woman comes together and a baby is the end result. It preserves humanity, A Man and A Man comes together and…nothing. A Woman and A Woman comes together and…nothing. Personally I think people are under the belief that sex is simply for pleasure when in actuality it was made to benefit and continue humanity. I WILL NOT, say that Homosexual are immoral. I wouldn't say that. I know many homosexuals who are very moral. And Homosexuality is NOT a moral issue. I will NOT call it normal and I will NOT advocate it. But on another not, I will NOT prosecute anyone for being homosexual nor will condone the prosecution of homosexuals. They are NOT for me to judge, I will simply accept them as people and move on. You can call me a jerk, ass-hole, close-minded, whatever, that was my opinion and that's all I gotta say about that.
________________________________________________________________________

Example 6
Here's another example of the Bible's idiocy. Rebellious teenagers should all be killed as well. Here's what the Bible says in Deuteronomy chapter 21:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall ... say to the elders of his town, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. - Deut 21
Think about how many American teenagers need to die.
________________________________________________________________________

Again, a quote from THE OLD TESTAMENT ! Give now unless your parents tell you to do something like kill your best friend or rob a bank, there is no actual reason to disobey them. And this also states "who does not heed them they discipline him". That means if you did something bad and then got a spanking and then did it again, and keep doing it obviously that would be considered bad on your part. And again, remember by boat analogy. Just another person rocking the boat. Moving to the next argument:
________________________________________________________________________
Example 7
In Matthew 18 verses 7 through 9, Jesus speaks:
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. - Matthew 18:7-9
This verse is repulsive on three levels:
It is repulsive because Jesus is such an idiot here. He is completely wrong.
It is repulsive because it demands that people maim themselves.
It is repulsive because the entire concept of "hell" is repulsive.
Jesus is an idiot. Cutting off your hand or gouging out an eye accomplishes nothing. If you are having a problem with unproductive behaviors, what you need to do is talk with a counselor or see a therapist. Self-amputation is absurd and repulsive. Jesus dispenses advice that is completely useless, and recklessly dangerous as well.
________________________________________________________________________
This I like, because it shows the writers ignorance as to what Jesus actually means in this sentence. People who do not believe Jesus will often misquote him or misunderstand him. And in this case, the writer missed the point entirely. Allow me to clear this up for you.

I was over a friends house watching "Jackass 2". In one segment Bam had a penis branded on his ass. After being branded Bam said and I quote: "I'd rather tear my dick off and throw it in the river than go through that again."

Consider that for a second and let's get back on track. The Writer would suggest that Bam would ACTUALLY tear his penis off. This we know is false. What Jesus is saying in this quote is not to maim yourself. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HARM YOURSELF! The point of this quote is to say that "It would be better for you to be cripple and maimed than go to HELL!" THAT IS WHAT HE IS SAYING! He is saying that Sinning will ultimately put you in Hell. And he is saying: That going to such extreme measures to avoid sinning, that would be better than going to HELL. But obviously Jesus does not want you to harm yourself…and once more for the people in the back HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO HARM YOURSELF! Do you get that ? You understand ? Alrighty, moving along:
________________________________________________________________________
Example 8
The Bible's absolute sexism is well known, and it is repulsive. Here are two examples:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. - 1 Corinthians 14
And:
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. - 1 Tim 2
We can find dozens of verses that are just as sexist. The Bible's sexism is both ridiculous and repulsive.
________________________________________________________________________

Oh, finally some NEW TESTAMENT stuff. Alright, I'll admit these verses do not sound flattering at all to women. But allow me to explain. We have to understand that the Bible was written by people of The Jewish persuasion. And back in those days Men were commanded to be the head of the house, the people who must maintain everything. The verse from Corinthians is not saying that women have to shut up in the church, no. It's saying that a Man is supposed to be the one to educate his family on God. That's the man's role in their society. By saying it's disgraceful it's saying that a woman has no place performing a man's task. Now, before you say "Well that is sexist." LISTEN, societies since the dawn of time has had specific jobs for both men and women, that is NOTHING NEW. What this verse is saying is that this task is a man's job. That's all it's saying. The verse from 1st Timothy enforces that. It simply discusses conduct within the church not conduct everywhere. And again we must remember that these people ARE JEWISH! And things for them were A LOT different than they are now.

Also to write The Bible off as fully sexist is not only stupid but false, and here's why: 1 Tim 3:1-12, Col 3:18-19, Eph 5:22-33. There was a man named Hamman who had a plan to exterminate every LAST JEW. A WOMAN stopped him, not only that she had him killed. I'm talking about the book of Esther. Ruth was in battle with her husband. There was a man who had 10,000 chariots at his command, warriors were afraid of THIS MAN and A WOMAN killed him, with little to NO EFFORT AT ALL. Not only that but a WOMAN got full credit for the birth of Jesus. Notice how Joseph isn't mentioned at all after Jesus's birth. Catholics honor MARY ! A WOMAN. Ergo, The Bible is not a sexits document. And I seriously doubt that Women within The Church would support or read The Bible if it was sexist. Moving right along:
________________________________________________________________________
Example 9
The Bible fully supports slavery. In fact, the Bible has been used in many cases, including the American civil war, as an authoritative justification of slavery. Here are three examples.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life. - Leviticus 25:44
Also:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. - Exodus Chapter 21:20
Also:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity. - Titus 2:9
You can see that, according to the Bible:
Buying and selling slaves is fine.
Beating slaves is fine.
Slaves are to show entire and true fidelity.
If you are an intelligent person, you know that he entire idea of slavery is repulsive.
________________________________________________________________________
Many times than not, Slaves back in Biblical times became slaves as a result of war. The prisoners who were captured became slaves. They DID NOT randomly kidnap people from their countries and force them into slave labor. And as you can clearly see by the verses above, the slaves did indeed have rights. If you read the verse around the Leviticus verse quoted you would see that that section is entirely devoted to conduct regarding the treatment of slaves. These verses have been quoted out of context and until the writer acknowledges the surrounding verses I have nothing more to say on this matter, except for THIS DOES NOT give you the right to randomly kidnap someone and say "You're my slave, serve me." And I doubt that me being an African American would support a document honoring and permitting slavery.
________________________________________________________________________
Example 10
The Bible is riddled with repulsion. Take, for example, this verse:
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. - Isaiah 13
Or this:
Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. - Hosea 13
Or this:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - Numbers 31
________________________________________________________________________
The verse from Isaiah is from Chapter 13, a verse in which Isaiah is telling the Babylonians what WILL happen if they do not worship the Lord. It sounds repulsive because it is, obviously Isaiah did not wish this to happen to them and told them. Same goes with the verse quoted from Hosea. The verse quoted from Numbers the people who were killed caused a plague among the Israelites, if the write continued on, Moses commanded the people who had done the killing to remain outside the camp from a number of days and had their clothes purified. Another case of misquoting.

I'd like to close by saying that since the history of time there have been people who having criticized The Bible left and right and up and down and have FAILED. And for future reference anyone who does criticizes The Bible WILL FAIL. And I'm not saying this because Jesus said so or because God said so. I'm saying this because I have found out for my self that there is always, ALWAYS an answer to every criticism The Bible encounters. That's all. Thank you for listening, God Bless, Many thanks and much love.