Oklahoma is banning atheists (and others) from getting married

THIS week the US state of Oklahoma has seen fit to restrict marriage to people of faith.

A bill that would restrict the right to marry to people of faith and require all marriage licenses to be approved by a member of clergy was approved by the Oklahoma state House .

House Bill 1125, which would effectively ban all secular marriages in the state, was passed by a Republican majority and will now go to the state Senate for consideration.

“Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage,” said one of the bill’s Republican supporters Rep. Dennis Johnson, though marriage is a legal contract.

It seems this bill isn’t fuelled by a desire to segregate atheists however but is a thinly-veiled attack on gay marriage. By restricting the issuing of marriage licenses to the clergy and not judges and court clerks, the bill would make it harder for same-sex marriages to take place.

Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, said that the community would ‘fight back’ against the ‘discriminatory legislation’ – but added that there was a silver lining.

‘There are… 160 members of the clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people [in Oklahoma],’ he said.


90 thoughts on “Oklahoma is banning atheists (and others) from getting married

  1. There were two commercials on SBS concerning marriage. Both received a large number of complaints. One was pulled the other not.

    The commercial advertising adultery and showing a women organising a one night stand behind her husband’s back or a man looking for someone other than her wife was not pulled. The commercial concerning traditional marriage was pulled.


    • Today:

      “I’m writing to you because I’m letting myself out of the closet: I don’t support gay marriage. But it might not be for the reasons that you think. It’s not because you’re gay. I love you, so much. It’s because of the nature of the same-sex relationship itself,” she said. “Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child while telling him or her that it doesn’t matter. That it’s all the same. But it’s not. A lot of us, a lot of your kids, are hurting. My father’s absence created a huge hole in me, and I ached every day for a dad. I loved my mum’s partner, but another mum could never have replaced the father I lost.”



      • “Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a child…”

        It doesn’t matter how many times this old a chestnut is presented, it remains fallacious. (a) same sex couple can keep natural parents in a childs life if they choose. (b) Marriage is NOT about children. People can get married and choose not to have them. Unmarried people have children. Married people get divorced and children get split from natural parents (as in Heather Barwick’s case). (c) Gay people can have children regards of whether they are allowed to marry.

        Legalising same sex marriage will not change these facts.

        Opposition to same sex marriage should be seen to be what it actually is: homophobia.

        “If you think legalising same sex marriage will affect your traditional marriage, either you or your partner, is gay.” Anon.


      • ???? “Opposition to same sex marriage should be seen to be what it actually is: homophobia.”
        And I am NOT ‘phobic’:- ” Phobic- Noun – Someone with an irrational fear of something.” —-Oxford

        …… Actually, what I object to is the acceptance of the perversion.
        Of both the practice and ~ perhaps more particularly ~ the language.
        Homosexuality is as unnatural as is religion.
        …and as much a perversion of nature.
        What’s more, I sometimes marvel at how casually the godbotherers among you discard ‘The Word Of God’ in order to impress the contemporary world with your trendy, politically-correct attitude(s).


      • So because her dad didn’t bother taking part in her lief as a child then her mother shouldn’t be able to have a fulfilling relationship with another woman.


      • Dabs, semantics aside (there’s a common understanding of what homophobia means in everyday parlance) the statement “Homosexuality is as unnatural as is religion” is factually incorrect. There’s scientific evidence of same sex attraction and homosexual behaviour in a multitude of species. “Irrational” seems like an appropriate descriptor to your characterisation of homosexuality as a “perversion”.


      • “So because her dad didn’t bother taking part in her lief as a child then her mother shouldn’t be able to have a fulfilling relationship with another woman.”

        No, I don’t think that’s what she is implying.

        “I’m not gay, but the relationship that was modelled before me was a woman loving a woman. So I’ve struggled as an adult figuring out how to be in a relationship with my husband,” she said.

        I can see that happening.


      • ??? “There’s scientific evidence of same sex attraction and homosexual behaviour in a multitude of species.”

        Yeah, I’ve heard that claimed from time to time ~ but NEVER been shown a verifiable example. Dogs mounting dogs is a dominance thing ~ the only sexual context being that the dominant male gets the females ~ or at least his pick of them. I’ll certainly look objectively at any you care to provide.

        However, if there WERE such examples they would:-
        (a) be perversions of ‘the nature of the beast’ ~ which nature is oriented towards
        procreation of the species, and
        (b) self-defeating. because, obviously, it’s not a trait which is passed on genetically to a ‘homosexual’ animal’s offspring.
        Neither nature nor god work in such sloppy ways.

        As ‘sloppy’ I might suggest as trying to divorce semantics from the use of language: “everyday parlance”, where anything can mean anything, notwithstanding.

        On that score I could myself have been more precise. What I meant was ” Actually, what I object to is the acceptance of the perversion” …as natural.
        Cancer cells, too, occur in nature, but yet are a perversion of the natural organism.
        And, like homosexuality, serve no purpose in the furtherance of the organism.

        In any case, as an anarchist I don’t care what consenting adults do ~ perverted or otherwise…..to the same degree that I insist upon my right to have and express an opinion on what they do, whether that’s politically correct or not.


      • Indeed –> “Legalising same sex marriage will not change these facts.”
        Your ‘facts’ apply equally to the legalisation of paedophilia.
        And I think you’re wrong. What IS marriage about if NOT the child?


      • Dabs.

        “…but NEVER been shown a verifiable example.”

        Bonobo apes. Please ask me for more evidence and further examples.

        “Neither nature nor god work in such sloppy ways.”

        Hence the routine requirement to remove the appendix from time to time. And remnant wings on Emus.

        “And, like homosexuality, serve no purpose in the furtherance of the organism.”

        I’m planning on watching the Raiders game tomorrow night without any fear as to how it will “serve purpose in the furtherance of the organism.” How perverse of me.

        “In any case, as an anarchist I don’t care what consenting adults do ~ perverted or otherwise…”

        You should be a poster boy for SSM. Excellent slogan. Vote # 1 Dabs.

        “I insist upon my right to have and express an opinion…”

        Insist away. There’s this former Queenslander who founded a Kentucky theme park who insists that people and dinosaurs coexisted, and I insist on his right to express this nonsense.


      • Hey Mon,

        Yeah that bit seems a bit odd to me too. The gender only really matters if you believe that there are inevitable specific gender roles.

        Her mum went from a hetro relationship to a gay one without a hitch.

        If I was differently wired I reckon I’d treat my husband much the same way as I currently treat my wife.

        Seems that “daddy issues” have done a number on this girls life more than anything else.


      • “Your ‘facts’ apply equally to the legalisation of paedophilia.”

        This is another nag trotted out in the SSM debate. Conflating homosexuality between consenting adults with paedephilia is a low act in my opinion.


      • Paedophilia why stop there ? Throw in bestiality as well and you’ll have the idiotic bigotry quinella


      • I remember the bonobo controversy, and the conclusion was that y’can’t attribute human motivations to bonobos. Their ‘fondling’, etc. in no more an expression of homosexuality than is the ‘experimentation’ of boy scouts at camp or football-players hugging or patting each other’s bums.

        The reality is that bonobos display the same tactile behaviour towards members of both sexes, and not on any consistent (nor indicative) basis either.

        I imagine you’re aware that bonobos share up to 98% of their DNA with human apes ~ and I can remember the hypothesis floated that they shared such human ‘characteristics’ because they’ve evolved along the same lines as has homosapiens ~ as co-operative social animals. Apparently more recent conclusions have tended to confirm that view. eg —>

        That chimps also share about the same amount of DNA but virtually none of the ‘touchy-feelie’ characteristics bonobos seem to share with homosaps (particularly the socially-co-operative, even personal-sacrificial ones) clearly indicates that the three species have each developed their own social structures due to separate ~ and changeable ~ environmental factors and social requirements. For example, bonobos have not demanded the right for same-sex marriage.

        It’s pure Darwinism at play; the difference between bonobos and humans is obviously cultural ~. The facts are that ALL bonobos display the touchy-feelies ~ and do so with both sexes. That alone certainly indicates that their activities and motivations can’t be related to human ‘homosexuality’.
        Although no doubt there are many factors at play in encouraging homosexual behaviour the much (and hopefully) touted ‘gay gene’ still eludes the most motivated and diligent searchers. All that means that, however humans and bonobos have arrived at their superficiously-similar behaviour, common genetics is NOT the reason for it.

        But you can prove me wrong. Find a photo of two bonobos sodomising each other ~ and skulking off to do so in private.


        ““Neither nature nor god work in such sloppy ways.”
        Hence the routine requirement to remove the appendix from time to time. And remnant wings on Emus.”

        Again, basic Darwinian evolution at play. It’s also why canine teeth need dental attention sometimes and nose-hairs clipped. And why you have a tail-bone.
        Anatomical (as well as physiological/instinctual/etc.) changes are needed and sometimes developed as environmental factors change. In some cases not entirely or very effectively.
        It’s called ‘Natural Selection’.

        😆 “I’m planning on watching the Raiders game tomorrow night without any fear as to how it will “serve purpose in the furtherance of the organism.” How perverse of me.”
        Yet again, Darwinian evolution at play:- ‘Natural DEselection’. aka ‘Use it or lose it’.
        I’ll nominate you for a Darwin Award


        “There’s this former Queenslander who founded a Kentucky theme park who insists that people and dinosaurs coexisted,” and I insist on his right to express this nonsense.
        And your point is?? (I presume here that you’re a Queenslander too.)

        …….But can you prove him wrong?


      • Come on Bubba! …. “The gender only really matters if you believe that there are inevitable specific gender roles.”
        Of COURSE there are different gender roles. Every other living thing in creation (including bloody plants!) know that. It’s the very basis on organic evolution depends up. (and also the basis upon which ‘god’ ‘created them male and female’. (and just as certainly given the randomness by which all the variables interact there will ALWAYS be variations, aberrations and perversions; in some cases deliberate.

        But you’ll never see an International truck winning the Grand Prix.
        Horse for courses is the rule.

        ps…..and as with religion ~ what one ‘believes’ has nothing to do with reality.


      • Hey, Bubba!. Do you have such fantasies often?? –> “If I was differently wired I reckon I’d treat my husband much the same way as I currently treat my wife.” 🙂


      • Dabbles on March 20, 2015 at 22:34 said:
        “Dogs mounting dogs is a dominance thing ~ the only sexual context being that the dominant male gets the females ~ or at least his pick of them. I’ll certainly look objectively at any you care to provide.”

        Would cows mounting cows be a ‘dominance thing’? This happened from time to time on my father’s farm, where the cows were well cared for and content.


      • Pardon me, Miss: your bias is showing.
        “Your ‘facts’ apply equally to the legalisation of paedophilia.” had nothing ‘conflationary’ about it.
        I was making the point that YOUR alleged “facts” had no specific bearing on the issue of homosexual marriage ~ and so carried no real weight in the debate. ie. they were irrelevant ~ and their pushy bigotry without value….. other than to actually expose your pushy bigotry..

        I’m on the record as thinking ‘marriage’ in any context is stupid, pointless, unworkable and the cause of a great deal of unnecessary stress, violence and waste of resources ~ and an absolute perversion of the Natural Order and (if you prefer) god’s ‘purpose’.

        In short, marriage is an institution (good word for it!) I’d probably wish upon my worst enemies; it’s more destructive thanThe Pox. And if homosexuals want to get married I say ‘go for it; why should straights be the only ones who suffer.?


      • Hi Dabbles,

        When I see the “bloody plants” putting on a jacket and tie and catching the train to work in the city then I’ll agree with you that our society today is a perfect reflection of the natural world.

        Up until then however I reckon their might be some differences.

        And even within nature the gender roles aren’t consistent. Male penguins do most of the care of the young. Male seahorses carry and nourish the fertilsed eggs until their “birth”. A male anglerfish mates with a female by biting into her skin and releasing an enzyme that digests the skin of his mouth and her body, fusing the pair down to the blood-vessel level. Females have been found with up to 8 males fused to them.

        The natural world is varied far beyond your (apparently) rigid prejudices.


      • What is it with you lot today? Is there a hysteria-bug going around? Or are there streaks of sunlight shafting into your closets?
        What’s the connection between plants putting on a jacket and tie and your misreading of the ‘nature of society today’??

        Anyone who’s ever grown a …er, ‘pot-plant’ (or gumtrees among many others) knows that the male and female of the species have vastly different roles to fulfil.
        Quite a few of them have the SEPARATE characteristics of males and female in the same plant ~ but the two ‘genders’ operate separately in fulfilling their ‘gender-roles’.
        Even insects know that; and never confuse a plant’s (or plant-part) with homosexuality in the plant.
        Yep:- ….”And even within nature the gender roles aren’t consistent. Male penguins do most of the care of the young.etc. etc.”
        And clearly shows that ‘gender role-filling’ permeates the whole of the natural world. Caring for the young is unavoidably obviously part of the gender-role for penguins.
        Democratic, politically-correct, christian dogmas, however, would have the stay-at-home male penguin ALSO (on the basis of ‘Equality’ in the workplace and elsewhere) be looking after baby White-Pointers, Orcas, etc. in the neighbourhood.

        If you’ve been tampering with your ‘wiring’ (mentioned elsewhere) I suggest you get a (role-playing) electrician in to restore it to it’s original state.

        I don’t know how you might’ve overlooked it, but variations and unending differences in the natural world ~ and trying to come to grips with them ~ are my abiding ‘faith’. I study them, advocate them and thank the powers-that-be (eg. Evolution) for them.
        I’m an atheist because I cannot accept the ‘one-rule fits all’ dogma, since EVERY thing in ‘creation’ IS different, with different and constantly-shifting needs and ambitions.
        I’m an anarchist because I’m absolutely certain that ‘convention’ or ‘tradition’, etc. can cater ONLY for the lowest common denominator ~ and therefore can never be a halfway good fit for ANYTHING in particular. Least of all individuals ~ of any species. (Have you not been following the ‘dispute’ about taxation??

        The wonder of Existence IS it’s infinite and constantly-changing variation, which ~ to do it justice as far as possible ~ must be responded to in kind: and my undying devotion to that ambition is the ONLY “rigid” prejudice I have on the matter.
        …and my main complaint across the board is that “our society today [ISN’T] a perfect reflection of the natural world.

        I don’t know how any reader of my comments could have formed any opinion different from that.

        …….and will try to see your gross misunderstanding of my views and positions as just another example of the ‘variation of the natural world’.
        (and will add that my dogs ~ male and female, black and white, shaggy and shagged ~ understand me better than most of the people on this blog,
        ….and fulfil their roles accordingly…..except the black bitch and her penchant for catshit!….she even licked a copper the other day!)


      • I will add that my dogs ~ male and female, black and white, shaggy and shagged ~ understand me better than most of the people on this blog

        Yep, you should think about that.

        Dumb animals have no perception of subtleties, nor common human sense. They are just animals…you think they understand you because you feed them. Animal nature. Deception., It’s nothing more.


      • Is there a hysteria-bug going around?

        That would explain the 500 or so words of nonsense you just gifted us with.

        Can I ask though, what with your intensive natural studies and all, how you’ve completely missed asexual reproduction ??


      • “Can I ask though, what with your intensive natural studies and all, how you’ve completely missed asexual reproduction ??”
        I didn’t “miss” anything.

        But I’m not a christian, so see no purpose is ringing in irrelevant material ~ which is what asexual reproduction is in a discussion about sexual reproduction and/or ‘marriage’.
        I’m quite aware that asexual reproduction accounts for most of the ‘life’ this planet has seen, and sexual reproduction is relatively recent.
        And with it came ‘death’. And, most importantly for us, the opportunity for fast, complex and massive mutation which allows the endless variety of species which is the basis for survival and evolution of life in an ever-changing environment.

        um….what was the question again?……


      • ??? “Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights,
        …..particularly human animals, d’you mean.
        (I was going to ask about the ‘right’ of reply ~ but the censor would probably not post it. 🙂 )


      • Well Dabbles in all your blather about nature having definitive roles for gender, even in plants etc, I did wonder why you missed reproduction without gender. It’s almost like you just aren’t really thinking things through 🙂

        Oh and this didn’t start out as a discussion on sexual reproduction. It started out as a discussion on the roles of the parties (straight or gay) in marriage. Try and keep up there’s a good fella.


      • A child aches for what is missing in life, not realising it wouldnot necessarily be for the best. If that child had a step father, she may, though may not, have suffered abuse. Who’s to know? But in imagination for a child any unhappiness makes the grass greener on the other side.


      • Bryan,
        I’m not at all homophobic of course. But I can see no reason why it might not be a good plan to check out public toilets prior to a small child going in. PG may well be quite sensible there.

        In describing himself as ‘homophobic’, I’m wondering if PG is really meaning that he is personally and genuinely ‘afraid’ of homosexuals or just being untrusting about them (and maybe any other possible problem intruder.) I really doubt that. If he is so scared, then it would appear that he is not the big strong tough Australian Anzac that he gives the impression of.

        But of course Bryan, I still have a bone to pick with you about this business of Kings being ‘afraid of Jesus’. What you didnt seem to be taking into consideration on that matter is that there is a big difference between the folksy literal meaning of the phrase, and the practical and realistic meaning of it.

        When one hears a whisper that person X is afraid of person Y, one can take it that somehow the presence or influence of person Y is really problematical to person X continually. So much so that every time person X sees or encounters person Y he gets scared. But the important thing is in the principle that it is a very specific scare about Y uniquely who represents in himself a danger to X.

        Now Herod the Great was surely afraid – not of Jesus that new-born baby personally, but rather some sort of theoretical danger of any sort of rival king which the baby may turn out to be. Just think, if the baby had happened to be brought into Herod’s presence, there is simply no way that Herod would have been afraid of him. There was absolutely no unique or special danger or problem about the new-born baby Jesus that the rumour of any other possible king would not also have represented to Herod.

        The fact that this baby was being born in the poky little village (no city one notices!) of Bethlehem would indicate to that mad monarch that he couldnt have much in the way of followers and armies at that stage, or whatever that could threaten him. He was confident enough to decide that just the sending of some of his soldiers to kill the various newborn boys, would be quite adequate to eliminate the danger. Doubtless his ‘fear’ of this baby was dissipated very quickly then, as he turned his mind to the next problem that he was facing. I suppose that the very fact that he could apparently get rid of the baby so readily, shows that he was afraid about the principle of a Messianic claimant, rather than about prophetic ‘truth’. He was NOT a believing Jew, remember.

        In regard to Herod (mark 2), once more the rumour was far more trouble to the Tetrarch than the actual individual was. We are told even that Herod wanted to see Jesus in person, and to watch him perform some fancy miracle. No fear there. He had his chance we are told in the Gospel, and the whole interview was a fizzer. He clearly got bored with Jesus who gave him no fun whatsoever, and so he sent him back. He clearly saw immediately that this Jesus was no threat, and could be finished with.

        To say that these two Kings were literally AFRAID of Jesus in person, is just a nonsense. They might, (or at least Herod the Great might) have been afraid ABOUT this baby. But he was hardly to be seen as being afraid OF him. He didnt even know his name or parentage.

        No you dont present any sort of decent argument there, Bryan. (just another of the many ‘pop’ Christian truisms that home-spun Apologists bring up from time to time. Almost as bad as some of C.S.Lewis at his worst.) Must be just your opinion again.

        Cheers Rian.


      • Rian,

        Of course it’s a good idea to check the toilets before children go in. But Philip George seems to think the only predators are gay. Sexual Offenders are most commonly heterosexual men, even if the victim is a boy. Many offenders are married men who live with a partner and children.

        I think I’ve already debunked your view on Jesus and kings . But just once more so you might understand:

        Do you remember the way Herod the Great reacted when the wise men came looking for a child born to be king. “When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him.” (Matthew 2:3)And what does a frightened king do? “He sent and killed all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under.” (Matthew 2:16)

        That’s just what powerful kings, powerful nations and global empires do when they fear that their security is threatened.

        Thirty years later, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, was on the throne as a puppet king under the oppressive rule of Rome. He was an insecure and therefore brutal ruler who had inherited his father’s fear of anyone that might undermine his power.

        In chapter 8, Luke tells the story of Herod beheading John the Baptist. In chapter 9, Luke says that when Herod heard about Jesus he wondered if Jesus might be John the Baptist raised from the dead … which would be enough to scare anyone.

        Now, the Pharisees, the religious power players, warned Jesus to get out of town because Herod wanted to kill him.




      • I used to take my son to the Ladies toilets with me until he was getting a bit too big. And then, when I had no other choice, I’d go into the Men’s toilets first to make sure it was safe to send him in. I was always hovering near by. Actually, he always ended up having the toilet block to himself! 🙂

        There are homosexuals who are pedophiles though. I don’t know this from personal experience, but God did tell me there are and where their final destination would be if they did not repent of their wickedness.


      • Oh Bryan,
        you still are repeating the party line about the so-called fear that the two Herods had of Jesus. You have not debunked my argument at all. Why when I know the Gospel verses perfectly well, do you keep on repeating them? You are repeating a purely populist argument.

        To say that kings were ‘afraid of him’ immediately gives the impression that they were helpless in the face of the reputation and person of Jesus. That Herod the Great was UNIQUELY afraid of Jesus, even though he didnt know his name and only knew that there was a rumour about a baby. Again I ask – if Herod had been confronted by this particular baby, would he have shivered in his shoes? As a non-believing character, he wouldnt have had any worry about the fulfillment of a Jewish prophecy. He was as we know, just paranoid about ANY possible rival or insurrection, and the whole idea just collapses when one recalls that there was simply NO unique fear these guys had of Jesus in particular.

        Then Herod (mark 2), – was he afraid of Jesus when he was confronted by him? Actually for all this fear Jesus was supposed to have created in others, I cant recall a single Jewish or Roman authority who showed fear SPECIFICALLY of Jesus especially in person. Antipas DID actually get to interview Jesus, remember. He was not at all afraid of seeing him in person,and most noticeably simply got bored with him and sent him back.

        Get back to me when you can leave aside your newspaper variety of arguing and of posting up lines like spectacular headlines for sensationalist attention grabbing. I will guarantee that any professor of English or Philosophy would agree with my approach to those words.of yours. They are specious and simplistic. They simply do not apply in a valid way to the actual situation detailed in Scripture. In any case it is very very unlikely that such an event as the visit of the ‘Wise Men’ actually occurred. ‘Real’ scholars of today reject the story as typical mythology like the greater part of the Infancy tales.



      • Well Rian,

        I will guarantee that any professor of English or Philosophy would agree with my approach to those words.of yours

        Really? ANY of them? ALL of them? Do you know ALL profs of English and philosophy?

        Or are you just blustering again in lieu of making a case?

        Why when I know the Gospel verses perfectly well, do you keep on repeating them?

        Because they are evidence you ignore.

        . In any case it is very very unlikely that such an event as the visit of the ‘Wise Men’ actually occurred

        How would you know?

        Just more scatty opinion I’m afraid mate. Get some new books into your little library. Ones by credible historians and philosophers. I’ve give you a list if you like Rian. Be happy to help.


      • Bryan,
        Goodness me, just so many throw-aways you’ve posted there.

        I’ll be very very surprised if there are ANY historians of repute who agree that there actually occurred such a visit of the Wise Men. The official exegists of the Vatican like the highly esteemed Raymond E Brown tend now to discount all of the Nativity and Infancy stories. The opinion of Theologians simply dont count in the matter, unless they are genuine independent Historians as well. There is simply not a shred of historical evidence outside the Gospels (and even there, there’s only ONE of those) to suggest Magi coming to Jerusalem. Neither is there any to back up the story that Herod killed a small number of children.

        Biblical Inerrancy is not to be taken as anything but part of an Ideology. It is a theological belief, not a mainstream historical given. Three times since I’ve been on this blog I asked of you if you still stand by your statement 8 or so years back in your Newspaper column, that Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth rather than in Bethlehem. You’ve chosen to ignore the question as I guess it it too embarrassing for you.

        Yes, I feel certain that the ‘headline’ you offer about how KINGS WERE AFRAID OF HIM (Jesus) would simply not fit the situations that are described in the Gospel verses. Sure if you want to pursue it, the two monarchs were ‘troubled’/’perplexed’ meaning that they were afraid. But not a single verse there says that either was AFRAID OF JESUS. The line is actually a typical bit of publicity ‘hype’, and any of the academic varieties I quoted would have to dismiss the meaning you are getting out of it because of the phraseology. We are talking there about academics who are not biased from a Christian ideology base.

        Now if you want to persist in your ridiculous claim about it, you need to define all that you are saying. Does any of the verses state that either king ‘was afraid of Jesus’? Just how long did that fear actually last? What happened when either of these frightened kings actually confronted Jesus? Was this fear that you claim they had, unique in their lives and experience? Neither one of these two kings seems to have been that much afraid, that he was unable to take action about it. The fear couldnt have been really bad, since Herod (mark 1) satisfied himself immediately by killing some children. While Herod (mark 2) satisfied himself by interviewing Jesus.

        That ‘headline’ you claim just has to cause the reader to believe that the fear the kings (are supposed to have) felt was quite unique in their lives. They were both paranoid, for heavens sake! If there was no difference between the feared threat that Jesus represented to them and the threat from any other person or uprising, (and there were lots of such threats), then just how can you make such a big deal out of it. It doesnt make Jesus any more worry to them than any other threat to the throne and the peace.

        You are still unable to substantiate your claim that the Christian martyrs under Rome were most numerous, – that is consisting of more than just a few odd thousand over those first 300 years. Again, the opinions of Theologians and Evangelicals are not evidence. Your material has to come from real scholars, just as your evidence for the visit of the Wise Men needs to come from real scholars. If you really had the evidence and the real scholars you would have shut me up long before this.

        Bryan, I did not cherry pick my historians or authorities for my information to bolster an idea I started with. It really surprised me when I first read about it. I have hunted for evidence proving the contrary of what I read. I havent found it. So you give me the real scholars and quote it for me.

        cheers, Rian.


      • An ancient document found in the Vatican a few years ago has revealed a more in depth version of the Magi’s journey.

        The mysterious ‘Revelation of the Magi’ document has been held at the Vatican for 250 years and has only now been translated from ancient Syriac by a university professor.

        Brent Landau – an expert in religious studies from the University of Oklahoma – spent two years poring over the frail pages of the 8th-century manuscript. The document itsself is merely a copy of a text first written down almost half a millennium earlier.

        The additional details and differences from the traditional story of the Three Wise Men based on the Gospel of Matthew are:
        •Rather than being Persians, the travelers came from the land of Shir which is now associated with ancient China – making their journey even longer.

        •The document claims there were ‘scores’ of Magi rather than just three, suggesting that several men visited baby Jesus. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t specify an amount – the idea that it was three men arose from the number of gifts they are supposed to have delivered.

        •The wise men are described a descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam.

        •They belong to a sect that believed in silent prayer.

        •The Magi waited thousands of years for the star to appear, which they believed would signal God had arrived in human form.


      • The Riddle of the Wise Men

        The idea of three kings and the presence of camels is linked with two Old Testament prophecies. Psalm 72.10-11 reads,

        “May the kings of Tarshish and of distant shores bring tribute to him.
        May the kings of Sheba and Seba present him gifts. May all kings bow down to him and all nations serve him.”

        Isaiah chapter sixty is also read in the liturgy for the feast of the Epiphany, and like Psalm 72, Isaiah highlights the double meaning of the visit of the wise men: that the light of Christ has come into the world and that it is for all people–not only the Jews. The prophecy reads:

        “Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord rises upon you…Nations will come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your dawn…Lift up your eyes and look about you: All assemble and come to you; your sons come from afar…Then you will look and be radiant…the wealth on the seas will be brought to you,to you the riches of the nations will come. Herds of camels will cover your land, young camels of Midian and Ephah, and all from Sheba will come bearing gold and incense and proclaiming the praise of the Lord.”

        Now we can see where the idea of kings and camels comes from. Matthew says the kings came from the East and Persia seems the obvious choice, but the passage from Isaiah predicts that the kings come from Ephah, Midian and Sheba. Where are Ephah, Midian and Sheba? Midian is the Old Testament name for what was, in Jesus’ time, the Kingdom of the Nabataeans. It lies directly East and South of Jerusalem–in present day Jordan, and Ephah was a city of Midian further south in the Arabian peninsula. The ancient Kingdom of Sheba was centered in what is present day Yemen–also to the East and South.

        If we are looking to the Scriptures for evidence, then the prophecy from Isaiah suggests that the wise men came from what is now Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. If so, they probably did come on camels since Midian especially was known for its abundance of camels.

        Can we use an Old Testament prophecy to determine where the wise men came from? Those who believe in the accuracy of Biblical prophecy will not have a problem doing so. However there are other indicators to suggest the Arabian peninsula rather than Persia. The three gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh are overlooked as clues to solve the riddle.

        Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/01/the-riddle-of-the-three-wise-men.html#ixzz3VRknhuyp



      • “We have textual—and also archaeological—evidence that both frankincense and myrrh were used as medicinal substances in antiquity,” confirms Alain Touwaide, a historian of medicine at the Institute for the Preservation of Medical Traditions and the Smithsonian Institution.


      • According to one commentary, King Herod, “in his last years, suffering an illness that compounded his paranoia, he turned to cruelty and in fits of rage and jealousy killed close associates, his wife Mariamne…, and at least two of his sons.”

        In other words, King Herod really, really did not want anyone else to be King of the Jews.

        So when the wise men said they had heard about a new king of the Jews, Herod saw this little baby as a great threat to his power. Herod attempts to manipulate the wise men, and tells them lies, to make it easier for him to murder a little baby.

        And when the wise men don’t return to Jerusalem, Herod gets really angry, and he has all the baby boys in Bethlehem, two years and younger, killed, just to make sure he killed whichever one was supposed to replace him as king.


      • You still just don’t get it do you Bryan? Just to add on to my points about the feeble application you make of the word ‘fear’ in regard to the tales of the kings.

        Matthew’s Gospel offers many exaggerations and fancy tales. Even Mark tells a whopper, in the story of John’s execution, Mark 6.23. An obvious pinch from the Book of Esther, where she was offered up to half the kingdom. Do you seriously believe that the Roman Emperor would allow their puppet Tetrarch to offer or to give away any of his kingdom? And to a woman?? It just wasn’t his to give, was it? The whole story of the dance etc is a classic bit of Arabian Nights fantasy. Josephus gives a much more historically believable account of the problem Herod faced along with the execution of John, without the silly tale.

        Look at another of the lines in the story of Herod the Great. You are just grasping at straws when you cherry-pick the meaning of words, (as how perplexed and troubled can be read in these cases as fear.) It says that Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. ALL of Jerusalem??? Just how many of the population would have actually known about the details? And how could such a tale be accurately remembered and retold over half a century later by the Evangelist when it is not mentioned in history?

        Mary and Joseph wouldn’t have known about it, since according to the account, they got to hell out of it, and they didn’t live in Jerusalem any way. Why did no-one recall about the Magi and the prophecy about the baby when the adult Jesus was in Jerusalem some 30 odd years later?. It was discretely forgotten about then in the accounts of the Gospel writers. More evidence I guess, that the Matthean Nativity story was a very late add-on to the record; and for that matter, that Jesus was NOT actually born or lived in Bethelem at all.

        If you think about it, all the pious Jews and common people just hated and feared Herod, an Idmunaean tyrant, and non-believer; and would have loved nothing better than to be rid of him, and have the rule of a Messiah. It was only the Herodians and the Sadducees who would have been concerned and on their guard. But as I said before, few if any ‘real’ historians today would accept the tale of the Magi and the execution of the babies. The Vatican experts certainly don’t. You come up with some supporters with the right qualifications for me.

        Then in Matthew (of course it’s Matthew again!), there is that fable of the bodies of the ‘saints’ (a term and belief belonging to a later time in early Christian history) which were reanimated and wandered around Jerusalem at the time of the Crucifixion. Matt. 27.52. To our knowledge, simply NONE of the Christian faithful, those ones who became termed as Saints, during Paul’s ministry, had died at that point. That story would have been talked about and remembered for all time, in Jewish history and tradition. Typically Paul mentions nothing about it.



      • Rian,

        Your reply is full of conjecture – “Matthew offers fancy tales”…”Mark tells a whopper”…..”Mary and Joseph wouldn’t have known about it”…”few historians…”….etc etc.

        But no evidence of such.

        As I’ve said before you are merely expressing opinions. Not facts.

        And you ignore any points I raise. So why would I bother?


      • Rian,

        As the Biblical scholar you wrote about,, Raymond E Brown, said:

        There is no way we can know for certain how historical many details in the infancy narratives are; or where Matthew and Luke obtained their divergent information. In making judgments we should be careful to avoid both naive fundamentalism and destructive skepticism. To take every word of these accounts as literal history does not deal realistically with the problems. Yet the accounts should not be dismissed as mere fiction or myths. Between precise history and purely imaginative creation there is a whole range of ways to convey a religious message.”

        Pope Benedict addresses the same issue in his book Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. “The question arises: how are we to understand all this? Are we dealing with history that actually took place, or is it . . . a theological meditation, presented under the guise of stories? In this regard, Jean Daniélou rightly observes: “The adoration of the Magi does not touch upon any essential aspect of our faith. No foundations would be shaken if it were simply an invention of Matthew’s based on a theological idea” .

        Pope Benedict describes the primary message of the Magi in powerfully cosmic terms that echo the thoughts of Teilhard de Chardin:

        “If these wise men, led by the star to search for the king of the Jews, represent the movement of the Gentiles toward Christ, this implies that the cosmos speaks of Christ, even though its language is not yet fully intelligible to man in his present state. The language of creation provides a great many pointers. It gives man an intuition of the Creator. Moreover, it arouses the expectation, indeed the hope, that this God will one day reveal himself. And at the same time it elicits an awareness that man can and should approach him. But the knowledge that emerges from creation, and acquires concrete form in the religions, can also become disoriented, so that it no longer prompts man to transcend himself, but induces him to lock himself into systems with which he believes he can, in some way, oppose the hidden powers of the world.”


      • “Of course it’s a good idea to check the toilets before children go in”

        Yep you never know if Phillip George will be lurking in on of em


      • Re Bryan of 26 March at 11.35am.

        Bryan I apologize for this being so late in our debate of a few days back. I felt sure that I’d posted it off at the time. but since it didnt appear, I still want it to be seen.

        Well Bryan,
        What a turnup for the books. You passed on that little article of my ‘mate’ Raymond E Brown, and I read it with interest. Did you actually notice that the worthy gentleman confirmed exactly what I had pointed out in my postings on the Vatican’s stance about Historicity? He makes it very plain that the big issues within the Gospels’ Infancy accounts are theological and idealogical ‘truths’ and not necessarily historical ones. As something of a smack in the eye for Evangelical Apologists, he clearly ignores and rejects any modern rationale about the notorious Quirinius question.

        Whenever I’ve mentioned anything like that I’m accused of presenting no evidence or authority. Here is one of the top 20th century scholars of the Vatican confirming my stance. I might just point out, by the way, that John Paul II is quoted as saying “I wish we had more Exegetists like Raymond Brown.’ I recall several years back, when I quoted another piece on the findings of Brown to my Catholic Convert friend, during our big debate, that he had this to say. ‘Raymond Brown is a heretic and should be excommunicated.’ Mind you my friend was one of those old conservative Catholics who sincerely believed that the Church lost its legitimacy at the time of Vatican II, and that the Pope (and all since) happened to be heretical and Anti-Christ.

        So Bryan, I trust that all here will agree that I was not tossing round nonsense or garbage, and I am not just venturing my opinion, as you so often love to suggest.
        Perhaps you and any of the other Christians on this forum might like as well to read this particular piece that has some crucial (and rather damning) material put out by Raymond E Brown. Just look up this reference. ( It belongs to a Site labelled – Simple to Remember. Com.)

        ‘The Catholic Church’s Response to our Critique of Christian Credibility.’
         Cheers, Rian


    • Well does this mean then that the powers that be will be just encouraging more and more people to ‘live in sin’? What a lunatic law! And that has come in in a secular state. Imagine what they’d do if they had a Theocracy. Oh but wait on, davinci told us the other day that Separation of Church and State is a Christian achievement. I wonder.



      • Christ once said “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” indicating separation of church and state in certain areas of human endeavour.

        When Peter was taken before the Sanhedrin he told them that ‘we ought to obey God rather than men’ when he was forbidden to preach.

        The apostles all recognised the legitimacy of government and encouraged the Christian church to submit to governments as the ministers of God for the punishment of evil. Some of them also encouraged the Christians to pray for the governments and those in authority. The irony is that whilst the apostles preached submission to governments, tradition tells us that most of them were executed by the very governments they urged submission to, for rebellion against the very governments they urged submission to. This teaches us that when it comes to religion, there is a separation between church and state.

        Augustine tried to articulate the concept of separation of church and state but was ignored by the Catholic Church who advocated union of church and state, and who banned access to the Scriptures for centuries because they taught separation of church and state.

        Luther was the first to articulate the concept of church state separation more clearly in his two kingdoms doctrine. However because of the influence of the Catholic Church, the concept of separation of church and state took a long time to sink in (just as the concept of abolition of slavery).

        The Anabaptists (fore runners of the Baptists) were persecuted by most protestants because the said protestants having broken up with Catholicism recently, did not fully comprehend the concept of church/state separation.

        Documents relating to the American Revolutionary War indicate that the church/state separation was inserted in the American Constitution as a concession to the Baptist for their support and political votes.

        This is where we get the protestant connection to the separation of church and state.


      • Rian,

        Which part of the statement don’t you understand?

        “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36

        If Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, how can we advocate a “Christian” theocracy whereby separation of church and state does not exist? We can’t.

        We understand from Scripture that one day Jesus will come again, at which time a Christian Theocracy will be established. But this will not be established by using the existing political system of today.

        Therefore the state of Oklahoma is wrong on the issue of putting marriage under the control of the clergy. It merely shows that clergy and those who support them have deviated from Scripture and are now trying to impose God’s law upon unbelievers by political force; something that the apostolic church never did.

        As for gay marriage, please remember that it is not only Christians that oppose it and the homosexual orientation as a perversion. All atheists regimes across the world imprisoned homosexuals, despite the fact that atheism rejects the existence of God. And now we have Dabbles (who is an atheist) coming out and speaking against homosexuality. Therefore you cannot use that lunatic excuse that homophobia is due to Judaeo-Christian religion.

        The recognition that homosexuality is a perversion of nature is recognised by a cross section of society that strongly opposes links and affiliation with Christianity or even religion.

        And then we have the historical record of Josephus Flavius who talks about the Greeks (where a certain type of homosexual expression had been common), were rejecting that self same homosexual expression, despite the fact that Christianity and Judaism were not yet powerful enough to influence them to do so.


      • What part of the quote dont I understand? My dear davinci,

        I was not discussing ‘truths’ if such things really exist within Christianity or the Gospels, I was saying the obvious about people who identify themselves as Christians who desperately fight and debate for a theocracy – especially within America. Some year or more back I brought up the example of the very radical example of those in America who are known as Dominionists. Look it up for yourself if you dont know about them.

        But they are not the only ones of course. Loads of American traditionalists want the Government to bring ‘back’ all of the special privileges that Christians used to have. They want to stop Atheists and others from invoking (perfectly current and legitimate) laws of the land in order to remove public display of crosses and Ten Commandments etc on public property. They would like nothing more than a real Christian Theocracy to be established.

        Of course it would mean that persons of other religions would find their freedoms to be limited or even ceased. And for that matter I suspect that the various Christian churches themselves would be battling over just which of them happened to be legitimate. Once more as I’ve so often said here on this forum, the divided nature of Christianity represents one of its major downfalls.

        Cheers, Rian.


      • Rian,

        For once I agree with you.

        Leave the Bible and all that it says and you have all sorts strange bed fellows going on. At the moment, Protestant churches that were in the forefront of religious liberty have exchanged the teachings of the Bible for alliances with Rome in order to gain political power.

        You are right, the divisions within Christianity are going to be their downfall, IF THEY REFUSE TO STUDY THEIR BIBLES AND BASE THEIR TEACHINGS UPON IT.

        Nevertheless, God is leading a people who will be guided by the Holy Spirit and the teachings of Scripture.

        Whilst a portion of Christianity decides to make Scriptures of none effect, another portion will base their guidance on Scripture and will eventually leave their “Scripture rejecting” denominations to become united upon the platform of the Bible.

        These will emerge victorious but not by political power, nor by warfare, but because Jesus returns and will destroy those who made the Bible of no effect alongside with those who never wanted to have a bar of Christianity in the first place.


    • Sounds fair. Marriage is something that should have a “Do not attempt to do this at home” warning labels attached.
      (And as a side benefit it protects one (or TWO, actually!) from breaching the Seventh Commandment.)


      • Why ? the benefits of marriage economically, socially and physically have been widely documented.


    • I want to out myself as a confessed homophobe. I’m proud to be homophobic. I check the public toilets before I let my children use them. I also call it ‘fear of the Lord Jesus Christ’. There’s so many conservativophobes, Christophobes, traditionalophobes, bibleophobes and gaytopians. I feel all alone sitting in any liberal theology watered down gospel environment. So I don’t stick around.
      Islamofascists, homofascists, should use this as their ecochamber.

      Ps. the Oklahoma event is more about getting supposedly secular government out of a religious institution of God. It’s an interesting long game strategy. We’ll see how it works. So far quite well getting onto these pages.

      cut, cut


      • Definition of a homophobe: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly. It had led to great brutality as fear always does

        And you are proud of this??????
        You should read your Bible……
        John 8:7
        And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”


      • I check the public toilets before I let my children use them

        And once again an angry old man equates being gay with being a paedophile. The truth is most child molesters and those who are into child pornography are heterosexual men – like, I presume, PhilipGeorge – not gay men


      • Yeahbut. This:- “Definition of a homophobe: a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly.”
        ……is a “definition” created and imposed by the (not really very happy!) ‘gay’ lobby. It’s given away by the extra little bit tacked on the end. (by that standard I’m probably a mosquitophobe!)
        No doubt another PC American perversion as adopted by the Miriam-Webster dictionary.

        It’s a self-serving term (with an added implied twist or two) that’s only a few decades old. Are we then to presume that, before then, nobody was ‘homophobic’??


      • dabbles, among the lunar left words mean whatever people want them to mean. It was the theme of Alice in Wonderland. I’m persuaded however that Jesus’ warnings about one Yod or Ttittle meant exactly and precisely what God intended it to mean. By definitions alone progressives plan to win every argument, up unto and until reality takes over. // never a hard feeling. I am sorry for you.


      • So PG, do you think all gay people are peadophiles? Or Most? Or what?

        Re the definition of homophobes: You two fit the bill, no matter how you try to twist it.

        I wonder why you both have so much fear?


      • Perchance this was a sort of honest question. It’s maths. Jeffrey Satinover the Mensa genius type Dr of child psychiatry Jewish intellectual pointed out the maths. if “practicing” homosexuals are about 2 percent of the population then then in relative terms they are perhaps 20 times more likely to be involved in pedophilia/ deviant tendency.
        As for checking the toilets. One son was recently verbally abused in the change room at watermarc aquatic centre. Yes the management has it on record. Perhaps the police should have been rung? The boys have virtually zero chance of being attacked by a woman in a public toilet.

        And I have read somewhere something like 90 percent of homosexuals have some toilet sex experience.

        Now I could look up the stats but as has been pointed out to me dialectic is useless in a forum of feelgood teenage utopianism. This is all about rhetoric and “I feel it is right to”. Feeling about fair?

        God isn’t mocked. Judgment day comes.

        But more personally the revelation of the Law being given for man’s protection came to me fairly recently.. Telling your children you have a law that they not stick their hands into flame is a legal sort of thing. Impossible to explain, and yes, still a law. There, there, your feeling tell you you are creating a just fair loving accepting tolerant society. Flowers on the Combi van, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young. Not a jaded tattooed aging prostitute anywhere in sight. Marx was such and idealist. They all were.

        It’s just not who Jesus is.


      • Bad Biblical quote Brian.

        The law against adultery also condemned the adulterer together with the adulteress. Where was the adulterer? Why wasn’t he brought before Jesus?
        Could it have been that the Pharisees were guilty of the sin of discrimination in bringing the woman but not the man who committed adultery with the woman before Jesus?

        Whilst I don’t condone the practice of “p.. bashing” don’t use this verse to condone homosexuality.

        Jesus said to the woman go and sin no more (she had been guilty of the sin they had accused her of). But what the gay lobby supporters say is go on sinning and use this verse to continue in their sins.


      • John 8:7 the one about casting the first stone.

        You omitted John 8:11 where Jesus tells her to go and sin no more.

        What you have done Brian explains why the story of the woman caught in adultery was kept out of the Bible in the centuries when the Roman Empire existed. Because people would use this story to justify continuance in sin.


      • I cringe when some (a minority obviously) of Christians say they hate and are proud of it.
        There is no excuse for hating, no matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of same sex relationships.
        Love and unconditional acceptance of gay people does not require approval of same-sex sexual activity. It merely requires that we do as Jesus asks – to love unconditionally.

        The woman at the well was an outcast and looked down upon by her own people. She was ostracized and marked as immoral. The Samaritan woman, who knew she was a sinner, needed to see herself as a person of worth and value. This story teaches us that God finds us worthy of His love in spite of our bankrupt lives. God values us enough to actively seek us. That’s grace in action.

        A far cry from those who hate fellow human beings who are different. Or still searching. Or seemingly lost.


  2. More perversion:- ““Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God.”
    er…YES it WAS instituted by government.
    and…. NO it was NOT instituted by god.
    Yet another variation of ‘gay-dom’?? ie:- getting it arse-about and ukcingf it up?? 🙂


      • Take your pick; it’s an evolved TRIBAL custom designed to ‘keep the peace’.

        Ever seen a dozen sexually-aroused dogs fighting over a single bitch in heat?
        It’s about the only issue a canine (being a social ~ ie ‘tribal’ animal) will kill over.
        The same thing applies to virtually every other social, sexually-reproducing, species.

        “It’s interesting to carefully consider the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony and the “Ketubah” or marriage contract, which is read in the original Aramaic language. The husband accepts certain marital responsibilities, such as the provision of food, shelter and clothing for his wife, and promises to care for her emotional needs as well. THIS CONTRACT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE GROOM AND PRESENTED TO THE BRIDE. This demonstrates that both husband and wife see marriage as more than just a physical and emotional union, but also as a moral and legal commitment. The Ketubah is also signed by two witnesses, and considered a legally binding agreement. IT IS FORBIDDEN FOR JEWISH COUPLES TO LIVE TOGETHER WITHOUT THIS DOCUMENT. For Jews, the marriage covenant symbolically represents the covenant between God and his people, Israel.”


        Just two off the top. Don’t you get Google where you live?

        More specifically, virtually every human tribe developed ‘marriage’, whether they had a (documented) ‘god’ or not. In a dangerous world disintegration of the protective tribe meant death for all ~ and the greatest (and most lethal) cause of strife within any tribe is the ‘dogfight over a bitch in heat’. Even in other animal communities it’s the ‘silverback’ ~ alpha male ~ who gets the females because there’s no challenge ~ hence no fight over the crumpet..

        However, more to the point is that NOWHERE in the bible does god require ‘marriage’. He created Eve as a sex-object to obviate Adam’s ‘loneliness’ (as he’d already done for the other animals) and to bear children. He then GAVE her to Adam and ~ JUST AS he’d instructed the other creatures ~
        told them to go and procreate.
        There is NO other stated purpose for ‘the creation’ ~ and NO hint of ‘marriage’ being required.
        …or even desired.
        BUT, by the time the jewish ‘government’ had evolved (see above) it had become ” FORBIDDEN FOR JEWISH COUPLES TO LIVE TOGETHER WITHOUT THIS DOCUMENT.”

        As pointed out elsewhere, there is NO ‘divine’ reason to suppose Eve (and therefore her descendents) had any special value (ie ‘wife’ or ‘partner’ ~ let alone ‘equal’) since god didn’t even consider her worthy of a soul. But by the time tribal ‘governments’ had evolved so had a dowry, legal status, ceremonies AND the ‘sanctity of marriage”.


      • However, more to the point is that NOWHERE in the bible does god require ‘marriage’.

        Ah now you reckon you’re a theologian? Afraid not!!

        Matthew 19:4-6

        4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”


      • Who me?? –> “Ah now you reckon you’re a theologian?”
        Not for a minute, though theologically I’ve shot you down in flames TWICE recently. (evidenced by your lack of response in re. the Judas matters.)

        But I can recognise a fair thing when I see it ~ and its absence when I don’t.

        And I certainly don’t see it in the Matt. quote. What I see is a hodge-podge of self-evident errors which were patched together to dress up an incredible story to the point where it might be rendered useful as a tool for the establishment of a cohesive ‘government’. Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis2 needed some sort of ‘authority’ upon which to base his ambitions. ….and, as always, you cite the ‘ultimate authority’. (If you weren’t too bigoted to read Ardrey you’d see that he expalins it al in the simplest ~ and most believable way.)

        But Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are very different, both in terminology and purported authorship. eg. In Gen 1, god himself is the narrator. In Gen 2 he isn’t; the narrator is a classical politician, typically making it up as he goes to bolster his case ~ including the construction of strawmen galore.

        Apart from the DOZEN or more demonstrably factual errors the political manifesto of Gen. 2 is a nonsense which surfaces in your quote from Matt.:-

        God, allegedly, says:- “THE CREATOR‘made them male and female,’ 5 AND SAID, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,’
        …….quite overlooking the fact that neither Adam nor his Squeeze had a mother or father to leave.
        (Moreover, he ~Matt.~ drags in disparate bits from Gen.1 and attaches them to irrelevant bits from (a very different!) Gen.2. which DOESN’T say that ““that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ “.

        There are more than a few such stupidities in the Matt. ring-in. But I see the initial question as being:- When Matt says “Haven’t you read,” WHICH version of the yarn was being referred to. The wording (and shades of meaning) are different in about 80% of written sources.

        I don’t haved the time to go much into these discrepancies, and more, for now. But the question for you is do you believe god the narrator in Gen.1 or the politically-grasping narrator (possibly but without evidence Moses) in Gen 2?

        If I find the time ~ and you’ve atypically got the stomach for it ~ I’m more than willing to dismantle the whole thing word by word….and demonstyrate that ‘god’ DOESN’T require/desire or even mention ‘marriage’. Despite what was tacked on sometime much later, Adam and Eve were NOT people “what god has joined together”.

        ps. there are even more mundane ~ but much more rational ~ explanations for concept like ‘cleave to each other and become one flesh’ .
        Neither Gen 1 OR Gen 2 suggests (as the quote from Matt does) that ” 6 So they are no longer two, but one.” If that were so the Adam-and-Eve ‘One-ness’ would’ve had to make a combined decision re. the Serpent’s blandishments. But they didn’t; they fell separately, for different reasons and were punished separately and in different ways.

        I’m getting good at taking such perspectives due to reading up to 100 pages of property-contracts full of fineprint all but two pages of which are uncalled-for padding ~ and comprise all sorts of risks for the Purchaser…including about 20 different ways of losing his deposit without having any comeback.
        Warning to all: BE bloody careful. And don’t trust ‘your lawyer’ to protect you; they all take their orders from the Law Institute.
        Get in touch if you’re looking at a property transaction ~ and DO consider buying a DIY manual (about $100) everything supplied, including step-by-step instruction and the relevant forms, etc.. Nothing to it, and you’ll not only save a lot of money, but avoid a lot of risks too.


      • If I find the time ~ and you’ve atypically got the stomach for it ~ I’m more than willing to dismantle the whole thing word by word….

        Yeah? You seem to have enough time to post your “opinions” Guess this one is just a bluff.


      • I have no argument with God requiring heterosexual relationships. He wanted mankind to multiply and fill the Earth. It has been done. Now do you presume God is like a stuck record, and goes on repeating outdated messages?

        Re Bonobos
        “Lodja sees Mwanda and shrieks in excitement. They run toward each other with such force that when they embrace, they fall to the ground in each other’s arms. Without much foreplay, Lodja grinds her hips against Mwanda and their clitorises rub together with increasing speed and friction. They hold each other tight, cry and shriek, and when it is over, they fall apart exhausted, and lazily snack on some fruit.

        There are hundreds of examples of non-reproductive sex among animals, from albatrosses to koalas. But none of these examples can make people quite so uncomfortable as bonobos do. Two bonobo females having sex looks very different than two female albatrosses sitting placidly on their nest. Bonobo sex looks human.”


      • I agree, Strewth:- “Now do you presume God is like a stuck record, and goes on repeating outdated messages?”

        Unfortunately those “outdated messages” are all we have to go by ~ and the ‘authority’ with which every pusher of religion assails their targets.

        On the other hand, we can’t have an omniscient, omnipotent god ~ or his worded-up prophets ~ changing their minds, can we?
        For one thing, it’d leave in tatters the claim that god exists outside of time and oversees the past, present and future at the same time, as a singular tableau vivant.
        It’s also shatter any concept of ‘Free Will’.

        Life wasn’t meant to be easy, huh?


      • …and that —> “Guess this one is just a bluff.”…is just you posting YOUR opinion.
        Try redirecting some of the time wasted on meaningless twaddle to rebutting the comments made.
        Just currently, never mind the gospel-gossip; cite an few examples of where god actually requires or desires marriage…..or conducted one. (Even between heterosexuals.)
        Or advocated ‘sexual equality’….or equality of ANY sort.
        Or…… condoned the rule of the majority.
        or….. and so forth.


  3. ps….”Dumb animals have no perception of subtleties, nor common human sense.”
    I thought we were talking about dogs. Not people.
    Of course they don’t have “common human sense”
    For one thing, there’s NO such thing.
    For another: if there were it’d be entirely irrelevant. What passes for it doesn’t even achieve much for humans. Ever heard of the Canine State In Syria, for example?

    “They are just animals…you think they understand you because you feed them. Animal nature. Deception., It’s nothing more.”
    ….and your qualifications for such ….er, ‘subtle and common human sense’ assertions are??
    Oh wait, I forgot! you fed and walked a neighbour’s dog for a week once, didn’t you. Wow! that’s even more experience than you’ve had with god; so I guess that must account for your erudite pontifications. 😆


    • ps. —> That, of course “my dogs ~ male and female, black and white, shaggy and shagged ~ understand me better than most of the people on this blog,”,
      …..is because most of the people on this blog talk such crap.

      (I make the point because, upon reflection, I thought the connotation was a bit….er, ‘subtle’ for your ‘perception’ to grasp.)


  4. Here is another hypocritical example of the glbt lobby. SBS recently pulled out of an advertisement in favour of traditional family, whilst promoting the Gay Mardigras.

    But then it ran an advertisement about a hetero couple in which the husband was portrayed as a zombie, leading the wife to look for an adulterous relationship. The website even provided contacts for the wife to commit adultery.

    So SBS who promotes gay lifestyle also sends the message that monogamy is out and promiscuity is in. And for those who have become homophobic because of the endorsement of promiscuity within the gay lifestyle, SBS has just justified this fear.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s