Explaining the Bible to Atheists

All was going so well at John Zande’s place until I started to explain the meaning of a few of the Bible verses to a fellow who I affectionately call, Professor T’Bo’ which is French for Professor Taboo.

Good John Zande began deleting my explanations of holy scripture and replaced them with gay nude pictures of our Lord.  He even threw in a few THE Donald memes.

And one of the other atheists scared the daylights out of me when he told me I wasn’t going to be saved.

It was when I was going to respond by asking how a big atheist dummy like him could possibly know such a thing when I discovered that John Zande…

…had banned me from making further comments on his site.

It kills me when I can’t call someone a dummy when they so richly deserve it.

That was right after another atheist accused me of blasphemy for conveying a teaching of Saint John Paul II, Pope which states that in coming to know God, we come to know ourselves. The atheist read that and thought I was claiming to be God. Four other atheists “liked” her comment.

Consequently, I feel it is my duty to continue explaining the meaning of certain Bible scripture that atheists parade as examples of just how contemptible they opine the Bible to be.

Evidently, someone paraded those same Bible verses in front of them sometime in their impressionable past and it turned them against the most valuable source of wisdom in the world.

Below is Professor T’Bo’s list of Bible verse that he finds offensive.

I am going to explain the meaning of two of the verses and I invite other Christians to explain the other verses, or expand upon the two verses that I have chosen to explain.

Courtesy of Professor T’Bo’:

“Since we’ve been discussing “the Book” here — which Book exactly is still completely unanswered — if I may, I would like to share some quotes from the 325 CE Nicaean Protestant Book/Bible (the CJB version) for consideration:

“If men are fighting with each other, and the wife of one comes up to help her husband get away from the man attacking him by grabbing the attacker’s private parts with her hand, you are to cut off her hand; show no pity.” — Deut. 25:11-12

“Yes, she lusted after their male prostitutes, whose members are like those of donkeys and who ejaculate like stallions.” — Ezekiel 23:20

“The daughter of a cohen who profanes herself by prostitution profanes her father; she is to be put to death by fire.” — Leviticus 21:9

“I will reject your seed; I will throw dung in your faces, the dung from your festival offerings; and you will be carted off with it.” — Malachi 2:3

“But if the charge is substantiated that evidence for the girl’s virginity could not be found; then they are to lead the girl to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her town will stone her to death, because she has committed in Isra’el the disgraceful act of being a prostitute while still in her father’s house. In this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you.” — Deut. 22:20-21

“I will cause them to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters; everyone will be eating the flesh of his friends during the siege, because of the shortage imposed on them by their enemies and those set on killing them.” — Jeremiah 19:9

“Whoever attacks his father or mother must be put to death.” — Exodus 21:15

“…and if there is something they want to know, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for a woman to speak out in a congregational meeting.” — I Cor. 14:35

“If a person beats his male or female slave with a stick so severely that he dies, he is to be punished; except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.” — Exodus 21:20-21

“A blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and smashes them against a rock!” — Psalm 137:9

“A leak that keeps dripping on a rainy day and the nagging of a wife are the same – whoever can restrain her can restrain the wind or keep perfume on his hand from making itself known.” — Proverbs 27:15-16

“Don’t suppose that I have come to bring peace to the Land. It is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword!” — Matthew 10:34″

78 responses to “Explaining the Bible to Atheists”

  1. Professor T’Bo’,

    Here is the meaning of your quote from Psalm 137 correcting of course for you taking it out of context with the previous verse 8.

    First the quote:

    Psalm 137:8 “Babylon, pitiless queen, blessed be the man who deals out to thee the measure thou hast dealt to us; 9 blessed be the man who will catch up thy children, and dash them against the rocks!”

    Now the explanation:

    Babylon is a metaphor for evil. Children is a metaphor for Babylon’s future.

    Understanding the meaning of the symbols “Babylon” and “children” it is obvious that the verse concerns the eradication of evil from the face of the Earth.

    The eradication of evil from the face of the Earth is something we can all get behind, no?

    Like

    1. Do we best understand it by using the vicious murdering of children as a metaphor? Perhaps the people who wrote the Bible were using it as a complete metaphor for the gullibility and desperation of human beings – no literal interpretations required at any point. Seems more likely than the one you give here.

      Like

      1. Violet,

        The Bible is about good and evil.

        I think the ancients who knew these scriptures would have been as appalled as you or I by the imagery used by the authors.

        But it is with this dire language and truly perverse imagery that we come close to comprehending the nature of evil.

        Like

      2. @violetwisp

        Justice is not a terribly complicated thing. Here is an explanation from a commentary.

        Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
        Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. That takes the infants from their mothers’ breasts, or out of their arms, and dashes out their brains against a “rock”, as the word (k) signifies; which, though it may seem a piece of cruelty, was but a just retaliation; the Babylonians having done the same to the Jewish children, and is foretold elsewhere should be done to theirs, Isaiah 13:16. Nor is this desired from a spirit of revenge, but for the glory of divine justice, and that such a generation of cruel creatures might be rooted out of the earth; see Revelation 2:2. Some allegorically understand this of crushing and mortifying the first motions of sin in the heart; but such a sense seems to have no place here.

        (k) “ad petram”, V. L. Pagninus, Montanus, &c. “ad repem”, Cocceius.

        In ancient times, no one would have seen anything amiss in Psalm 137. Today, because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, we find an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth troubling. Today we find it more difficult to visit the sins of the fathers on their babies.

        In its entirety, the psalm speaks of the sorrows of Jewish captives suffering in slavery, tormented by their captors. As brutal as sounds to us, to them it was nothing more than a plea for justice.

        Like

        1. Citizen,

          Such great commentary!

          Thanks for your contribution.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Professor T’Bo’,

    And here is the explanation of your quote from Ezekiel of which again, you didn’t bother to consider in the context in which it is written.

    First the quote:

    “Yes, she lusted after their male prostitutes, whose members are like those of donkeys and who ejaculate like stallions.” — Ezekiel 23:20

    Now the explanation:

    Ezekiel is describing in very graphic, pornographic terms, the moral quality of the Hebrews.

    Like

    1. I think an all-knowing god could find a better metaphor than one that so degrades women.

      Like

      1. Violet,

        Actually, no. The heartbreak of a man who gave his all to his wife only to watch her become a wanton whore is something anyone, especially men understand perfectly.

        Like

  3. Harden up Princess… Just showing you what it’s like.

    You did delete/edit/alter my comments, didn’t you?

    Like

    1. John,

      I couldn’t care less.

      I give you official permission to run your blog any way you choose.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. John, eye for an eye doesn’t work, even the Bible writers worked that one out. We’re all agreed that we should treat others how they would like to be treated, which we usually understand best by thinking how we would like to be treated. You don’t like being censored and neither does SOM, so no-one wins here. Don’t let this precious friendship you two have suffer! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. He’s not banned. I was just showing him the mirror after he altered/edited/deleted my comments.

        Like

        1. Eye for an eye …

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Didn’t you ban someone recently? 😉

            Like

            1. I’ve asked people to leave, never had to enforce it … maybe one spam for that racist blogger after lots of warnings. And it wasn’t revenge, just weariness – I don’t think it’s ever ideal.

              Like

            2. It wasn’t revenge. SOM was drunk and scatter-bombing the thread with nonsense. He needed a time out.

              Like

            3. John,

              I was answering Professor T’Bo’s comments, one of which I reprinted here, when you banned me.

              You banned me because I was shedding light on the meaning of Bible verses that turn ignorant, gullible people into atheists.

              Apparently, you are very insecure about your atheism since the real Bible scares the hell out of you.,

              Like

            4. Yeah, I just sent him over here. We’ll see if he shows up to continue the conversation.

              You won’t censor him, will you?

              Liked by 1 person

            5. …and to remind you, he’s not banned. He’s one of my favourite blogging buddies. One of the best examples of Poe’s Law out there.

              I would post his responses to Colourstorms flat earth nonsense the other day, but he seems a little shy about those being repeated.

              Like

            6. John,

              By the way, if you haven’t banned me, why can’t I comment on your blog?

              Like

            7. You should be able to. I removed your name after figuring you’d probably sobered up.

              Like

            8. And yet you bullied and abused Colourstorm on his post, on his blog.

              Would you like me to re-post your comments to him?

              Like

            9. John,

              Explaining why someone is incorrect and describing in clear, easy to understand terms, the implications of such error, is not bullying or abusive.

              I like what I say and I love myself for saying it.

              And I certainly don’t need a psychopathic pervert like you using my words in an intentional attempt to hurt others.

              John, you are a sick man. I recommend that you get some help.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. Explaining why someone is incorrect and describing in clear, easy to understand terms, the implications of such error, is not bullying or abusive.

              You did indeed try to explain it all to Colourstorm. Your examples were accurate and well-delivered. They were, of course, ignored, hand-waved away, dismissed, and then you (rightly, i believe) went off your rocker at him.

              These are two of my favourite lines, but there were many, many more pearlers

              “You are a barbarian pagan posing as a Christian”

              “If you believe the earth is standing still, then you are a superstitious, medieval heathen.”

              Hardly gentle, SOM.

              Like

      2. Violet,

        Is it possible for two men to be friends when one calls the other, “Princess?”

        Liked by 1 person

  4. JZ altering or blocking comments, for any reason? Brilliant. 🙂

    Typical Evangelical (Atheist) behavior when they can’t defend their position:

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I know!

      What am I going to do now that the source of my fair share of abuse has been ruthlessly stripped from the clutches of my cold not so dead hands?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I recommend: enjoy the victory.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. !YaY!

          That little “a” is me enjoying the victory with my cheerleader pompoms.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. How is it possible that JZ is just now realizing that he is over matched with you? You’ve been pounding atheism to dust for a long time.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I’ve never seen anyone get so worked up over a little Bible verse.

      My goodness!!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. In JZ’s morally relative universe, censorship is absolutely evil.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Yeah, and now that JZ is being absolutely evil with me, I’ve got to, “Harden up, Princess!”

          The nerve of that guy!

          Like

    2. Ha!

      Zande loses the fight long before he gets into the ring! God has not, and will never lose an argument to ants, industrious as they may be.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ColorStorm,

        Unfortunately, God does indeed lose the argument.

        Jesus gave us the duty to make disciples of all nations.

        That means we need to go out into the atheist hinterland of today just like Paul when out into the pagan hinterland of his day, to present God’s argument for salvation.

        Like

        1. Nope. He loses nothing.

          He just asks us to come along as workers together.

          Like

          1. Storm,

            When God loses, so do we.

            He doesn’t need to win the argument.

            We need him to win the argument.

            And if we don’t make the argument, we lose.

            And because God loves us so much, that is a loss for Him, too.

            Like

            1. I still disagree. You make a circular argument, but He never loses.

              As a matter of fact, I’ll go even further and say we do not even have to win the argument. It’s won and done already.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Storm,

              If what you say is true, Jesus could have stayed home and saved himself the trouble.

              Again, I compare your type of thinking to the atheist.

              You think everything just happens all by itself and at the same time deny specific biblical teachings on the relationship between God and man.

              Again I recommend that you take out your Bible and actually read it.

              The specific teaching I am referring to is at the beginning of Genesis.

              Like

            3. Yikes Silence. I was accused recently by atheists of ‘not using scripture’ also. It’s a charge that I find amusing.

              Meanwhile back at the ranch, scripture drips from every comment, and the idea that I ‘should take out the bible and actually read it,’ is well, not really worth commenting on silence.

              Perhaps you should read my series on Mary, (and see if scripture is handled correctly, see if God is honored, see if she is demoted, and see if compromise is avoided. By the way they have received many a good review. 5 posts)

              Like

            4. Storm,

              Your demonstrated lack of understanding of holy scripture is evident to everyone, it seems but yourself.

              I notice that not one Christian, not even you, pitched in to explain the verses from Professor Taboo’s list.

              I’ll give your series on Mary a look. But if your comments here are any indication it is probably a complete disaster.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Not one Silence? Maybe people are wiser than you think.
              Maybe people are well aware of the eternal magic tricks by other people who use scripture not as it is intended, but as a playground for fools, where any sane conversation is impossible.

              So maybe just maybe, people avoid such chatter, lest stupidity be given credibility.

              God’s word stands on its own, and does not need my help, or yours, to defend it. By the way, if people do not believe: ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…….’ they CANNOT understand God’s word.

              But maybe you can teach monkeys how to spell. Good luck with that. Maybe you are wiser than God.

              Like

            6. Storm,

              People who believe the Earth is flat are not wise, they are stupid.

              People who use the Bible to justify stupidity are idolaters.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Storm,

              I couldn’t find your series on Mary.

              Like

            8. I’ll repost it just for you Som.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Thank you, Storm.

        I would really appreciate that.

        Like

  6. Hello SoM,

    At the insistent suggestion of other bloggers, I popped over here to see what all the fuss was about me. Imagine my disappointment when I see only FIVE bloggers (currently) participating in discussions. Yikes, not a good consensus or survey at all! LOL Anyway, jumping right in…

    This is my 4th or 5th visit here, over many months, hoping I’d find an update or new information on your About page, if for no other reason than to understand you better. But alas, your background, your education attained, where, and hints of some About-ness of you remain a complete mystery to everyone. If you’d like to update that page or share pertinent facts here, I’d love to read them so we can hopefully have civil mature dialogue here(?) that you refused to offer in return on other blogs. Thank you, in advance?

    Just on this Special Post for me, thank you by the way, I find some fallacies which need correcting about me.

    Though I do indeed descend partially from French heritage and Catholic heresy, your description of Professor T’bo/Professor Taboo is significantly lacking. Stating for the record here, Professor = Certified licensed public teacher with all the approved, cleared background checks the state of Texas exercises and enforces. Taboo = the eager willingness to discuss any subject whatsoever under the Sun and Moon, especially those the general vanilla public find awkward or frightening to the Conservative and Ultra-Conservative. Now that your hasty faulty assumptions are corrected about a person’s simple “story”, you could’ve just asked. Alrighty now, let’s move on…

    I do appreciate you posting my attempted discussion and questions to Madblog over on John Zande’s blog. However, what you omitted from that entire Q&A was my sincere attempt to simply know WHICH “book” or bible Madblog was referencing. As I made clear in John’s comments, my question to her was quite OPEN-ENDED, giving her the freedom to answer it as she saw fit. Why? Because as Leroy later demonstrated, and I quote him “Your quote and my NIV is much different“…even 150+ English translation versions are different, in some cases/contexts NOTICEABLY different! Hence, the importance of knowing which translated-version Madblog uses! I still don’t know why Madblog danced around that simple question. By the way, I’m guessing here, but I’m sure Madblog doesn’t use the Latin Vulgate version. 😉

    Nevertheless, the obvious point to my question to her — and all readers there — was that translations, linguistics, interpretations, interpolations, extrapolations, and languages, cultures, over many many time periods OUTSIDE OF Greco-Roman-Judaic scribing, exegesis, original theology, Messianism in 1st-century Judea, including the Latin Vulgate… were as cumulatively and comprehensively varied as the number of stars in the solar system, Milky Way, and Cosmos. All this is more than adequate supporting evidence as to why there are so so many variations, sectarian, denominations JUST IN Christianity! You, Madblog and Leroy couldn’t seem to wrap your heads around that well established reality.

    There are further corrections and explanations required in your comments below, but I’m skipping that and focusing (for now) only on the content/framing of your post.

    Now to close, if certain people choose to live life as an osterich-in-the-sand, ONLY learn about their own familial traditions and local communal experiences, never going out of a 100-mile radius most of their life to experience other peoples, then so be it. Unfortunately, that will be only ONE lens out of a kaleidoscope of multiple lenses (versus a monistic elitism) sacrificing the gift of truly understanding, becoming wise, and a better benefit to the greater good of greater numbers. But I get a distinct feeling SoM, based on your history with me, you are going to have all sorts of heckling things to say about this. Hahahaha. Oh well. Live and let live.

    Have a marvelous weekend SoM.

    P.S. I’m not an atheist by the way. You could’ve easily read that on MY About page. 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Professor Taboo!

      Welcome! Thanks for dropping by!

      I don’t provide any information about myself because I have had people track me down and try to ruin me and my family.

      I am a tad offensive on other blogs because I am outnumbered and thus very defensive.

      But in my own space I do my best to behave myself and make others feel welcome.

      Like

      1. I don’t provide any information about myself because I have had people track me down and try to ruin me and my family.

        Ahhh, I certainly can relate to that treatment and social-occupational discrimination by the Conservative majority(?) here in Texas and the Bible-belt. Completely understand. As I was trying to explain (in futility) to Leroy, there are very wise precautions to take toward those who despise or hate you, even manifest violent language and behavior to one’s self, when they can or might control your livelihood for self and family.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. A tad offensive?

        LOL!

        If it wasn’t all an act, that comment would be wildly offensive 😉

        My apologies, I’ll keep watching from the corner 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        1. LOL… I guess everyone’s “measurement” of others varies as much as there are biblical translations and exegesis, or rather sand granules in the seas, huh John? 😉

          For me personally (and speaking in general SoM), rude slurs or heckling to a complete stranger is nothing unfamiliar. Use to it. I heard it every week and weekend throughout my entire collegiate, semi- and pro soccer career around the world from opposing fans — even managed to dodge a few missles/objects meant for my body/head. LOL And of course, it is very safe to assume that many many of those opposing fans were of various religions, especially “Christian.” The behavior is simply from our ancient primate urges, male especially, to rule and instill fear. Hahaha. On the internet the rude slurs/heckling are even less meaningless. Unavoidable sometimes if you stand by what you believe. So…

          Back on topic here, discussing and dialoguing about a subject as historically VAST as religious history and their sacred scriptures, over several millenia throughout thousands of thousands of miles of cultures and people, is NOT an easy nor a regular occurence over the phone, let alone on the streets. Therefore, the HARDEST part of even attempting a productive discussion/dialogue — wisely with a very large number of varying views and experiences for higher accuracy — (takes a deep breath from, to use SoM’s word, bloviating! 😛 )… is where to start. Sounds simple, but it isn’t at all. Frequently it’s hard as Hades when one (in peaceful manners) steps out of their own tiny sphere of local experience to expose themselves to many others. Asking questions, a lot of questions, however is a GREAT place to start! Hah! That’s how civil discussions are begun I would think. 😉

          John, if this is an uncensored blog, then I welcome your feedback, comments, contentious or favorable, makes no difference. How else can we be challenged, more broadly educated, and more whole for a greater good if we don’t ask relavent questions? 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, if you pin our good friend SOM down on any subject then you’re a better man than I. Deflection is an art to many an apologist, and I suspect SOM might teach it at some Texan community college.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. John,

              I answer all relevant questions directly.

              Deflection is when I don’t allow you to derail the conversation.

              Please read the comments you’ve made here.

              Not one of them has anything to do with the post.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Of course they do. This post is, after all, about me holding up a mirror to your behaviour… which you seem to have taken offense to.

              Therefore: Mission accomplished!

              Your responses to the Professor (the secondary point of this post) are a different thing altogether, and I’m watching the exchange. I have to leave for SP in a while, but I’ll keep abreast of that thread with a keen eye.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. John,

              I hate to break it to you but you are hallucinating.

              I wrote this post. Not you.

              It has nothing to do with your smoke and mirrors.

              Like

            4. Right, and that’s why you referenced me, and linked my name, at the eleventh word…

              Like

            5. My apologies… at the seventh word in the first sentence.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. John,

              Do you have a favorite Bible verse that you would like to have explained to you?

              Or should I go ahead and pick one from the list?

              Like

  7. John and SoM,

    I was reading both of your last exchanges above and when asked about any bible passage/verse, aside from my list above in the post, this one came to mind — out of hundreds — to ask about here. Though before I ask and get some individual exegesis (one for the sake of context & unambigious theology that is backed-up by several other biblical passages and verses from both Old and New Testaments)… I want to first say this.

    In several parts of the globe during several time periods, an egalitarian sociopolitical structure existed in kingdoms going as far back as the 4th- and 5th-centuries BCE. One example, the northern Arabian Nabataeans — then others in the Congo, Philippines, and to strict extents Sumerians and Celtic groups. The Nabataeans did NOT believe in slavery, sexism, or genocide.

    In light of that history, what is implied — if we are to consider ourselves today civilized, more advanced, democratic, and beacons of unabridged equality — when we read Paul’s epistle and teach 1 Timothy 2:12, which from the NIV goes:

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Professor Taboo,

      Though women run almost every area and aspect of the Catholic Church including its education programs, the priesthood is reserved for men.

      This is to model Christ and the Apostles.

      It has nothing to do with modern gender roles but human nature, male and female.

      Are men to be offended because they can’t have children?

      Like

      1. Are men to be offended because they can’t have children?” HAH! That was actually funny SoM. Good one. 😉

        No, the reason I asked is because this subject is a hot topic of widespread confusion and controversy among many Christian churches and seminaries. Here are a few examples as to why: How does one reconcile I Corinthians 14:33-35 with this verse and/or with Ephesians 5:22-24 and then back again with I Corinthians 11:5? When one reads all of Paul’s epistles, Acts and all four synoptic Gospels for increased hermeneutics, a compelling arguement CAN be made for women in church leadership in Cenchrae, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Rome, along with Yeshua’s teachings of the NEW Kingdom of God (Matt. 20:26). More questions arise: What is meant by teaching? What constitutes authority?

        Then to make matters worse, the confusion & controversy persists with other New Testament and Old Testament passages/verses. For example, Numbers 11:16 (ala creation-hierarchy), Mark 3:13-19 (no women!), Acts 1:12-26 (no women!), and I Timothy 3:1-7 (“He”, no She’s!). These passages along with 1 Tim. 2:12 and I Cor. 14:33-35 are oft used by and seen in Presybterian, Southern Baptist, and Roman Catholic catechism traditions. But the fact of the matter is that gender roles in the home, market-place, or governing chambers and offices are NOT a modern phenomena, as I stated in my above examples on the Nabataeans, there are historical exceptions and they are not ordained strictly by gender.

        This now 2,000+ year old confusion/controversy fragmenting Christian churches begs other understandable questions: WHO is writing what and saying what!? Is it GOD speaking Genesis-creation principles, is it a disgruntled Pharisee and Gamaliel-protégé named Paul, is it post-Pauline 2nd-century CE church interpolation!? And as a relevant sidenote, the problems and incidents between Paul and the Council of Jerusalem and Yeshua’s brother James (Antioch) are WELL documented!

        WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE CONFUSING when scripture is SUPPOSED to be God-breathed!? Is this a game the Council of Nicaea later played on Gentile followers!?

        …the priesthood is reserved for men.

        I’m glad you mentioned this because I was going to ask you how many women are in positions or have been in positions of pastoral care, overseers, etc, as bishops, cardinals, or (rhetorically) at anytime the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church? 🙂 When you are asked about these God-based(?) biblically-based(?) gender restrictions in the RCC — and in many other Christian denominations as well — how do you respond/explain to them?

        Thanks SoM

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Professor Taboo,

          The Catholic Church of today is not the early Church.

          It has developed over time.

          And this is both because the cultural milieu of Christianity has changed and because the Church’s understanding of the Gospel has deepened.

          For example, Jesus proclaimed that the Church would last forever.

          If we think about that, what lasts forever better than a bureaucracy patterned after the governance of Rome, itself?

          Further, Catholic clerical celibacy, the institution of private confidential Confession, baby Baptism, and all-male clergy developed over time from bedrock Catholic theology.

          Consequently, human nature, male and female, created in the image of God, dictate that only women bear children and only men become priests.

          Woman as priest, like gay marriage is a violation of human nature, male and female.

          Like

          1. “Consequently, human nature, male and female, created in the image of God, dictate that only women bear children and only men become priests.

            Woman as priest, like gay marriage is a violation of human nature, male and female.”

            Ok. To each their own. Much of the educated population and educated world would disagree as I do. In some circles vehemently disagree with your final sentence. There would be some wise Feminist that would take serious offense to what you postulate. Again, I’d have to side with them and much of the world.

            Thanks SoM for this dialogue. I only wish that many MANY more people were involved in the discussions. 😦

            You and your family have a great week next week.

            Like

        2. Professor Taboo,

          First, I know what I know because of my education.

          Consequently, it is much of the LEFTIST “educated population and educated world” that disagrees with the natural theory that I have expressed in my comments here.

          Whereas, the leftist constructs his philosophy out of current pop culture ideas, natural law theory uses human nature as its standard.

          For you and the leftist educated class, standards are always fluid since they change as the culture changes.

          Since human nature never changes, it remains a fixed and objective standard.

          Like

          1. SOM, I’m curious, just how badly are you going to be screwed over by Trumpcare?

            Asking because you’re capitalising LEFTIST, for some reason.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. John,

              ObamaCare was so expensive that I got an exemption from the IRS not to have to buy a policy.

              From what I understand, THE DonaldCare, will be have two systems, one provided by the government and one provided by the free market.

              So unlike ObamaCare, everyone will be able to afford their medical bills.

              I have been without medical insurance since 2010 because ObamaCare was just too damned expensive.

              Like

            2. One provided by the government? I haven’t heard that. They’re decreasing medicaid, if that is what you’re talking about.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. John,

              We’ll just have to see how things play out.

              There is so much fake news these days.

              Also, the bill still needs to be passed by the Senate.

              God only knows what it will look like after that.

              Like

            4. So, you actually know about as much about the bill as Trump and the GOP members of Congress know it about it… Nothing… except, of course, that it’s a $800 billion tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1% of US citizens.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. John,

              Nobody cared what was in ObamaCare.

              The architect even admitted it was a fraud.

              Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House said, “We’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

              Where were you back then with your protests?

              Like

            6. Here’s the White House statement on the firing of Director Comey:

              Like

            7. I am surprised that it took this long for THE Donald to fire Comey.

              He’s a Hillary lackey.

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Having an education has many benefits, especially when it has been undergrad and more so post-grad. Nowhere near enough people have the fortune and opportunity (blessing?) of a quality BROAD education. Specialized educations (trade schools) are good, but many are not intended to prepare grads for upper-management or ownership of a thriving business. Nevertheless, higher education is a necessity to superbly cope with and manage all of life’s many changes and the world’s curve-balls with higher objectivity and less with unpredictable emotions or hyper-frustrations. You are lucky SoM.

            Fluid“? “Nothing changes“? “LEFTIST” and by binary default Rightists? “Human nature never changes“?

            I’m happy you used the word “theory” twice and implied, as well as contrasted, its expanded meaning. After all, theories are never meant to be static. 😉

            My world-views and social-views aren’t strictly reflective of me SoM. They reflect what I and millions of other humans see, learn, and experience, and dare I say, what the Christian canonical bibles teach: CHANGE. Let me elaborate on this please.

            First, CHANGE from a secular viewpoint. Are we all the same person we were in elementary school? Same size, same height? Do your children and my children remain as they were 5, 10, 20-years ago physically, mentally, spiritually, or emotionally? Will they be identically the same 5, 10, 20-years from now? These are not meant to be smart-ass questions SoM, just bear with me. Regarding the fluidity of human nature, we saw C.P. Ellis and Ann Atwater, one horribly opposite personality from completely polarized backgrounds, become best friends until Mr. Ellis’ death. Other well-known examples of the fluidity of human nature are Eric Lomax & Nagase Takashi, David MacAllister & Chris Carrier, Tommy Pigage & Mr. & Mrs. Frank/Elizabeth Morris, and one of my favorites Emmanuel Ndayisaba & Alice Mukarurinda.

            The natural biological world around us, our solar system and universe/multiverse are constantly changing as often as humans do! The list of examples are endless and much too long for here. Others here on your blog can remember more and add to my two simple examples, but two obvious ones are transportation — from beasts of burden to automobiles and aircraft; spacecraft even — and also the extinction of dinosaurs. Well, that is if you do/don’t count crocodiles, alligators, osterich, Komodo dragons, et al. Hahaha! No one or two human births are exactly the same nor do they follow ANY binary blue-print! This fact is overwhelmingly true! Go here for the statistics: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

            Now CHANGE from a Christian canonical viewpoint. I really doubt Isaiah 40:8 (and other OT verses) speaks to comprehensive absolute static uniformity. Yes, the natural world & humans change all the time, but even God’s “Word” changes too, e.g. Mark 16:8(?) or 9-20? The Canon/Council of Trent or Canon/Council of Nicaea as I’ve already mentioned here and sufficiently pointed out to Leroy over on John Z’s blog-post. To list a few more biblical “changes” over the centuries you have (or not have?) in the Book of Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:6p-7, and 28:29. In Romans you have (or not?) 16:24. In Luke you have (or not?) 17:36 and 23:17. In John you have (or not?) 5:3-4 and 7:53-8:11. And in Matthew you have (or not?) 17:21, 18:11, and 23:14.

            And finally from a theological doctrinal debate, what happened to Adam and Eve in the Garden? Things apparently took a horrible change! What took place with the definition and purpose of a Messiah/Messianism and Yeshua’s overall reformations for Judaism and its horrible Sectarianism? Why is redemption such a HUGE deal and repeated theme of different canonical bibles? What changed? To state the obvious, YHWH must have wanted something different, VERY different from his first Creation mistakes! Or… is there actually human free-will which fluctuates all the time?

            Clearly SoM, all these unanswerable questions, confusion, controversy, never-ending fragmenting of not just Christian followers, but all Abrahamic faith-followers too, indicate CHANGE. Therefore, I personally must utterly and completely disagree with your position and statements.

            Thanks for these educational discussions Sir. Enjoy your week!

            Like

  8. @SoM

    And THIS comment by taboo, is proof positive why some are wise to avoid the absurdity and accept your invitation for dialogue. Here you have a man citing scripture, while claiming the (mistakes) of the Creator… and you think there is COMMON GROUND for dialog? Please.

    After 7 thousand comments later, you will have a comment thread infested with pornography, spiritual malfeasance, depravity of every stripe, ridicule toward God, scripture, and people of faith, with nothing settled, and the atheist/unbeliever/infidel/fool still more lost than London fog.

    So I respectfully decline to acquiesce to your request. 😉

    Like

    1. Storm,

      It sounds as if you’ve been pussy whipped into silence.

      Real martyr material you are.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Your comments are making me look a genius silence. I suggest you stop. 😉

        Like

        1. Storm,

          If I am making you look like a genius I think I will continue commenting.

          Thank you.

          Like

          1. There is more than you can ever ask for in that last reply regarding the taboo.

            It is spot on, true, concise, and answers the heart of the matter, perfectly.

            Like

Leave a comment