Was Jesus For the Killing and Eating of Lesbians?

Reading the Bible can be a SHOCKING experience. Just as one example which I felt I needed to share: There is not a single verse in the New Testament where in Jesus commands his followers not to murder lesbians!

The secret’s in the sauce…

I mean, it should be obvious that if Jesus was opposed to rounding up Lesbians and killing them to make a meaty Lesbian Stew, meatloaf or pasta sauce, he would have SAID so! Right?

It would be a MAJOR oversight to not address this matter if he intended us to not kill and eat them.

But not only does Jesus never explicitly forbid the murder and eating of Lesbians, but none of the apostles do either! Read the book of Acts, or Romans, or any of Paul’s letters, and you will never ONCE see a verse that says, “Do not kill and eat Lesbians.” There aren’t even verses which condemn killing them OR eating them. I mean, if Jesus had said, “The pagans kill and eat Lesbians, but you should not,” we could make a case for it. But it never even comes up! Continue reading

Posted in Jesus and the Bible, SocioPolitico | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Truth/ time

Truth changes over time.

What was true yesterday isn’t necessarily true today, and what is true today won’t necessarily be for tomorrow.

There is no absolute truth.

Oh wait a minute…

About what I just said…

That was true couple of years ago. That’s not true anymore.

Only an idiot would still believe that. 

You don’t STILL believe that nonsense, do you? 

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged | 1 Comment

Putting the FUN in Fundamentalist, one DAY at a Time

The Following is from a conversation I had with a Catholic friend I like and admire.

If you are defining a “Fundamentalist” as someone who refuses to accept any part of the bible as poetic or figurative, then I do not apply. My defense of Genesis 1 as history is NOT out of some broad-brushing of the ENTIRE Bible as literal fact, every word with no exceptions. When I get to Psalms, I know God is not ACTUALLY a rock or a shield or a tower. I defend Genesis as literal history because I believe it is written as literal history, and I know that there is not a single piece of data from science which argues against it. Atheistic interpretations or atheistic fictions, yes, but FACTS of science- NO. Again, I said plenty about that in my previous email.

Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Quick look into Church History About the History of the Earth

The following is from a conversation I had with a Catholic friend I like and admire: 

You made a passing comment about the lack of uniform belief in a literal week about 6,000 years ago through church history, and of course I cannot deny this. But then, no church had a doctrine of transubstantiation for the first thousand years of church history, and most today still do not.

One must build a case for what the Bible does and does not teach by the Bible, not by popular vote.

As AiG answers this better than I could, I shall just do a little cut and paste action here to explain why this is not an argument against my position, but rather, the history behind this question is a case against the OEC position.

From AiG:

Is Genesis non-committal on the age of the earth, as Sproul and many other scholars today say? If so, why is it that throughout church history most of the church fathers came to a conclusion on how old the earth was? As early as 181 AD Theophilus of Antioch wrote, “All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’s day] amount to a total of 5,698 years . . . .” Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Mark 6 and a Literal Interpretation of Scripture

This is part of a conversation I had with a Catholic friend I like and admire. In his previous email, he had questioned by use of Mark 10:6 to defend the idea that Jesus believed and taught that the creation of mankind was at the beginning of Creation, as opposed to 13 billion years later. Mark 10:6 quotes Jesus who says, ““But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’” 

You call into question my use of  Mark 10:6 to prove Jesus took this literally. I believe my position still stands, and here is why.

A look into Bible commentary shows that the phrase “of the creation” is not even found in the oldest texts, so even if one chooses a hyper-literal interpretation, they have to wait until later editions to do so, because the older texts say “At the beginning God made them male and female” (and not “At the first moment of creation…”). Also, I have to simply argue with your assertion that a literal interpretation of Jesus words would have to mean “at the very moment” Creation began. Jesus doesn’t say that, even in the English versions based on later texts. He says From the beginning,or at the beginning, or from the beginning of creation.

It does not use CREATION as a verb, such as “From the beginning of creating,” or “When God Began Creating…” Creation is used as a noun. And the creation account in Genesis, which Jesus is clearly referring to, shows Adam and Eve being created at the beginning of the Creation- DURING the creation of the Creation in the first of 52 weeks, in the first of (at Jesus’s time) 4,000 years.

Creation is the heavens and the earth, the sky and sea and all that live in them. The beginning of Creation was Genesis 1. Jesus meant what he said, and it does not clash with the Young Earth position at all unless you arbitrarily FORCE the words of Jesus to mean the first ACT of creation, or the first DAY of creation, when he does not say anything like it. Once again, I merely suggest we take the text as literally as the text is meant to be taken.  Not more and not less. Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Consider the Text (Genesis gets its YOM on)

The following is from a conversation I had with a Catholic friend I like and admire: 

Genesis 1 refers to each day as a “day”,

in numbered order, and with the inclusion of evening and morning. What in the text, either in Genesis 1 or anywhere else in scripture, tells us NOT to take it as written? Simply, nothing.

The text shows us we MUST take it as written.

In Exodus 20, God says “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” The reason why is because He is telling the Israelites that He set the example for them by working for six days and resting for one. Not only is this passage a lie if God actually worked for 13 billion years in six somewhat overlapping epochs, but it also makes no sense.

Why even bring up Genesis 1 if not to show that they are following a divine example? Surely even these people, without the benefit of i-phones and a public school education, could count to seven, or understand the idea of taking a day off? In other sections of the OT when God refers to a six to one ratio, such as working the land for six YEARS and then letting it rest for one YEAR, He does not bring up the creation week. If it was merely a metaphor meant to illustrate a six to one/ work to rest, then why only bring it up when He is talking about DAYS but never other lengths of time? Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

More on the Failure of the Fossils | Feedback Friday

A loyal reader wrote in on an article I wrote called:

Darwin Did Not Believe Evolution

First he quotes me from my article saying;

“He[Darwin] knew that the fossils did not contain the transitional forms his theory anticipated. This was also in his book. He expressed hope that SOMEDAY the fossils would reveal some transitional forms, but he admitted that, as of his lifetime, they had not. 

150 years later, they still have not.”

And then he replied by saying;

Those transitional fossils have now been found. Birds, wales and horses all have obvious roots, interim forms and their ancestors are documented in fossils. The other point about primitive eyes have also been well documented in living as well as the fossil record.

Sorry Loyal Reader, but it’s simply not true.

Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

How old does the Universe LOOK to you?

The following is part of a conversation I had with a Catholic whom I like and admire:

No doubt you may still have in your mind that Evolution, Deep time and Big Bang Cosmology are science- established facts based on observation.

Do these bones make my dinosaur look old?

You say:

If reason (not ideology) indicates that Genesis 1 is not a scientific account of creation, then the revelation contained in Genesis 1 must be something other than literal.”

And I would agree, though I would add, “Or it is wrong.” But only if by “a scientific account of creation” you actually mean “an ACCURATE scientific account of creation.” Because Genesis is not a SCIENCE account, it is a HISTORICAL account.

If you literally mean what you say here, that proving Genesis is not a scientific account (but rather a HISTORICAL account) would, by that fact prove it cannot be taken literally, then you are making the case that NO historical account can every be taken literally, and only SCIENCE books can be believed to mean what they say. I don’t think you mean that. And despite your words, I think you mean something different than what you said because of the larger context of this comment.

See? This stuff is wonderfully applicable to your everyday life.

Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Definition of Hypocrisy | Feedback Friday

Welcome to Feedback Friday! Today’s fan mail comes from This Article wherein I make the following comment:

“An atheist has no reason to get married, or stay married. An atheist has no reason to make vows or keep the vows they make.”

This is a statement about Atheism’s total lack of moral foundation. I in no way suggest that Atheists should not be ALLOWED to get married or anything like that. None the less, I got this reply.

Atheists have no reason to get married? How discriminatory & frankly ignorant. It should be a crime to indoctrinate children into that sick [swear words]

And yes, this was her entire comment with only the swears removed.

Angry Ferret is about to make you sorry to ever opened your big, dumb mouth!

Continue reading

Posted in atheism, Feedback Fridays | Tagged , | 4 Comments

The scientific case for a young earth model

Many people want to know if we Young Earth Creationists can make a case for our position beyond merely poking holes in the Deep Time/Evolutionary position. The answer is yes. Here are just a few examples of scientific observations which prove the deep time/evolutionary timeline to be impossible, and that the earth is, at most, .02% the age we are told by evolutionary dogma (note- NOT 2%, but 0.02%):

  1. The faint sun paradox: The sun is getting brighter over time, which means it was darker in the past. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, then the earth would have been frozen solid at the time life was supposedly evolving. But even worse, the ice and snow would have reflected back enough light to make the earth even colder, and it would have never thawed.

Deep time Ice age models have the same problem. Once an ice age begins, how do you make it stop? No models have an answer, except those which show the ice age as a result of the global flood (As described in Genesis).

The earth CANNOT be older than 3.8 billion years or the surface would be frozen solid and life could not exist.

We’ve just cut down the age of the earth by a billion years based on observational science.


Continue reading

Posted in The Creation SoapBox | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment