From the White House website we read:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

Are people justified when they say this man is an antichrist or not?

g

OLAADEGBU:

From the White House website we read:

"NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

Are people justified when they say this man is an antichrist or not?

SHUT UP!!. . . .The developed world has moved past your stone aged morality that is predicated on the "us versus them" mentality, that is why a black man has been able to become the president of the USA. . . .I doubt if a black man can ever become the president of the USA if most Americans reason like you. . . . We are not living in the biblical times where Yahweh instructs people to stone to death their disobedient children, stone to death people that have intimacy out of wedlock or with the member of the same sex or give injuctions on how people are to enslave each other or sacrifice people unto him.  . . . .The world has moved on and in places like America your religious beliefs are in their waning days. . . . .Deal with that and stop whining over nothing. . . .

As for the myth of the anti christ read the bible again,the name "antichrist" is only found in 1 John 2:18, and even in the bible it says that the anti christs had already come, no?. . . .

1 John 4:1-3 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

This passage was written over a thousand years old and according to the passage the anti christ or his spirit was already in the world. . . . .What the passage is simply saying is that people that go around saying that Jesus did not come into the world in the flesh(as a man) are the anti Christ, Even back in the days there were so many people that do not agree that Jesus came into the world as the christians claim, so the letter was directed towards those making such claims and the author tagged them as the anti christ. . .But as usual you end of day enthusiast have taken the passage out of context and gave it a meaning and life of its own to feed your delusions. . . .

Martian:

I wish I could meet you to so I can see what IGNORANCE looks like.

I wish I could also meet you to see what FOLLY and disdain for knowledge looks like.

mazaje:

SHUT UP!!. . . .The developed world has moved past your stone aged morality that is predicated on the "us versus them" mentality, that is why a black man has been able to become the president of the USA. . . .I doubt if a black man can ever become the president of the USA if most Americans reason like you. . . . We are not living in the biblical times where Yahweh instructs people to stone to death their disobedient children, stone to death people that have intimacy out of wedlock or with the member of the same sex or give injuctions on how people are to enslave each other or sacrifice people unto him.  . . . .The world has moved on and in places like America your religious beliefs are in their waning days. . . . .Deal with that and stop whining over nothing. . . .

As for the myth of the anti christ read the bible again,the name "antichrist" is only found in 1 John 2:18, and even in the bible it says that the anti christs had already come, no?. . . .

1 John 4:1-3 says, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world."

This passage was written over a thousand years old and according to the passage the anti christ or his spirit was already in the world. . . . .What the passage is simply saying is that people that go around saying that Jesus did not come into the world in the flesh(as a man) are the anti Christ, Even back in the days there were so many people that do not agree that Jesus came into the world as the christians claim, so the letter was directed towards those making such claims and the author tagged them as the anti christ. . .But as usual you end of day enthusiast have taken the passage out of context and gave it a meaning and life of its own to feed your delusions. . . .

you need to stop getting bitter and go for some bible lessons

1. Ola did not call Obama the BEAST, he only called him Anti-Christ. Obama remains an anti-Christ just like u (Mazaje) are. The bible clearly defines an anti-Christ, and just like Obama u (mazaje) also fit the description. The literal meaning of anti-Christ remains one against Christ. would Christ have encouraged homosexuality?

2. what does the allowance of spiritual abominations have to do with civilisation? u talk of America moving forward, how does that have to do with homosexuality? is homo a natural incidence? does it tally with the secular laws of nature?

noetic16:

you need to stop getting bitter and go for some bible lessons

1. Ola did not call Obama the BEAST, he only called him Anti-Christ. Obama remains an anti-Christ just like u (Mazaje) are. The bible clearly defines an anti-Christ, and just like Obama u (mazaje) also fit the description. The literal meaning of anti-Christ remains one against Christ. would Christ have encouraged homosexuality?

Sure i understood what he was saying. . . .

2. what does the allowance of spiritual abominations have to do with civilisation?

What is this? That is why I have stated so many times that religion inhibits a person's moral growth and development. . . . .Religious based ethics or moral is always based on the "us versus them" or "We versus the world" idea as I aforementioned. The religious moral or ethics is always predicated on this very shaky platform. . . .Religion is actually stunting people's ability to fully understand real ethics by giving people false ideas about ethics. Aside from those kinds of meta-ethical issues, religion also gives people horrible normative ethical principles on issues ranging from freedom of speech, women's rights, child indoctrination and abuse, and gay rights which is the topic of discussion here. . .Secular ethics remain the BEST because it is comprehensive and tries to involve every body, The best societies and the most ethical societies in the world today are secular societies NOT religious societies. . . .America and Europe will not be as developed as much as they have if their societies had not thrown away the religious laws that used to guide them and developed secular laws. . .American and Europe will still have been like Africa or the Middle east if their laws were based on 'spiritual abominations". . . . .

u talk of America moving forward, how does that have to do with homosexuality? is homo a natural incidence? does it tally with the secular laws of nature?

They have moved forward ethically since they have now fully accepted gays as part of them. . . .They have moved on to the extent that they now have a black man as their president something that could not have happened 200 years ago. . . .Do you really believe that a heterosexual can just become gay over night? Homosexualism exists even in the animal kingdom and it is well known, for example the prophet of Islam(Mohammed) says that any sheep or animal that is found engaging in homosexual activity should be killed and its meat is not supposed to be eaten. . . . .Do animals chose to be gays?. . . . . .

g

mazaje:

Sure i understood what he was saying. . . .

ok.

What is this? That is why I have stated so many times that religion inhibits a person's moral growth and development. . . . .Religious based ethics or moral is always based on the "us versus them" or "We versus the world" idea as I aforementioned. The religious moral or ethics is always predicated on this very shaky platform. . . .Religion is actually stunting people's ability to fully understand real ethics by giving people false ideas about ethics. Aside from those kinds of meta-ethical issues, religion also gives people horrible normative ethical principles on issues ranging from freedom of speech, women's rights, child indoctrination and abuse, and gay rights which is the topic of discussion here. . .Secular ethics remain the BEST because it is comprehensive and tries to involve every body, The best societies and the most ethical societies in the world today are secular societies NOT religious societies. . . .America and Europe will not be as developed as much as they have if their societies had not thrown away the religious laws that used to guide them and developed secular laws. . .American and Europe will still have been like Africa or the Middle east if their laws were based on 'spiritual abominations". . . . .

Just like Ola, u are also entitled to ur opinion. but I do have a problem with ur opinion when u tend to pass them off as facts.

ehmn . . . .FYI the Christian ideology has never proposed a Christian state (at least not in this dispensation) so how did we come to the religious state versus non-religious state issue. also anti-religion has NEVER been the basis of development in ANY society. If Obama had openly called himself an atheist or muslim, would he have been elected president? Nope. This singular fact shows u that regardless of the societal and spiritual breakdown of Godly values, the worship and reverence of God is still held in high on the morality scale.

ehmn . . . And also Europe and America did not develop because they dumped the bible, (as a matter of fact they embraced Christianity long before Africa) but they developed because their leaders had foresight and selflessly pursued their visions which is a far cry from what is happening in Africa and the rest of the 3rd world.

thirdly . . , What u consider as civilisation is what many of us call spiritual abominations. can u at least respect our opinion, even though u have no logical ground to oppose such?

They have moved forward ethically since they have now fully accepted gays as part of them. . . .They have moved on to the extent that they now have a black man as their president something that could not have happened 200 years ago. . . .Do you really believe that a heterosexual can just become gay over night? Homosexualism exists even in the animal kingdom and it is well known, for example the prophet of Islam(Mohammed) says that any sheep or animal that is found engaging in homosexual activity should be killed and its meat is not supposed to be eaten. . . . .Do animals chose to be gays?. . . . . .

1. allowing a black man to be president is not a case of "moving on" how about giving back the original indians who own america, their rightful land.
The right to peacefully coexist cannot be expressed in the same light as the right to be an homosexual. Blacks and whites are humans and there is as such no natural, secular or religious reason for any form of segregation between them. That it took so long for a black man to be US president has no reflection on the US society but on the ability of the black man to have and follow a vision. there are many African-black states, how many of them work with a vision?

Homosexuality is NOT natural. and is devoid of secular, natural and religious laws and beliefs. while homos have every right to be who and what they are, they remain an abomination and Barack Obama's endorsement of this despicable act makes him an Anti-Christ.

Obama is an employee of the Freemasons of the United States. if you dont know!

noetic16:

Homosexuality is NOT natural. and is devoid of secular, natural and religious laws and beliefs. while homos have every right to be who and what they are, they remain an abomination and Barack Obama's endorsement of this despicable act makes him an Anti-Christ.

Homosexuality is natural. There are several instances of it occurring in other animals. Plus it has been with humans for as long as civilization.
See here http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/index.jsp?cfile=htm/bc/140208.htm
and here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article1288633.ece

Does the support of laws against the killing of witches, homosexuals or adulterers make a person an antichrist too? Since if one is not for Christ then that person is against him?

babaearly:

Obama is an employee of the Freemasons of the United States. if you dont know!

Oh he's an employee like a secretary or like "all presidents of the U.S. must be Freemasons"?
Please tell us how you know this.

thehomer:

Homosexuality is natural. There are several instances of it occurring in other animals.

I have often heard people assert that instances of supposed “homosexuality” in animals prove that homosexuality is natural.

And I positively assert that it is a comprehensively false and fraudulent argumentation.

Let’s have a critical look at it –

For the argument to fly, the natural first premise is that Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans indisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

The second premise on which the argument is hinged is that Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate: If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms.

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be – "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

If it is not the norm within the animal sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of mas.turbation on any available entity.

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion is that in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addition to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

Deep Sight:

I have often heard people assert that instances of supposed “homosexuality” in animals prove that homosexuality is natural.

That is not the only consideration in coming to the conclusion of it being natural. It is not even a good consideration. I only mentioned it because some use that to justify their bias against homosexuals. Other considerations include its presence in most human civilizations, the fact that they are simply a variant of human sexual tendencies. Others include bisexuality and asexuality.
Another consideration is that there is simply nothing physically or mentally wrong with homosexuals. They have normal human feelings and drives. Plus people do not simply choose to be homosexual, they simply are homosexual. I don't think people deliberately choose whatever sexual orientation they want. They simply find themselves there.

Deep Sight:

And I positively assert that it is a comprehensively false and fraudulent argumentation.

Let’s have a critical look at it –

For the argument to fly, the natural first premise is that Humans are Animals.

Although this premise is only partially correct, and may be said to be an over-statement or a limitation of definition regarding the nature of humanity, i will not dwell on it because humans indisputably are given of some of the same physical instincts as animals are. I will therefore give this premise a pass mark. Let's proceed.

The second premise on which the argument is hinged is that Animals engage in Homo Sexuality.

Now this premise is fraught with severe problems. Some of these problems are:

1. It is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule:

Let me elucidate: If one were to state: "Human beings eat food" - the direct inference would be that eating food is a normal and standard practice for human beings. That would be a correct inference as the statement has been set out in broad, generalistic terms. 

Let's take another statement: "Human beings are cannibals." This is another broad generalistic statement that could lead to a wrong inference: namely, that it is in the nature of human beings to be cannibals, and thus a normal and standard human practice. The correct way to phrase this statement would be – "Some human beings are cannibals." In this way it becomes clear that it is not necessarily within the nature of human beings to be cannibals, but that some human beings do practice such.

This is why i said that the second premise is a mis-characterization of an exception as a rule. It should properly have read: "Some animals engage in homosexuality" - thus making it clear that homosexuality is not necessarily the norm within the animal sub-set.

I don't understand what you're driving at here.
Are you implying that because an activity is not carried out by most animals it is therefore unnatural?
Or is it that you need a list of the different animals that have been noticed to have been involved in homosexual practices before you can conclude it is natural.
Though to be frank, I don't think that animal behaviour is adequate to be used to explain human behaviour.

Deep Sight:

If it is not the norm within the animal sub-set, we can hardly use this premise to reach a conclusion that it is anything but an exception for human beings (who, by the way, have a higher ethical reasoning capacity). That would be a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Even if the foregoing reasoning is wrong (i doubt that it is), there is a second and even more fundamental problem with the premise. This problem concerns the nature of animal homosexuality in the first place. To wit -

2. Animals are not homosexual in the proper definition of the word. Let's watch the cases of so-called animal homosexuality. Do such cases have any co-relation with human homosexuality? I contend that they are entirely dissimilar. This is the reason:

How do you want to define homosexuality?
For one no one knows what an animal thinks or how it thinks.

Deep Sight:

Animals do not make a distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention with reference to instinctive physical motions. For example when my dog is on heat, he will attempt to mount anything at all: including humans. He will push himself against a pole, against me, and against other dogs (male or female) in exercising the instinctive sexual motion. He does not see and develop a desire for a fellow male, he only makes instinctive sexual motions directed at anything. This is significantly different from humans who will see and have specific desires for persons of the same sex. No animal will engage in homosexual conduct if there is an available female on hand, against which it may throw its instinctive physical motions, but human homosexuality will actively disdain the female and specifically desire the male.

Maybe it's because humans have that capacity to reason and know what they like and what they do not like.

Deep Sight:

If you appreciate the foregoing, you will understand that animals are not in fact homosexual at all - in the proper sense of the word. Do they have a homosexual desire? Can you show me even one single animal that only sexually targets the same sex? You cannot, because animals are not homosexual in the definition of the word, and their so-called acts of homosexuality, comparatively speaking, are really just mindless acts of mas.turbation on any available entity.

Here's on instance to refute your claim. It was quite a story when it was published http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/love-that-dare-not-squeak-its-name.html

Deep Sight:

Therefore, on either or both planks - the point must emphatically be made that animal acts of homosexuality can never be a premise for human homosexuality because as i have shown above -

Sure it isn't but that is not the only reason given for concluding that it is natural.

Deep Sight:

    i. Animals are not homosexual within the context of homosexual desire and

We do not know how animals reason. Or if they can.

Deep Sight:

   ii. Even if they are, it is the case that some animals are, and not all. It is the exception, rather than the rule, and as such this could not possibly make a case for human homo-sexuality being anything but the same: the exception and not the rule.

Concluding that something is unnatural simply because it applies to a minority of a healthy population is discriminatory.

Deep Sight:

Given that the premise fails, the conclusion also naturally fails.

However, the Conclusion, if i might add, suffers independent problems of its own.

The conclusion is that in the natural order of things homosexuality is not a deviance from expected biological behavior.

Can we define the word "deviation".

Without bothering to consult a dictionary, i suppose that we can all agree that a deviation is a departure from a norm, a variation or a digression.

Are you now claiming that a deviation from the mean behaviour is something bad or unnatural? Please remember that a deviation from a mean cuts off two extremes. In this case, that would be exclusively heterosexuals on one side and exclusively asexual on the other when sexual orientation is considered on a scale.

Deep Sight:

"Expected biological behaviour", must clearly refer to the in-built sexual orientation geared towards biological goals. That's the only apt use of the word "biological" within that phrase. It is patently clear, from both the structure of reproductive organs, and the biological result of copulation (reproduction) that the sexual behaviour expected by nature should be heterosexual in nature. In addition to the fact that homosexuality is not the norm in any human society, it could thus be said to be both un-natural and anti-social. At the very minimum, it definitely represents a deviation, however that may be defined.

What you're attempting to do is to impose your views on the naturally observed world while denying what has also been observed as being "too negligible to matter", or "mindless".

Deep Sight:

However: addressing the topic of this thread, i must state without much ado that although i previously had a murderous attitude to the very idea that any person could be gay, i concede that it is patently obvious, and also empirically verified, that some persons have abnormal hormonal imbalances which affect their sexual orientation. Some men have degrees of female hormones that render them effeminate, and some women (beard and all) have degrees of male hormones that render them mannish, and thus inclined to become lesbians. This is a scientific fact, and no person can contest this.

You're also now ascribing to a complex human behaviour a hypothesis of it being a hormonal thing. Your claim that it is a fact does not make it so unlessyou have some good evidence to back it up. Actually, both males and females have varying levels of hormones of the other sex, but the sexual orientation occurs in the brain. The hormones mainly influence their physical body structure not their previous sexual orientation.

Deep Sight:

But in summary - it's ceratinly abnormal and unnatural and perhaps scientific solutions (such as hormonal re-balancing) should be sought.

No homosexuality is no more abnormal than being say a stay at home dad is abnormal. Hormonal treatment is used especially in transsexuals to improve their body image. Plus, it has its own health risks.

noetic16:

ehmn . . . .FYI the Christian ideology has never proposed a Christian state (at least not in this dispensation) so how did we come to the religious state versus non-religious state issue. also anti-religion has NEVER been the basis of development in ANY society. If Obama had openly called himself an atheist or muslim, would he have been elected president? Nope. This singular fact shows u that regardless of the societal and spiritual breakdown of Godly values, the worship and reverence of God is still held in high on the morality scale.

Do you know that there are vidoes of obama mocking the bible on youtube? Just serch for them on youtube, The fact that americans still voted for him despite him mocking some of the teachings of the bible in public tells you that they don't care. America is a very diverse society and religion has nothing to do with their moral standards since their laws and ethics are based on secular laws that they have developed. . . . .

ehmn . . . And also Europe and America did not develop because they dumped the bible, (as a matter of fact they embraced Christianity long before Africa) but they developed because their leaders had foresight and selflessly pursued their visions which is a far cry from what is happening in Africa and the rest of the 3rd world.

Of course Europe developed because they dumped the bible. . .How developed where they when the bible was what was guiding them? How developed where they when they were under the church? How has the bible helped in the development of europe?. . . They were able to develop only when they accepted reason as the primary source for legitimacy and authority not religious dogma. A simple look at their society tells you that they wouldn't have developed as much as they did if they were under the influence of any religion, because as we know religion does not help any society develop, free thoughts, freedom of expression and the willingness to create secular laws that are opposite to religious laws is what makes societies develop. . . .Religion has never made any society develop but secularism has made a lot of societies develop, and as such the most ethical and most developed societies remain secular societies NOT religious societies. . . . .

thirdly . .  , What u consider as civilisation is what many of us call spiritual abominations. can u at least respect our opinion, even though u have no logical ground to oppose such?

What is this? What is spiritual abomination? I will say it again the "us vs them" premise which religious morals or ethical code of conducts are predicated upon is very shaky, that is why religious societies are ethically and morally behind. . . .It is a well known fact that the more religious individuals are, the more prejudiced they are to other out groups. . . .The more religious people are, the more they devalue women and homosexuals, for example by denying them equal rights. . . .People will always be at war with each other as long as some regard the actions of others as "spiritual abominations" based on shaky principles that are not grounded on facts. . . . .

1. allowing a black man to be president is not a case of "moving on" how about giving back the original indians who own america, their rightful land.
The right to peacefully coexist cannot be expressed in the same light as the right to be an homosexual. Blacks and whites are humans and there is as such no natural, secular or religious reason for any form of segregation between them. That it took so long for a black man to be US president has no reflection on the US society but on the ability of the black man to have and follow a vision. there are many African-black states, how many of them work with a vision?

What is this, you must be kidding right?. . . .The right to give every body his or her right is very vital to the survival and development of every society. . .The fact that a black man whose father is from another continent is the president of america says a lot about how much the people have moved on. . .Only in american can such a thing happen. . . .No other majority white society can allow that to happen. . . .100 years ago people like obama can only be serving coffe or working in the masters house no matter the amount of vision they had. . . . .

Homosexuality is NOT natural. and is devoid of secular, natural and religious laws and beliefs. while homos have every right to be who and what they are, they remain an abomination and Barack Obama's endorsement of this despicable act makes him an Anti-Christ.

If homosexuality is not natural why then does it occur in the animal kingdom?. . . . .Do animals suddenly decide to go gay? Do you truly believe that a person can suddely decide to change his sexual orientation? I as a person can never be sexually excited when another man comes and touches me, but a gay man will be sexually excited when another man touches him, do you really beleieve that they learnt that act?. . . .The problem is this, you claim that obama's endorsment is despicable not because your assertions are grounded in any fact, but because they are against your religious views. . . . .How does obama's status as an anti christ have anything to do with the development of the united states?. . . .

Am talking about reality and you are busy bandying one myth after the other. . .

Jesus' Declaration renders Obama's declaration untenable.

"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female," and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6)

https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-know-obama-not

This is Paul's take on this declaration

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man––and birds and four–footed animals and creeping things.  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonour their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting (Romans 1:20-28)

Now, who is on the Lord's side?

The day i read this i discovered Obama would not lead America past his 4 years term.
His is a disgrace to Amricans, black race and a very big failure to human race. Homosexual my foot, if civilisation is all about men srewing their fellow men's a$$ i rather remain timid.

princekevo:

The day i read this i discovered Obama would not lead America past his 4 years term.

How did you make this discovery? Are you implying that fighting discrimination and prejudice is a bad thing? Or that it would lose him his office?

princekevo:

His is a disgrace to Amricans, black race and a very big failure to human race. Homosexual my foot, if civilisation is all about men srewing their fellow men's a$$ i rather remain timid.

I wonder how you evaluate a person being a disgrace. I for one consider it a bold statement against discrimination and would like to see your reasons for thinking he's a disgrace.

noetic16:

I wish I could also meet you to see what FOLLY and disdain for knowledge looks like.

May God richly bless you for capturing what Martian posted. I wonder why he withdrew that statement, maybe it has to do with your reply.

mazaje:

Do you know that there are vidoes of obama mocking the bible on youtube? Just serch for them on youtube, The fact that americans still voted for him despite him mocking some of the teachings of the bible in public tells you that they don't care. America is a very diverse society and religion has nothing to do with their moral standards since their laws and ethics are based on secular laws that they have developed. . . . .

Christians who voted for Obama were duped into believing that he was a Christian, he identified himself with a Christian church thereby camouflaging to be what he is not."  They should have seen the handwriting on the wall when he publicly denied the pastor of that church he was attending.  If they were looking for a Messiah then they missed the real One.

mazaje:

Of course Europe developed because they dumped the bible. . .How developed where they when the bible was what was guiding them? How developed where they where under the church? How has the bible helped in the development of europe?. . . They were able to develop only when they accepted reason as the primary source for legitimacy and authority not religious dogma. A simple look at their society tells you that they wouldn't have developed as much as they did if they were under the influence of any religion, because as we know religion does not help any society develop, free thoughts, freedom of expression and the willingness to create secular laws that are opposite to religious laws is what makes societies develop. . . .Religion has never made any society develop but secularism has made a lot of societies develop, and as such the most ethical and most developed societies remain secular societies NOT religious societies. . . . .

The reverse is the case.  Europe developed because their forefathers embraced the gospel.  Their constitutions, discoveries and morality came from their belief in the Bible.  Their grandchildren who do not follow this landmark are only enjoying what their fathers have put in place.  The only area where they are progressing is in the area of the information technology all other areas are as a result of building on what their forefathers have laid down.  The moment they despised the Bible you see that there is a moral breakdown starting from the family to the corridors of power and it is only a matter of time before their greatness crumble down which would herald the coming of the Beast who himself is said to be an homosexual.

mazaje:

What is this? What is spiritual abomination? I will say it again the "us vs them" premise which religious morals or ethical code of conducts are predicated upon is very shaky, that is why religious societies are ethically and morally behind. . . .It is a well known fact that the more religious individuals are, the more prejudiced they are to other out groups. . . .The more religious people are, the more they devalue women and homosexuals, for example by denying them equal rights. . . .People will always be at war with each other as long as some regard the actions of others as "spiritual abominations" based on shaky principles that are not grounded on facts. . . . .

The spiritual abomination noetic referred to is a result of the moral breakdown in the society today.  Other effects are abortion, violence, drunkenness, immorality, no respect for life as seen in euthanasia, juvenile delinquency, and the list goes on.  The root of the problem was when they embraced evolutionism over the Bible the result is what is unfolding before our eyes today.

mazaje:

What is this, you must be kidding right?. . . .The right to give every body his or her right is very vital to the survival and development of every society. . .The fact that a black man whose father is from another continent is the president of america says a lot about how much the people have moved on. . .Only in american can such a thing happen. . . .No other majority white society can allow that to happen. . . .100 years ago people like obama can only be serving coffe or working in the masters house no matter the amount of vision they had. . . . .

I know that you cannot see beyond the colour of Obama's skin as to the reason why he is now the President of the U.S. of A but those who are enlightened know that there is more to it that meets the eye.  It is degrading when you compare what is one's fundamental human right for the ethnic minorities and disabilities  with what sinful choices people make.

mazaje:

If homosexuality is not natural why then does it occur in the animal kingdom?. . . . .Do animals suddenly decide to go gay? Do you truly believe that a person can suddely decide to change his sexual orientation? I as a person can never be sexually excited when another man comes and touches me, but a gay man will be sexually excited when another man touches him, do you really beleieve that they learnt that act?. . . .The problem is this, you claim that obama's endorsment is despicable not because your assertions are grounded in any fact, but because they are against your religious views. . . . .How does obama's status as an anti christ have anything to do with the development of the united states?. . . .

Deep Sight and noetic have partly answered you query above but don't you think it is dehumanising comparing yourself with the animal kingdom?  Those who are without Christ have brought themselves down to the level of animals that just operate on instinct.  If you are thirsty would you drink water from a filthy sewage?  You have a choice as to where you will drink water from.

mazaje:

Am talking about reality and you are busy bandying one myth after the other. . .

If you must insist that the Bible is a myth then I put it to you that it is a true myth.  What fairytale do you believe in, evolution?

I don't remember the office of POTUS being a religious one neither do I recall voting for him just because he is a Christian. You guys need to worry about what you can control not what's outside your JURISDICTION.

Funny how someone in Asia already knows he won't win a second term

Visiting here from time to time is not enough to know how folks think in these parts my friends.

How did you make this discovery? Are you implying that fighting discrimination and prejudice is a bad thing? Or that it would lose him his office?

You would have asked yourself what the view of the founding fathers of America is on this issue. Obama was never elected based on religious ground agreed, but coming out in a public declaring himself a christian and working contrary to the principles, and beliefs of Christianity makes him nothing but a hypocrites. If Obama declared himself as a non christian or free thinker i have no problem with. I hate hypocrites, they irritates me, people who compromise with anything even when it is against what they have declared to be. As i Christian he claimed to be bible principles are supposed to be his foundermental principles. Now what does the bible said abt abortion and homosexuality which Obama is solidly behind.

This same Hypocritical acts is the reason why i will never take Oyedepo as serious pastor until he come out openly to his congregation and ask for their forgiveness for declare ObJ born Again in front of his congregation. I know many(his fellowers) will attack me on this, but i dont care

I wonder how you evaluate a person being a disgrace. I for one consider it a bold statement against discrimination and would like to see your reasons for thinking he's a disgrace

He is a disgrace to American people becoz if a refrandum is conducted on this issue to know the mind of American people you will dicover he is nothing but a failure even to wht he believe on. I dont need to tell how he is a digrace to African race and human race.

I dont see this as act of boldness, i see him as a man who lack principles, as such ready to embrace, compromise with jst anything.

ogajim:

I don't remember the office of POTUS being a religious one neither do I recall voting for him just because he is a Christian. You guys need to worry about what you can control not what's outside your JURISDICTION.

Funny how someone in Asia already knows he won't win a second term

Visiting here from time to time is not enough to know how folks think in these parts my friends.

I believe you are educated enough to know that i dont need to live in America to know what is happening around there and living there does not mean you knows everything that goes around you. The world has become a global village so my awareness is not determined by my geographical location. So dont be suprise that i might know American issues more that you that live there.

If you still doubt the fact that he is not gonna make the 2nd term, you can equaly save this post coz i shall come back after 3years to ask you howfar.

OLAADEGBU:

Christians who voted for Obama were duped into believing that he was a Christian, he identified himself with a Christian church thereby camouflaging to be what he is not."  They should have seen the handwriting on the wall when he publicly denied the pastor of that church he was attending.  If they were looking for a Messiah then they missed the real One.

Americans are now moving past the religious tag a person choses to give his or herself, The founding fathers of the united states were not even Christians but deist, so I don't even know what you are talking about. The evangelical religious right are a small minority whose influence is no more. . . .

The reverse is the case.  Europe developed because their forefathers embraced the gospel.  Their constitutions, discoveries and morality came from their belief in the Bible.

Name one development that came as a result of their belief in the bible, democracy which is one of their greatest leadership legacy was founded in Greece long before Jesus was born. Again just name one thing they were able to achieve in term of development as a result of their belief in the bible. . . . ,   

Their grandchildren who do not follow this landmark are only enjoying what their fathers have put in place.  The only area where they are progressing is in the area of the information technology all other areas are as a result of building on what their forefathers have laid down.  The moment they despised the Bible you see that there is a moral breakdown starting from the family to the corridors of power and it is only a matter of time before their greatness crumble down which would herald the coming of the Beast who himself is said to be an homosexual.

Its very clear you don't know jack about what you are talking about. . . .A little study in European history will help you here. . . .Europe was once under the leadership of the Church and we know badly it went, no?. . . . .What has the myth of the beast got to do with reality?

The spiritual abomination noetic referred to is a result of the moral breakdown in the society today.  Other effects are abortion, violence, drunkenness, immorality, no respect for life as seen in euthanasia, juvenile delinquency, and the least goes on.  The root of the problem was when they embraced evolutionism over the Bible the result is what is unfolding before our eyes.

How have their societies broken down?. . . .How are the societies that have embraced the bible and creationism better than them? Can you show me any society that embraces the bible and creationism that is better than them?. . . . .For example how is Nigeria(one of the most Christian nation on earth) better than Sweden one of the most atheist nation on earth?

I know that you cannot see beyond the colour of Obama's skin as to the reason why he is now the President of the U.S. of A but those who are enlightened knows that there is more to it that meets the eye.  It is degrading when you compare what is one's fundamental human right for the ethnic minorities and disabilities  with what sinful choices people make.

What is sin?. . . .

Deep Sight and noetic have partly answered you query above but don't you think it is dehumanising to comparing yourself with the animal kingdom?  Those who are without Christ have brought themselves down to the level of animals that just operate on instinct.  If you are thirsty would you drink water from a filthy sewage?  You have a choice as to where you will drink water from.

Do you have any evidence to show that those with Christ are any better than those without? or do you just love deluding yourself?

@ all, America's christianity is not God's standard, His standards are written in the Bible. Humans tends to think they are wise and propound theories and baseless philosophies, they are now becoming fools and vain in their immaginations. Read (1 Cor. 1:18-25. God will not change His word or repent of His stance on infidelity and all forms of immorality. Num.23:19

princekevo:

You would have asked yourself what the view of the founding fathers of America is on this issue.

Well what was the view of their founding fathers? Because from what I understand, they intended the country to be a secular one not a religious one.

princekevo:

Obama was never elected based on religious ground agreed, but coming out in a public declaring himself a christian and working contrary to the principles, and beliefs of Christianity makes him nothing but a hypocrites. If Obama declared himself as a non christian or free thinker i have no problem with. I hate hypocrites, they irritates me, people who compromise with anything even when it is against what they have declared to be. As i Christian he claimed to be bible principles are supposed to be his foundermental principles.

You should say he's not the kind of Christian you are or want him to be. But remember he is the president in a country of more than 150 million adults. They are not all Christians but all should have equal rights before the law. What makes you think that you are the best type of Christian?

princekevo:

Now what does the bible said abt abortion and homosexuality which Obama is solidly behind.

Well what does it say about abortion? Nothing the last time I checked.
And homosexuality? Well I think it says they should be murdered. Do you want him to honour this? You must really be living in the bronze age or something. And I guess adulterers, fornicators and others should also have their just reward since he's behind the bible.

princekevo:

This same Hypocritical acts is the reason why i will never take Oyedepo as serious pastor until he come out openly to his congregation and ask for their forgiveness for declare ObJ born Again in front of his congregation. I know many(his fellowers) will attack me on this, but i dont care

How do you know Obasanjo is not born again? Does he have to apply to you personally? A person being born again is not written on their forehead.

princekevo:

He is a disgrace to American people becoz if a refrandum is conducted on this issue to know the mind of American people you will dicover he is nothing but a failure even to wht he believe on. I dont need to tell how he is a digrace to African race and human race.

Your claim about a referendum on how Christian he is will give as varying a response as that of any other American political leader. You do need to tell how he's a disgrace to Africans and humans. Not everyone believes in your bible or your principles.

princekevo:

I dont see this as act of boldness, i see him as a man who lack principles, as such ready to embrace, compromise with jst anything.

Not everyone shares with you what you consider to be principles. You think he's compromised on this? You don't seem to know him as well as you think.

princekevo:

If you still doubt the fact that he is not gonna make the 2nd term, you can equaly save this post coz i shall come back after 3years to ask you howfar.

If he does win then what? Will you run away from Nairaland or donate some money to charity in his name?

zoe80:

@ all, America's christianity is not God's standard, His standards are written in the Bible. Humans tends to think they are wise and propound theories and baseless philosophies, they are now becoming fools and vain in their immaginations. Read (1 Cor. 1:18-25. God will not change His word or repent of His stance on infidelity and all forms of immorality. Num.23:19

Please what country's Christianity is God's standard? Please present your examples. So you want the U.S to become a country supporting witch killings, murder of homosexuals and adulterers?
I guess you want humans not to think. They should simply follow whatever their religious leaders say or whatever aspect of the bible they want. That my friend is a guaranteed recipe for chaos and destruction.

mazaje:

Americans are now moving past the religious tag a person choses to give his or herself, The founding fathers of the united states were not even Christians but deist, so I don't even know what you are talking about. The evangelical religious right are a small minority whose influence is no more. . . .

If you are conversant with America's political campaign you will realise that the contestants all try to pretend that they are religious by identifying themselves with a church or to use Christian slogans such as God bless America, even Obama had to say in the year of our Lord when declaring his unbiblical utterance.  Whether Christians or Deists the fact remains that they believed the Bible unlike you.

mazaje:

Name one development that came as a result of their belief in the bible, democracy which is one of their greatest leadership legacy was founded in Greece long before Jesus was born. Again just name one thing they were able to achieve in term of development as a result of their belief in the bible. . . . ,   

Look at the list of a sample of scientists Who Believed in the Bible and did exploits as a result of this.

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were creationists who took the Bible at face value. 

Physics:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

In case you are doubting whether they believed the Bible or not look at some of the quotes of some respected contemporary scientists showing appreciation and adoration for the wonders of God discovered through science.

"These men, as well as scores of others who could be mentioned, were creationists, not evolutionists, and their names are practically synonymous with the rise of modern science.  To them, the scientific enterprise was a high calling, one dedicated to "thinking God's thoughts after Him." -- A creationist and theologian, Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

Here is another quote from Arthur H. Compton, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics:

"Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature.  The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything . . . An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God . . .'"

And from some respected scientist in the past:

Johann Kepler: "The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

Lord Kelvin:  "With regard to the origin of life, science . . . positively affirms creative power."

Sir Isaac Newton:  "All material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent Agent.  For it became Him who created them to set them in order.  And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature."

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials." -- Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," New Scientist

Albert Einstein: "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with inspiration toward truth and understanding.  This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

mazaje:

Its very clear you don't know jack about what you are talking about. . . .A little study in European history will help you here. . . .Europe was once under the leadership of the Church and we know badly it went, no?. . . . .What has the myth of the beast got to do with reality?

Who is talking about religious dictators here?  Tell me one Christian nation that ever existed?  Christians were persecuted and scattered by emperors and religious dictators since the time of Christ.  What we have today are nations that have developed as a result of taking the Bible seriously in the making of their constitutions.  It was used in forming the constitution in Great Britain until the religious dictators took over and the real Christians had to escape to places like America for their religious freedom.  It was the Christians in America that fought for the freedom of African slaves, and Abraham Lincoln who coincidentally was born on the same day and year as Charles Darwin made a glorious declaration proclamation for the freedom of slaves, it is a pity that these so called African brothers cannot remember that it was the so called left wing that fought to keep them in perpetual captivity.  In Britain, Christians like John Wesley, Wilberforce and John Newton who for years fought relentlessy for the abolition of slave trade until it was eventually abolished.  It is a shame that Obama is now comparing the rights of ethnic minorities with that of sinful and abominable choices made by men such as the rights of a woman to kill her unborn baby and the rights of men to have anal s ex.   

mazaje:

How have their societies broken down?. . . .How are the societies that have embraced the bible and creationism better than them? Can you show me any society that embraces the bible and creationism that is better than them?. . . . .For example how is Nigeria(one of the most Christian nation on earth) better than Sweden one of the most atheist nation on earth?

The difference is the seriousness and application of the Bible in the European and American countries in the writing of their constitutions.  Look at Israel in the midst of Arab countries can you see the differences in their civilizations with that of their neighbours?  Do you know how many of their scientists that have discovered or invented things compared to those who do not believe the Bible?  Nigeria would have been great if they had continued to develop on the constitution based on the Bible but what we have now is a multi cultural one where the sharia laws permits Adults to marry minors thus setting the country back for years.  I am sure that if not for the education that the missionaries brought with the gospel you would still be in the doldrums as we speak.   

mazaje:

What is sin?. . . .

Sin is the transgression of the law.  What you now call freedom such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication, murder (abortion, euthanasia, the theory of survival of the fittest etc), injustice, blasphemy, no respect for authority and the like.

mazaje:

Do you have any evidence to show that does with Christ are any better than those without? or do you just love deluding yourself?

You are still looking for evidence?  What about the millions of babies killed each year in the name of abortion? The violence, murder and maiming because they now believe your so called theory of evolution that says we come from nothing and that we end up as nothing?  The pop culture that glorifies immorality and vanity?  I know that you cannot see the moral depravity going on all around you because you are "enjoying" your so called "freedom"

where is mazaje?

OLAADEGBU:

If you are conversant with America's political campaign you will realise that the contestants all try to pretend that they are religious by identifying themselves with a church or to use Christian slogans such as God bless America, even Obama had to say in the year of our Lord when declaring his unbiblical utterance.

 

The fact is the Americans have learned to separate religion from their collective affairs as a people. And they are better for it. . . .

Whether Christians or Deists the fact remains that they believed the Bible unlike you.

Since when did deist star believing in the bible? The American founding father were deist not christians. . . .

Look at the list of a sample of scientists Who Believed in the Bible and did exploits as a result of this.

How did the bible help Newton in his exploits? Pls state how the bible helped him in his scientific exploits

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science where were creationists who took the Bible at face value. 

Physics:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

How did the bible help these people in their scientific exploits as you stated?

In case you are doubting whether they believed the Bible or not look at some of the quotes of some respected contemporary scientists showing appreciation and adoration for the wonders of God discovered through science.

"These men, as well as scores of others who could be mentioned, were creationists, not evolutionists, and their names are practically synonymous with the rise of modern science.  To them, the scientific enterprise was a high calling, one dedicated to "thinking God's thoughts after Him." -- A creationist and theologian, Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

When did any of the scientists you listed above say they were thinking about any God's thoughts when they made their discoveries or are you lying as usual?

Here is another quote from Arthur H. Compton, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics:

"Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature.  The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything . . . An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God . . .'"

How is the universe in order?. . . . .

And from some respected scientist in the past:

Johann Kepler: "The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

Lord Kelvin:  "With regard to the origin of life, science . . . positively affirms creative power."

Sir Isaac Newton:  "All material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent Agent.  For it became Him who created them to set them in order.  And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature."

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials." -- Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," New Scientist

Albert Einstein: "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with inspiration toward truth and understanding.  This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

What have all these quotes got to do with any thing? I can also provide quotes from other scientist who have contributed so much to the scientific field of knowledge who were atheist, but am more interested in your assertion that they got their inspirations from the bible, Which part of the bible helped dalton with his discoveries in chemistry?. . .I just want you to show me how their beliefs in the bible particularly helped them in their scientific finding, I saw you provide quotes from people like Albert Einstein, a person who does not even believe in the bible and is on record declaring that the bible and the God it talks about are childish fables.