Donnie Davies is making a bit of an internet splash.

He's got a music video titled "The Bible Says", in which the refrain of the song is "God hates fags". This apparently has caused him to run afoul of the administrators of some big-name websites.

http://www.eveningservice.com/Video

So, he's got an explanatory video...

http://www.lovegodsway.org/Blog/DisturbedElated

Weird guy, hoax or not.

That needs to win an Grammy for "Most Hilarious Video."

Look at him, in his pink shirt...bwaha.

Misguided is the only "kind" word I can come up with for Donnie. I couldn't even watch the singing video 'til the end.

I couldn't even watch the singing video 'til the end.

Me either. It played like a parody to me. I really hope that's not serious, because in addition to being stupid, it's a really bad bit of lipsynching.

Donnie Davies is making a bit of an internet splash.

He's got a music video titled "The Bible Says", in which the refrain of the song is "God hates fags". This apparently has caused him to run afoul of the administrators of some big-name websites.

Incredible.

I cannot imagine why any administrators of websites are resistant to or dissapproving of Davies' message.

Any person who undertakes even a cursory examination of the Bible will readily see that Davies is absolutely correct.

Writings in the Bible make it unmistakeably clear that the Christian God does "hate homosexuals".

If He didn't, He wouldn't instruct people to kill those males who are caught "laying with man as they woud lay with a woman".

Davies is --sadly-- interpreting the Christian's "holy book" with absolute accuracy.

And what about Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps)?

Get a clue FT... I know you love it when idiots do retarded things in the name of christianity, because then you try label the entire religion based on one nut's moronic sayings.

I mean, i could say "all athiests like killing small animals" because growing up i saw some kids who were definitely athiests and the DID like to kill small animals... so wow FT, you are pretty messed up if you like to do that kind of stuff.

Get a clue FT... I know you love it when idiots do retarded things in the name of christianity, because then you try label the entire religion based on one nut's moronic sayings.

?!?!? "Moronic"......?!?!?

But the Reverend Davies' proclamations are 100% Biblically supported.

He is interpreting the Bible correctly. The God of the Christian Bible does hate homosexuals.......else He would not order them to be executed.

Your peurile anecdotes are no refutation at all.

This is about what is actually stated in writing IN the Bible.

I cannot imagine why the administrators of the websites in question are up in arms. Davies is simply repeating Biblical edicts as they are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

?!?!? "Moronic"......?!?!?

But the Reverend Davies' proclamations are 100% Biblically supported.

He is interpreting the Bible correctly. The God of the Christian Bible does hate homosexuals.......else He would not order them to be executed.

Your peurile anecdotes are no refutation at all.

This is about what is actually stated in writing IN the Bible.

I cannot imagine why the administrators of the websites in question are up in arms. Davies is simply repeating Biblical edicts as they are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Are you retarded? Or are you the King of assumptions?

Nowhere in the bible does it say "I am your God, and i hate homosexuals"... God ordered many things to be killed.. like calves. So God must "hate" Calves too right? Oh and the egyptian soldiers who were drowned in the Red Sea.. so God hates egyptians too? Wow who knew?

And what about Fred Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_phelps)?
just another heretic looking for someone to hate...oddly he only has 100 followers (mostly family), i'd think he could find more like minded freaks in a country with 300 million people.

[...] hoax or not.

He's almost too extreme to be real. And the way he talks in his response video, it sounds like it's only a matter of time before god hates high school kids, and he'll be there to execute gods will.

it sounds like it's only a matter of time before god hates high school kids, and he'll be there to execute gods will.
that's scary!

Yea, even Jim Jones was popular with the local Democrats in San Francisco (before he went off the deep end) since he could always be counted on to produce a thousand or so for rallys. I forget how many he was able to persuade to kill themselves in Guyana.

He's almost too extreme to be real. And the way he talks in his response video, it sounds like it's only a matter of time before god hates high school kids, and he'll be there to execute gods will.
Yeah, I agree. I think he had that emotional edge to his voice that screams...UNBALANCED.

?!?!? "Moronic"......?!?!?

But the Reverend Davies' proclamations are 100% Biblically supported.

He is interpreting the Bible correctly. The God of the Christian Bible does hate homosexuals.......else He would not order them to be executed.

Your peurile anecdotes are no refutation at all.

This is about what is actually stated in writing IN the Bible.

I cannot imagine why the administrators of the websites in question are up in arms. Davies is simply repeating Biblical edicts as they are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Maybe he wants gay people to be killed so they can come up to heaven and... be... with him? :D

Yeah, I'm going to hell.

Are you retarded? Or are you the King of assumptions?

Nowhere in the bible does it say "I am your God, and i hate homosexuals"... God ordered many things to be killed.. like calves. So God must "hate" Calves too right? Oh and the egyptian soldiers who were drowned in the Red Sea.. so God hates egyptians too? Wow who knew?
As much as I hate agreeing with Freethinker, he is completely correct.
The Bible says, in very specific terms, that practicing homosexuals should be executed and that sodomy is an extremely sinful behavior.
I don't agree with it, but thats what it says.

He's a phony. Watch his hand gestures in his explanation. There was a "real estate" con man on an infomercial that used the same type of hand gestures to lure people in to buy his learning materials on how to obtain property's for nothing....John McCorkle who is doing 20 years for fraud along with his wife who is doing 10. And if you listen closely to his lyrics he's almost saying he is/was gay. He's as nutty as the "God Warrior". I think I'll drop him a line in e-mail:lolhit:

Wow, was my blasphemy so bad this time that everyone just ignored it? :D

I have said this on a separate thread but I'll say this again here. My first and only contribution to this "discussion"

FT doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't read read the bible with a view even remotely similar to what regular bible-readers have-that is of course, to learn about God's Word. If he does read it, it's obviusly to find loopholes in it and yes, he does fall into the trap of selective reading. He reads what suits him and magnifies it to suit his own frame of mind, however ludicrous that is. Thing is, I wonder which school he comes from to make him an expert of bible loopholes.

I do know quite a number of atheists who become atheists because of their own scientific and/or logical deductions or inductions (whether they be right or wrong about that). FT is neither scientific, nor logical. He just jumps on Christian mistakes and makes up his own atheist world.

Get a grip, FT.

(Yeah, this is nasty. But sometimes, being nice and "Christ-like" is out of order.)

(Yeah, this is nasty. But sometimes, being nice and "Christ-like" is out of order.)
Honey, that isn't nasty.

I mean, that's more insulting than my best comeback, but it still isn't nasty.

As much as I hate agreeing with Freethinker, he is completely correct.
The Bible says, in very specific terms, that practicing homosexuals should be executed and that sodomy is an extremely sinful behavior.
I don't agree with it, but thats what it says.
You tell us that the Bible says homosexuals should be killed. That is news to me, and I would appreciate a specific reference. (If you are correct, this would seem to me to be a good reason to ignore parts of the Bible).

The reason I really doubt that your understanding is correct is that homosexuality is a modern concept, only introduced by psychologists a little over a hundred years ago.

Ancient and non-Western cultures (until influenced by the West) have no such concept. Effeminate men are seen as "inverts," and generally tolerated as such, but the typical homosexual (who is not effeminate) is seen as perfectly normal, even if he is not attracted to women.

Therefore I think more than likely any passages you might cite are not about "homosexuals," but about what we would nowadays call "transsexuals" or maybe "transvestites" (very different phenomena).

You tell us that the Bible says homosexuals should be killed. That is news to me, and I would appreciate a specific reference. (If you are correct, this would seem to me to be a good reason to ignore parts of the Bible).
'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13
The reason I really doubt that your understanding is correct is that homosexuality is a modern concept, only introduced by psychologists a little over a hundred years ago.
Sexual and romantic relationships between two men or two women are seen as far back as the ancient Greeks and Japanese. There is no reason to not believe it occurred even earlier than that. There are a portion of many mammals, and even birds, that engage in homosexual behavior, and humans are not exactly going to be entirely different in that respect.

FT doesn't know what he is talking about.

I know that in the Bible, the god of the Old Testament clearly states that homosexuals are to be put to death.

He doesn't read read the bible...

I'm sorry.

I don't know how to "read read"the bible.

I do however know how to read the Bible.

And it says in unmistakeable terms that homosexuals are to be put to death.

""read read" that, you willfully blind apologist twit.

If he does read it, it's obviusly to find loopholes in it and yes, he does fall into the trap of selective reading.

No "selectivity" whatsoever involved in what I am refering to.


ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."

ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."

HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."

NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "

NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."

RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."

Doesn't get much clearer than that. But don't let that cause you to take your head out of the sand.

He reads what suits him and magnifies it to suit his own frame of mind

No "magnification" involved.

Leviticus 18:22 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

FT is neither scientific, nor logical.

Being illogical would be to deny that the Bible states that homosexuals are to be put to death.

He just jumps on Christian mistakes and makes up his own atheist world.

No "making up" involved.

Leviticus 18:22 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.

Yeah, this is nasty.

You aren't "nasty"...........just incredibly ignorant and willfully blind.

I have said this on a separate thread but I'll say this again here. My first and only contribution to this "discussion"

FT doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't read read the bible with a view even remotely similar to what regular bible-readers have-that is of course, to learn about God's Word. If he does read it, it's obviusly to find loopholes in it and yes, he does fall into the trap of selective reading. He reads what suits him and magnifies it to suit his own frame of mind, however ludicrous that is. Thing is, I wonder which school he comes from to make him an expert of bible loopholes.


Well Barbie, the problem comes in when those so-called "regular bible readers" you describe (people who read the bible with preconcieved notions about its "truth", as opposed to FT's skepticism) try to legislate their faith and force it upon everyone else with claims about America being a "Christian nation" and so forth.

It is the people who try to push their faith on everyone else that create the bitterness you see in people like FT when they approach reading the bible logically.

'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13

Sexual and romantic relationships between two men or two women are seen as far back as the ancient Greeks and Japanese. There is no reason to not believe it occurred even earlier than that. There are a portion of many mammals, and even birds, that engage in homosexual behavior, and humans are not exactly going to be entirely different in that respect.
Of course such things occurred; homosexual behavior is seen in all cultures and even in many animals.

That is different from the modern attitude of setting out those who engage in same-sex relationships as a separate, identified, minority.

For some unknown reason some people have their sexual signals "inverted." This seems a natural thing as a variation in the behaviorial range of the species. However, this phenomenon was only discovered fairly recently.

If I query my Vietnamese friends in some remote place about such behavior, it seems it is quite common, although not often discussed, and is not seen as making someone different. (It is not often discussed because it is not seen as worthy of much comment--although Vietnamese are always reluctant to discuss any form of sex).

Therefore if an ancient writing condemns it per se, then we can conclude that such a writing is not divinely inspried (on the assumption that the god who inspired it is loving and knowledgable).

I think we have a responsibility to make an assessment, as best we can, of the goodness and compassion of those writings we are to take for our scripture, and to leave aside those that do harm to us or to others.

I think we have a responsibility to make an assessment, as best we can, of the goodness and compassion of those writings we are to take for our scripture, and to leave aside those that do harm to us or to others.

Nice comment thislin. Welcome to allforums.

Therefore if an ancient writing condemns it per se, then we can conclude that such a writing is not divinely inspried (on the assumption that the god who inspired it is loving and knowledgable).

I think we have a responsibility to make an assessment, as best we can, of the goodness and compassion of those writings we are to take for our scripture, and to leave aside those that do harm to us or to others.
Agreed.


Oh, and Evakian, thanks for doing my homework. ;)

Death is sometimes required by the Hebrew Scriptures as the punishment for ritual transgressions. These included the worshiping of other Gods, gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), improper eating of ritual offerings (Numbers 18:32), ineligible persons acting as priests (Num 3:10).

Over the last few centuries, most Christians and Jews have rejected Leviticus 20:13. They no longer call on the death penalty for homosexuals. Only Christian Reconstructionists and a few Christian hate groups wish to revert to mass executions of gays and lesbians today.


All I can say is this.. I'm a christian, and i surely don't wish death on gay people. There are alot of crude, barbaric passages in the old testament, some merely recording history, others like this one, where God is "laying down the hammer" so to say. Times change, It seems that if all gays are "too be put to death".. than that kind of contradicts the New testament Love and message that is put forth. All i can say is that the main themes and messages of the bible do not revolve around killing gays. Its an exception.. and hey you can use it all you want to "prove" to yourself that the bible is a load of bunk... its not anything you don't already do. I'll keep my faith, and in doing so i really don't do any much more than any athiest does. I just go to church every other sunday and pray every once in awhile, and realize that there is something out there that happens to be bigger than myself... something that most egoist athiests just can't come to grips to.

Therefore if an ancient writing condemns it per se, then we can conclude that such a writing is not divinely inspried

Ahhhh.....I see. :rolleyes:

So whenever 'true believers' are confronted with the reality of the Bible unambigously stating something that is reprehensible, or hate filled, or murderously vindictive, for which the believer is unable to concoct any other bullshit excuse, it is simply a matter of dismissing it as being ""not divinely inspried"".

Nice cop out.

Well, provided of course that you're sufficiently self-deluded.....

.....but then, for superstitionists, that goes without saying.

I just go to church every other sunday and pray every once in awhile, and realize that there is something out there that happens to be bigger than myself... something that most egoist athiests just can't come to grips to.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who can't stand to think that he will ever cease to exist"". ------------- Marian Noel Sherman

The very concept of "divine inspiration" as interpreted nowadays in some groups (as "infallible") is an illogical and almost nonsensical notion. Words are human devices, and no language comes anywhere close to being a perfect vehicle. Therefore, nothing in words can be "perfect" or "infallible."

The Roman Catholic church understood this from the very beginning, and understood that "inspiration" or "God-breathed" can mean anything from as little as "written while thinking about God," all the way up to the modern literal Christian's notions. They opted (automatically--not in any specific decision) for having the Church represent the interpreter of scripture.

Luther and the other reformers needed a way to deny clerical authority, so they invented the modern doctrine of the Bible as ultimate authority. Until then such an idea was unheard of. Not even any of the earlier "heresies" imagined such a thing.

From a non-Christian perspective, when confronted by a Bible thumper, one is astonished at such an amazing claim. They are written by men--this is not denied--but at the same time in some uncomprehensible way they are "God's word."

The first question becomes, why the Bible and not something else? As a moral guide (such as the homosexuality question already discussed on this board), the Bible is sadly deficient. It doesn't even condemn slavery. As literature, except for a few oft-quoted passages, the Bible is tedius and tendentious (trying reading Jeremiah). As history or science it is, of course, completely out of reality--so much so that almost all references to such matters have to be interpreted, even by the literalists, as figurative (I think someone counted several thousand references to the "four corners" of the Earth).

Finally, as religon or philosophy, it is a book of myths, many of them with ugly and even immoral points, devoid of serious thinking (except Ecclesiastes, which presents a world view very different from what Christians teach).

The very concept of "divine inspiration" as interpreted nowadays in some groups (as "infallible") is an illogical and almost nonsensical notion. Words are human devices, and no language comes anywhere close to being a perfect vehicle. Therefore, nothing in words can be "perfect" or "infallible."

The Roman Catholic church understood this from the very beginning, and understood that "inspiration" or "God-breathed" can mean anything from as little as "written while thinking about God," all the way up to the modern literal Christian's notions. They opted (automatically--not in any specific decision) for having the Church represent the interpreter of scripture.

Luther and the other reformers needed a way to deny clerical authority, so they invented the modern doctrine of the Bible as ultimate authority. Until then such an idea was unheard of. Not even any of the earlier "heresies" imagined such a thing.

From a non-Christian perspective, when confronted by a Bible thumper, one is astonished at such an amazing claim. They are written by men--this is not denied--but at the same time in some uncomprehensible way they are "God's word."

The first question becomes, why the Bible and not something else? As a moral guide (such as the homosexuality question already discussed on this board), the Bible is sadly deficient. It doesn't even condemn slavery. As literature, except for a few oft-quoted passages, the Bible is tedius and tendentious (trying reading Jeremiah). As history or science it is, of course, completely out of reality--so much so that almost all references to such matters have to be interpreted, even by the literalists, as figurative (I think someone counted several thousand references to the "four corners" of the Earth).

Finally, as religon or philosophy, it is a book of myths, many of them with ugly and even immoral points, devoid of serious thinking (except Ecclesiastes, which presents a world view very different from what Christians teach).


Fantastic post.

Kudos.