I read this story last month and didn’t have time to report on it. Yesterday Dave, one of our readers, brought it to my attention again. I’m glad he did because I think it really shows the hypocrisy that many Christians harbor.
Tasha Childress had a sick daughter that needed some treatment. While it was only an ear infection, any parent knows how much pain that can cause a child. So she did what I have done and I’m sure many of you have. She went to her local pediatrician to get it taken care of. But what transpired was yet another blatant display of hypocrisy flying under the Christian banner.
Dr. Gary Merrill, of Christian Medical Services, was on duty that night and he exemplified the one single Christian trait that I find appalling. He refused to care for Childress’s child because she bore the sign of the Beast! No I’m just kidding; she simply had a visible tattoo that held absolutely no meaning and was far from being profane.
Dr. Merrill said he was just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients. Furthermore he noted that he has standards that he expects of his patients based on his values and morals.
So I have to ask.. What exactly are these exemplary morals and values that Dr Merrill has graced us with? Are they to simply deny medical treatment to a child because her parents don a harmless tattoo? Now I’m no expert on Jesus, but I guarantee that he wouldn’t refuse to heal someone because they are different. As a matter of fact, Jesus would have embraced this family and cared for their sick child.
This story speaks volumes about Christianity and how far it has diverged from its original teachings. I dare anyone to disagree. Christianity in principal was supposed to be about loving thy neighbor and all that happy shit. But now none of that seems to apply anymore if you’re different in any way.
What a load of crap. I hate using foul language in articles, but this kind of ignorance just pisses me off. Christians think that this is a rare occurrence and Christianity isn’t really like this. Bullshit!
I could tell you stories about Christians I know and I’m sure you all have similar ones. Maybe that should be a separate thread all together.
Oh and for you Christians that are against tattoos, go take a peek here before you start throwing down Bible verses.
Related posts:
- Crazy Muslim Assaults Life-Saving Doctor
- Homosexual Equality: Hate Hetrosexuals Just as Much.
- What Would Jesus Smoke?
- Muslim Crucifies Christian Slave
- Flamethrower! Primetime Christian Ignorance
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:07 am
Does anyone here actually know any Christians who object to tattoos? And I don’t mean in the “go ahead, but I wouldn’t get one” sort of way.
I don’t, and I know a lot. Maybe it says more about the people I hang around with.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 am
I am one of those children that suffered from ear infections my entire life. The kind so severe I was left with a decimated sense of balance with my eyes closed (though I benifit from being immune to motion sickness), heavily scarred ear drums, and a drop of 25% hearing in the left and 50% in the right ear. The repair for these would later take 2 tympanoplasties in the right ear and a mastoidectomy to repair bone structure damage from the infections. I know first hand what that kid was feeling, and all she wanted was for the damnable pain that feels like a white hot nail in your head to stop.
This doctor makes me sick in way’s that I lack proper words or hatred to describe. My heart goes out to Tasha and her daughter.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:26 am
What I find interesting is the fact that he refused to help the child when it was the mother who had the objectional (at least in his opinion) tattoo. Well I have a few more problems with his actions than that but this is shere I would start.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:37 am
*disagrees*
sorry, I can’t pass up a dare…
:D
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 am
If you are a doctor and you do not do your job for whatever philosophical or religious views then you deserve to be fired and find another job.
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 am
Don’t doctors take an oath to help people as part of their training?
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 am
Do they still take the Hippocratic Oath when graduating from medical school? If so, what happened to these parts of it?
“Above all, I must not play at God.” - Louis Lasagna,1964
“May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.” - Louis Lasagna,1964
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:52 am
This exemplifies the greatest problem with religious belief. Is creates an “us versus them” mentality. Those who believe in the same fairy in the sky are treated as humans. The rest as some subhuman or less than worthy being.
There are many objections to believing in imaginary friends such as blind faith, wasting so much of your life in doing nonsensical rituals to a non-existent being, etc. But this is the worst. It is why muslims are happy to blow themselves up to become matyrs, they’re just doing god’s work (and get shitloads of virgins to boot!) Why christians kill doctors who perform abortions, like they were killing a person. Or why religious people think it’s ok to invade the bedroom of two consenting adults and persecute them just because their book says they’re not aloud to be of the same sex. For fuck’s sake, mind your own business and treat people as people, not christians, muslims, atheists, etc.
I would’ve said “for god’s sake” but that would’ve been used as evidence that I believe in an imaginary being…..
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 am
excuse me, in my excitement I wrote “aloud” for alowed and probably other orthographical errors. C’est la vie, je suis human, pas dieu ;)
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 am
allowed perhaps?
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:21 am
“This story speaks volumes about Christianity”
Nope. It speaks volumes about that particular Christian adn any Christian who would do this. Nothing in Christianity supports this sort of action. If it did then you would have a point. As it is, you don’t.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
“Why christians kill doctors who perform abortions, like they were killing a person.”
How often has this actually happened? I mean don’t get me wrong, once is one time too many, but you can’t honestly put this in the same category as Muslim suicide bombers.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:30 am
“Do they still take the Hippocratic Oath when graduating from medical school?”
If they did then they wouldn’t be able to perform an abortion or assist in suicide.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:36 am
Immoral? Yes.
Hypocritical? Yes.
Reprehensible? Yes.
Following the teachings of Jesus? No.
But…
He runs his own private practice and has a right to refuse treatment when life and limb are not endangered. He is running his business the way he sees fit.
Remember, we do not want laws based on morality, only laws based on rights. He should have every right to be immoral, as long as it hurts no one. I know, the child did incur extra suffering as a result of this jackass’s self-centered beliefs, but I would argue that causing suffering and refusing to alleviating suffering are two different issues (I’m interested in debate on this issue).
We, of course, also have rights, such as free speech. We can, for example, call this doctor a mindless, selfish, insensitive, condescending, bigoted, hypocritical fuck-wad, deserving of financial ruin due to a righteous boycott.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 am
Hello Scott,
“If they did [take the Hippocratic Oath] then they wouldn’t be able to perform an abortion or assist in suicide.”
If they took the original form of the oath, you’d be correct. They also would “swear by Apollo, Æsculapius, Hygieia, and Panacea”. They also would be prohibited from removing bladder stones. The parts of Hippocratic Oath’s morality, like parts of Christianity’s are in much need of updates. Morality has certainly progressed from ancient times. As a matter of fact, the Hippocratic Oath has been modernized.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:52 am
This makes me want to become a doctor just so I can get a job treating this guy and when he has a broken leg or something and comes in for help, I can say, “Sorry, I don’t help assholes. I’m trying to create a non-asshole atmosphere for my patients. I’m sure you understand.” *sigh* I’d end up helping him anyway though…
But really, as a christian, I can see where he would get the idea that denying someone medical help because of a tattoo would be ok…I mean, take for instance Jesus and the adulterous woman. When all those people were about to stone her, He helped gather the stones. At that woman at the well? The one who was going through men left and right? He didn’t even talk to that crazy bitch! And when he was called out about hanging around with tax collectors and sinners, He was all, “Yeah, you religious guys are right. These people are icky and gross. Yuck! Get away from me you heathens!”
*sigh*
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am
sid, I’d have to disagree with you based on his being a private practice. If someone is in pain and it is your job to stop pain like that, I can’t see any good reason for allowing it to continue in this situation. Allowing pain to continue when you can easily stop it and there is nothing besides a religious belief holding you up is allowing suffering solely because someone chose a different belief. It can be treated, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t go to hell for helping someone in need. I can’t see that as fair. For me, allowing suffering when you can stop it isn’t far from causing suffering itself. If I’m dying and someone who has the power to do something about it sees me and just walks the other way, I’ll consider that wrong. If I’m in intense pain and someone who has the power to help me just walks away, I’ll feel outrage. As fellow human beings we should be expecting more from each other than just the minimum negative duties, I think.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
If they took the original form of the oath, you’d be correct. They also would “swear by Apollo, Æsculapius, Hygieia, and Panaceaâ€. They also would be prohibited from removing bladder stones.
True enough.
The parts of Hippocratic Oath’s morality, like parts of Christianity’s are in much need of updates. Morality has certainly progressed from ancient times.
Really. Interesting. Why do you think that doctors should be allowed to kill people? Because that’s what you’re arguing for. Assisting in suicide and aborting a fetus in the second trimester are killing human beings in the minds of many folks. Please note that I intend no venom. I’ll agree that things like slavery and unequal treatment of women (something that certain segments of Christianity have been instrumental in abolishing) are things that are rightly falling away. But speaking purely about the oath, other than the obviously religious bits, why should any of the rest of it change?
As a matter of fact, the Hippocratic Oath has been modernized.
I know and I like the modern versions. I’m just stirring the pot a bit. ;-)
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 am
Snurp I think Sid agrees with you. All he seemed to be saying is that this jackass was well within his legal rights. Now if the girl was dying and he didn’t help I’d imagine he’d be brought up on charges. As it is it was relatively minor. That doesn’t make it right, just legal.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
In response to Pseudonym’s question, I do know a lot of people who feel this way about tattoos. My parents happen to be one of them. They base this entire belief on the following Bible verse:
“You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead nor print or tattoo any marks upon you; I am the Lord.” [Leviticus 19:28]
The whole freaking community I grew up in felt that way about tattoos, piercings, secular music…you name it.
My father pretty much thought I sold my soul to Satan when I got my ears pierced. His basis? The following verse:
“But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children, I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently” [Exodus 21:5-6]
No explanation for such idiocy except “better safe than sorry. You don’t want to end up in hell because you decided to pierce your ears!!”
If you have a question about how these close minded idiots think, I can probably tell you. Hell, I was one of them until I was about 19 years old.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Hello Snurp,
I think we agree that this man’s actions were immoral. My question for you is whether or not you think his actions should be illegal.
Hey Scott,
I would love to debate either abortion or euthanasia, but I’d rather only tackle one at a time. Do you have a preference? “Neither at this time” is, of course, an acceptable answer. I’d even be willing to discuss it privately via email if you don’t want to hijack this post. Just let me know.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Actually I would like a permanent page talking about abortion and euthanasia. We could arrange for something via email or I could put up a post for everyone to participate.
Either way, I’ll clean up the arguments and present them in a permanent page. In the future I would like to add more discussions about hot topics.
Sound good?
gasmonso
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Hey gasmonso,
You and I are thinking alike. If Scott were interested, I was going to suggest that we approach you with a polished version of our debate, assuming it turns out well, that you could, at your discretion, use as a permanent post.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Growing up Mormon we were told tattoos were like graffiti on God’s temple. Converts who have them are made to cover them during temple ceremonies and admonished not to display them during Sunday services. Now of course I have a shoulder piece that when it is complete will be a 3/4 sleeve joined into a back piece. If any doctor tried to pull that crap on me he would be before a review board so fast his head would spin. This warped view of what Jesus taught pisses me off. Jesus dined with hookers and thieves. He healed all sick, no matter what their past. He taught not to judge. This Doctor is not Christian.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
All I’ve got to add to this post is that freedom of choice works both ways sid. The mother had/has the freedom to choose another doctor, and not trust her family to morally corrupt assbandits.
Having morals in business is like trying to gouge “just enough” from society, it’s a non sequitur. I’m sure he’s going to lose a shitload of business over this, and I hope people don’t think segregation is still a good idea. (He must be catering to some small denomination)
North Americans should round up all the religious freaks in their countries, throw em on a big ship and send the god damned puritans back to Europe.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Hey Shaze,
I actually agreed with you that in the post you are referring to (#14):
“We, of course, also have rights, such as free speech. We can, for example, call this doctor a mindless, selfish, insensitive, condescending, bigoted, hypocritical fuck-wad, deserving of financial ruin due to a righteous boycott.”
I, too, hope that this guy loses a ton of money on his bigotry.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Hey Gasmonso, I would love to get on that abortion and euthanasia discussion. I bet I have some views on it people that remember some of my posts may not suspect :)
Oh and yea, this guy is a complete asshat and should be shamed and boycotted but was in the legal right. I am a proponent of liberty and am hesitant to start down that VERY slippery slope of writing new laws for everything under the sun. As distasteful as it is, as long as the girl was not in mortal danger, and thus able to go elsewhere, there shouldn’t be a law forcing him in his own private practice to treat her.
Actually, as I was writing that out, I got to thinking about it a bit more, but want to leave that paragraph alone and address the other part here. We do have laws that would prevent him from discriminating on the basis of religion. If he gave someone the heave-ho because they were black, white, or orange, he would be breaking the law right? How is this any different? The little girl had no more control over her mother’s tattoo than she did her own race. Since I am not in favor of removing the law against racial discrimination, how can I be against adding a law that would answer this situation? Is it because it isn’t nearly as clear cut and way too general and thus very easy to abuse? I am definitely going to have to think further on this one.
March 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Well one difference on the whole discrimination tip is that skin color is not a choice while religion is. Again not that the difference makes the doctor any less skeezy.
And as regards abortion/euthanasia, you bring the forum and I’ll bring the beer. Should be interesting.
Also gas on another note you mentioned something about bringing on a religious non-freak to point out some positives. If you still want to do that keep me in mind. Also did you get my email?
March 2nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Scott: I think you were responding to me here, but if I am wrong please disregard this.
Your point actually is not valid since it wasn’t christianity that was the discriminatee, but the discriminator. The little girl was discriminated upon based on her mother’s tatoo, which, like skin color, she had no control over.
March 2nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
deletedsoul and DeusExMichael, thanks for your comments. You’ve confirmed for me that this belief is more cultural than religious. But, still, it definitely belongs under the heading of “religious freaks”.
The question of medical ethics is an interesting one. There’s a lot of discussion taking place on scienceblogs in the context of pharmacists dispensing “emergency contraception” (i.e. abortifactents). It’s an interesting discussion, and I encourage everyone interested in this topic to read it.
That’s not relevant to this case, though. While there’s a case to be had for a doctor not performing a procedure that they find morally objectionable (the consensus seems to be that if the procedure is legal, they do have some professional obligation to refer the patient, though it depends highly on the situation), this is not about that. This is about a doctor who finds the patient’s parents morally objectionable.
That is a gross violation of medical ethics. Having said that: Given that the condition wasn’t a medical emergency, if this was a private practice and had the doctor referred the patient to someone who would do the treatment, perhaps we wouldn’t be objecting so strongly.
March 2nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Any bets if this Dr is clean shaven?
Leviticus 19:27 says “Ye shall not round off the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” or in another translation “Nor shall you cut your hair roundwise: nor shave your beard.”
Unless he has an untrimmed beard, he is violating religious law too.. (Concidently, the verse before the tatoo one..)
March 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 am
sid,
The more I think about how I want to answer this one, the further away I find my answer being. I wanted to use the example of a cop just ignoring a robbery in progress, but that’s a local/state employee and not a private worker, so that doesn’t really work. I still want to say that he should be required to help people in need, but I can’t think of the right way to go about it. What would happen to him if he refused someone who later died because they weren’t treated? Does anyone know how this kind of thing works? It’s obvious enough that he couldn’t just reject someone on the basis of race, but then the whole choice thing comes up. It seems to me that if he has the ability to help alleviate pain, he should be required to, which was kind of what I was getting at in my last post. But even at the potential compromise of his beliefs/success? Hmm. Have to take some time with this one.
March 4th, 2007 at 1:11 am
As a follower of Christ I find it interesting that as I read through the comments posted not just on this post, but also the posts in the archives I agree with the non-religious views much more often than the so called Christian’s views.
March 4th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
If that doesn’t say something, I don’t know what does…
March 5th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hello Snurp,
I’m having just as much difficulty with this issue as you are. What I try to do is start with a default position of individual freedom and see if I can make a compelling case that exercising that freedom somehow violates the rights of others. In the US, we do not have a legal right to healthcare, yet I think basic healthcare should be a right. Thus, in my imaginary US, this Doctor’s actions should be illegal. But in our current reality, they were not.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Looks like we agree, then. Healthcare is something that shouldn’t be denied people. However, to risk going off topic, I’ve heard sensible arguments against universal healthcare, mostly to the tune of “We don’t have the money.” In Oregon they have such a system, and if you need a procedure that is not on the list of covered procedures, too bad, you -can’t- get it. I live near Canada, and we get people coming down to get heart procedures and the like all the time, simply because they can’t get them in Canada. I thought about just letting there be private practices in addition to the universal system, but then it’s like you’re paying extra for something that’s doing nothing for you. Our tax system does that quite a bit anyway, but of course you can only raise taxes so much before people get pissed beyond reckoning. Further, if we want to have just a limited amount of things covered (if that’s what you meant by “basic healthcare”) then we’ll need to define “basic.”
March 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Again, we agree. I know that I don’t have a good definition for ‘basic’, but I know it would include general practitioners and family doctors, like the asshole doctor from this article. But since he is private and relies totally on private funds, he can refuse treatment to anyone.
Here I’ll join you briefly, off-topic. Clearly, public healthcare should not cover every procedure because of cost. I believe that extremely high-priced treatments/procedures and optional treatments/procedures should remain private and available to anyone who can afford them. I know this would lead to the dreaded two-tier system that so many Canadians hate the idea of, but I believe it to be inevitable if we want to maintain fast-paced medical advancement.
March 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I have a forum where I have set up a topic to debate abortion if you guys want to take it there to has it out. when we have finished we can decide on the best answers and send it back here to be posted as an article.
Link: http://www.sjbond.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?p=98#98
I wouldn’t mind waying in on this one myself.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:16 am
The two-tier system makes sense when you read it. The cheap stuff that many people are still unable to afford can be taken care of. Of course, that means larger surgeries and the like won’t be covered, but to do so would cause a serious raise in taxes. If you decided instead of funding the low-level stuff to focus on high-level first, you would still have the problem of expense. “Socialized medicine” is the new Satan these days, it seems. I think the problem people have with it is more just the socialist look it has more than anything else. And of course, to keep it lightly on topic, any procedures still remaining in the private sphere will still be controlled by the doctor, even if a public healthcare bill passed. But then again, surgeries expensive enough to fall outside of a public healthcare plan probably wouldn’t be covered by many private practices, but would instead mostly be covered by larger hospitals who will pay more attention to a bottom line than what one doctor says about tattoos. So, at least for low-level stuff, perhaps a public program would help in the end.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
I was recently shown a very well written and coherant article discussing tattoos and “Christianity”.
Here is a link to it.
http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20031102.html
March 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Just a couple of thoughts..
Bouncing off of post #30: many healthcare workers and pharmacists refuse to prescribe or fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, even if it is not an actual abortifacient. Many EC drugs used today only prevent pregnancy. They don’t end one if conception has already occurred. It’s actually a big problem in private (often Catholic) hospitals - rape victims are much less likely to be offered EC even if they want it.
Also, a couple months ago I read an article (can’t find it now, but I’ll keep looking) about how some patients going to religious physicians had to go elsewhere, at their personal expense, because their physician wasn’t willing to deal with certain medical issues (dispensing contraceptives, family planning, etc). Most of the time, the women didn’t know their physicians’ personal stance on the issue until they were told they couldn’t get what they needed.
I’m starting medical school in the fall, and I find it pretty disturbing that a physician would deny service based on an arbitrary set of beliefs about who is worthy of medical care. If it was a Muslim/Hindu/atheist/etc doctor denying care because the parent wore a cross necklace or something, the community would be up in arms….
March 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Well what can I say, I am a christian with Tattoo’s which I got after becoming a Christian. There are many people who profess to be Christians, however they are just like the religous fools in Jesus time who knew the bible but not God.
Gasmonso don’t tar all Christians with the same brush just because of a few bad ones. Anyway Jesus is perfect Christians are NOT perfect and they shouldn’t claim to be. I am a sinner saved by grace, God gave his son for free. The only difference between a Christian and a non Christian is the fact the Christian REPENTS and tries (and I mean tries) to live a Christ like life. This doctor is an idiot, he wrongly judged that woman and without knowing it has negatively effected a lot more than one person….
Are you really prepared to let a handfull of people claiming to be Christians rob you of a relationship with God? Should you not find God for yourself and judge him accurately rather than 3rd hand?
I was a junkie and an alchoholic, God set me free. I have a tattoo of a cross with the word Tetelestai written below it. This is greek for “It is finished” or “Paid in full” my sins have been paid for and they are mine no more. I am currently looking at getting a full back peice and my searching for pictures has brought me here. I am going to get Christ riding his white stallion with a second coming theme….
Trust me dude, Jesus is alive and there are millions of his children out there who would welcome any sinner from any background with open arms…Hookers, Junkies, Alchoholics you name it..The Church is and should be a place of forgiveness and refuge for all walks of life…I know Churches who wont let you in if your not dressed smart enough or a woman isn’t wearing a hat….God will judge those people don’t worry…Jesus was the sinners friend, thank God because if he wasn’t He would never have found me (I used to sin a lot)
Anyway - May God bless you all and may you discover and accept his perfect love.
Peace,
Andrew
March 13th, 2007 at 11:55 am
@Andrew: ‘Trust me dude, Jesus is alive…’
Andrew, your letter seems sincere and maybe you’ve gone through a program or had an “epiphany” that you now attribute your change of lifestyle to being a “true” christian. That’s great in that you’re probably not killing yourself. I respect that and your right to your opinion….
But honestly Jesus if he ever existed is well and truly dead. He was after all a man. There is no god. There is no need for god.
Second, I really dislike the way people attribute events in their life to god, it seems very arrogant, that you were chosen. Why not all the other poor people out there? That is one of the cruelest things about religion, supposedly people who haven’t heard about jesus/god/allah, much less worship him will get eternally punished! And why is it this great saviour saves some, but dirtbags equally devout others? Is it because he is so cruel he enjoys toying with people? If there is a god and he listens to some prayers and intervenes and not others he is unfathomably cruel.
Question your beliefs man, if you’ve read the bible you know it says that god slaughtered anybody who wasn’t born in the right tribe and heaps more cruel stuff. That is not a god basis for morality.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Skid, replying to your last post,
We are all chosen, that is why christ died for all, not just you and me, all.
We choose him because he chose us ALL first. Not all of us choose christ as a saviour, some dont see the need for a saviour or a God.
A God of Love will save the dirt bag just as easily as the bible believing christian, you think a God of Love would be so discriminating. All that choose God get the same Redemtive Love, the same Saviour no matter their circumstance or their histroy. That goes for Homosexuals and any other group Christians Voice out against. Christ Loves the homosexual but hates the sin. He hates my sin, he died for it, he loves me, i couldnt work my way to salvation, Jesus Christ, My God had to come to this earth and die in my place. That my brother is real Love.
thats my rant
all things considered though, it comes down to one fundamental question…is there a God? if there is, im right, if im wrong im full of shit and truth is relative…
ps the doctor is an asshole
August 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
bisso, regarding your post 44,
No, “We” do not choose your fictitious god and the ridiculous tenets of your religion with all their contradictions, demonstrable errors, and unreason. You make that choice for yourself, but it is a foolish choice. An omnipotent, omnibenevolent god has no reason to need its offspring to die nor its creations to suffer, nor would it need a book to get its message through. Furthermore, “love” is plainly incompatible with the obvious violence and discrimination of any version of the Christian bible. Christianity is a farce, and Religion is ridiculous.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Listen, I run into “Christian” fruitcakes like this doctor all of the time. A long time ago, these people were found mainly in the southern states. However, fundamentalists have been building and growing for the past twenty years big time while the rest of us weren’t paying attention. Today’s brand of “Christianity” is peculiar to America and to this decade. It has more to do with politics than anything else. Again, as fundamentalist “Christianity” evolves (no pun intended) into something more and more evil, I routinely meet assholes who act like this doctor. These people have no clue, and are making this shit up as they go. No wonder Richard Dawkins calls it a “mind virus”. The first thing Christianity does to a person is to remove their ability to reason. As for no.4: You disagree…why? Because someone told you that you HAVE to believe? LOL. No. 11: Christianity may not support this doctor’s behavior as far as you know, but if more and more Christians are acting this way, then de facto, it is Christianity, or it will be known as Christianity. Nearly every person that I meet these days who claims to be Christian is an embarrassment. They are uninformed and not very intelligent. You could be standing inside of a burning house and yell, “Fire! Get out!” and the Christians would just stand there until some idiot that they knew was a fundamentalist preacher told them to get out. This is just plain stupid. These people won’t believe the truth, but will believe a fairy tale. LOL.