America’s Christians are under attack by Godless sodomites (that’s you and me if you didn’t know.) We (the Godless sodomites) are silencing Christians at an astounding rate in order to achieve our one true goal… pushing the gay agenda!
How they uncovered our plans I have no idea! But we must stay strong and focus on our mission… pushing the gay agenda!
It will be difficult, as the Christians have struck back with a valuable, honest, and insightful TV series that exposes the reality of America’s anti-Christian bias and urges believers to put an end to the silence!
The series premiered March 1 and will air 13 episodes on the Inspiration Network. Luckily for us we don’t need to have the Inspirational Network because the episodes are available on the web at here.
Here’s a little teaser trailer to get your blood pumping…
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
- Good Evening Godless Sodomites
- Goddess Kali Leaves Hindu Man Speechless
- The Misguided Adventures Of Heteroy!
- Christians Should Walk Their Talk And Not Squawk
- Christians In The Buff
March 4th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Obvious, they’re being silenced. Because I hear about it all the f-ing time.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Haha you beat me to it Tommy. I was going to mention how I never see or hear anything about christianity. The sad part is, these people are so trained to believe anything that anyone in their faith says without even thinking about it that they will actually believe the garbage in that show, and treat it as indisputable fact.
I love how people like to throw around the term “free speech” without any understanding of what it actually means.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Second class citizens?
Oh wait, I think I saw Ann Coulter in there. Case closed, we lose. Although she is coming to speak at my university in April, perhaps I should ask her about how we seculars destroy the establishment.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
it’s strange that they can’t tell the difference between people on the street promoting a religion (legal) and people at a school promoting a religion (illegal). They do cite one case that was a clear violation of free speech, the philly 11
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=67017
though of course in the video they fail to mention the fact that charges were either dropped or they were found not guilty, and the city is now being sued.
but then there is the case of the two girls promoting their religion at school events, and they don’t see how that is a violation of chuch/state separation. I actually made a comment to this effect on their site, but its “pending approval by a moderator” :)
I don’t see ANY negative comments, so it’ll be interesting to see how they feel about my free speech violation if I don’t get approved!
…
lulz, that was ironic, since I don’t have free speech on a privately owned server. but it’s against my conscience not to say it so therefore it’s my right! (the speech girl’s words paraphrased not mine)
March 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
@Ben:
As for the Philly 11, it still annoys me that they are so clueless as to why people hate them. They were dumbfounded as to why they were met with hostility.
If someone came to protest me for who I am… I would be pretty pissed too. I understand that they may not approve of homosexuality, but mind you’re own damn business and live your own life. I’m so damn tired of religious people taking an interest in other peoples lives. It has to stop!
And to say that they were just preaching the word of God is a load of crap. They were there expressing their hatred and contempt for people who just want to be treated like everyone else. It’s discrimination. PERIOD.
Those religious people remind me of ignorant racists who discriminate against blacks… except now it’s homosexuals and they feel God is on their side… thus making hatred and intolerance acceptable.
It just sickens me :(
March 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Separation of Church & State:
The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
What a bunch of crap. Shows like “Speechless” just confirm the thought that Christians are ignorant bigots.
I am embarrassed to be called a Christian if that is what I am identified with.
March 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Christians aren’t commanded to tolerate one another, we’re commanded to love one another. Any Christian who fails to do so is not obeying the God they claim to follow.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Heather:
Tolerate? Love? Commanded? I think it’s plain to see where your opinions differ from others in this great big mistake we call religion.
I used to date a reforming bible-thumper and in the time we spent together she watched a lot of show’s with me that cast religion in a bad light. It wasn’t until a couple years of being exposed to alternate opinions that she exclaimed “I can now see why people oppose my religion so much; the negative effects of Christianity on society were down-played or hidden by our peers and leaders.”
Perspective I think, is the one thing that everyone needs more of.
March 4th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Those who tolerate and love only by being commanded to not tolerate or love at all. These are the same people who claim that non-religious folks must be immoral because religion is the only reason to BE moral.
Loving, tolerating, and being ethical solely due to faith is the equivalent to not breaking the law solely because of the legal consequences. I have always found that religious folks, especially Jews Christians and Muslims, are more immoral than most others, a trait which they disguise attempt to disguise with their faith. Or perhaps this is a symptom of their faith, due to their mandatory belief that every human being who ever lived is a fucking horrible worthless sack of scum because their lord declared it to be so, and this can only be rectified by obedience of said lord.
Watch the virus of faith if you haven’t yet.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4209863004102129231&q=%22richard+dawkins+%22+duration%3Along&total=163&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4
March 4th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I agree with Blasphemaster that “morality” which is not self-actualized, but merely parroted, is not morality at all. My code of morals has been formed after a great deal of thought, effort, study,and observation; all of my friends, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic,and Athiest, come to me with their moral quandries and know that I am trustworthy. My alarm systems have gone off every time someone has introduced him- or herself as a “Christian businessman.” They are *always* the ones who lie, cheat, and steal without remorse and without fail.
As far as “silencing” the Christians, it always comes down to the dominant religion of the area (in the USA, this means Christianity) feeling as if free speech extends to prosletyzing to a “captive audience,” such as at a graduation ceremony. All though I wish I had said it first, one of my friends once noted: “I can’t wait until a muslim valedictorian says, ‘Okay, now, let’s break out our prayer rugs and turn towards Mecca.’ Then we’ll see if the Christians keep the same stance about prayers at graduation ceremonies in the public schools.” What’s that? They’ll feel bullied and object to being forced to pray to a god they don’t believe in? But that’s *exactly* what they do. Although Heinlein had some wisdom in his saying that you should “rub blue mud into your belly” if that is the native practice, I prefer Jefferson’s stance on the issue: “Majority rules, but not at the expense of the minority.”
March 4th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
don’t you people get it?
A major part of christianity is being the oppressed minority. It’s critical that christianity doesn’t become the majority, because then they can’t claim special rights because they’re being opressed.
And at the same time, christians feel safe in group of like minded people, because most of them tend to dislike any critisism of their religion.
The religious mind is a strange and twisted one ideed.
@kurt
I attended a lecture last year about “god and social acceptance (of god)” at my university, where the professor said he wanted to start of with a prayer, He then proceeded with a prayer offered to Odin, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, Gork and Mork, Cthulhu and his personal deity, an apple.
Followed by massive applause from me and 8 others, and scornfull stares from most.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Christians for one have a single point in their favor in that they chose the perfect metaphor for themselves: sheep.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Alcari — would’ve loved to have been there; I would’ve applauded as well (and probably laughed at the staring ones while I did so). I think what you are driving at is something I call “the arrogance of oppression.” Basically, the concept is that it’s okay to be an ass with an attitude, as long as one can claim to be a member of a group which is being “victimized,” and then go on to claim some special privilege or dispensation. Unfortunately, we’ve all seen it in every type of “oppressed” group you can think of, including religious, non-religious, ethnic (since I don’t really buy different “races” of homo sapiens), and even professional. It’s a mind set that seems to think, “Since I pay taxes, my views are paramount, regardless of the fact that this other person/group/etc. also pays taxes.” They can’t seem — or don’t want — to grasp that there are limits to what one can demand of any group dynamic, regarldless of whatever power said group may have within the dynamic as a whole. I guess it’s kind of like being myopic,and not wanting glasses.
And to Blasphemaster — yeah, and they sure do bleet a lot, don’t they? ;)
March 12th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Alcari:
Oh please for the love of Thor, do say that you have a video recording of that lecture!
March 15th, 2008 at 6:22 am
The Bible teaches that God says that in Leviticus 18-22 that homosexuality is an abomination. Abomination to God! means to make him sick. God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because of their sexual perversion and sexual sins. God made man and woman for each other and that is as simple as it gets. Too venture outside of Gods plan is a sin no matter how you look at it. People have taken sex and turned it into sickness. You can try to justify being gay all day long and you can justify being a Goddess but there is only one God and one plan, Man with Woman and God says in the ten commandments, Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou Shall worship the Lord thy God and only him thou Shall serve. So its simple and Gods word proves it. You can be an unbeliever but in the end you will become a loser. Accept Jesus today and be saved!
March 15th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Poppycock.
“V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”
It just says that priest is ceremonially impure if he has sex with a man and for priests it was considered to be idolatry, old tradition no longer allowed after 40 years stint in the desert.
Toeyvah means ritual impurity not abomination.
Leviticus is a rulebook for priests, it was never meant for laymembers of faith.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Faith:
“Abomination to God! means to make him sick. .. God made man and woman for each other and that is as simple as it gets. Too venture outside of Gods plan is a sin..”
Then why is homosexuality very common in nature among animals?
Homosexuality has been observed in 1.500 species and well-documented in 500. For example in the pygmy chimpazee society homosexuality is so widespread that the specie can be descibed as bi-sexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
Perhaps your God didn’t make this world after all and your bronze age stories is simply myths like the greek, roman and viking mythologies? That would make you the loser my friend - a big freaky one too.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Faith —
There are so many unsubstantiated assumptions in your post that I almost don’t know where to begin. So . . .
1) Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by volcanic eruptions. Don’t even get me started on how Lot wasn’t a good person at all.
2) “God made man and woman for each other and that is as simple as it gets.” It’s not that simple, as the esteemed and erudite Corso has pointed out; for your information, Faith, all life evolves, and homosexuality is an important population control method . . . think about it.
3) “Too venture outside of Gods plan is a sin no matter how you look at it.” As a scientific agnostic, I have a perspective on this that might enlighten you (or make you insane with rage; whatever). To me, “God’s plan” would be something like this: Develop different universes with different physical laws and see what happens. Allow for intelligent life to evolve in some of these universes, and see if said life manages to stay alive, learn the lessons and secrets inherent in said universes, and become more “godlike” in the process. Don’t interfere in any way, as that invalidates the experiment; however, jump with divine joy when one or two manage to make it to “god” level so it will have something else to talk with.
So, you see, to be willfully ignorant is the only real “sin” in my book, since that would reject my conception of “God’s plan.” At least my version is rational, and doesn’t require any faith or groveling to “prove.” Just an understanding of the real Universe and how it works. Which means that *you*, Faith, are venturing outside of my god’s plan (by being willfully ignorant of the true nature of homosexuality), and thus are a sinner.
4) “God says in the ten commandments, Thou Shalt have no other Gods before me. Thou Shall worship the Lord thy God and only him thou Shall serve. So its simple and Gods word proves it. You can be an unbeliever but in the end you will become a loser.” This always seemed to me to be the weakest assumption ever. What about Odin? What about Nirvana? Every religion claims to be the “truth,” why is your’s any different? And as far as “Gods word proves it,” I’m afraid that you do not understand the meaning of the word “proof.” Proof is verifiable, and no religious text has ever been verified for divinity. And, even if I would accept that assumption (which I don’t) which version of the Bible should I trust? King James? Catholic? Greek Orthodox? Gnostic?
I’m sorry if this seems a bit vehement, but one of my oldest friends is gay, and I’m a bit protective of him and his rights; especially considering he has *no choice* in the matter and is a philosophical pacifist(anyone who thinks being gay is a choice certainly hasn’t examined it in any detail whatsoever).
March 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
It is very telling that the religious are so vehemently opposed to homosexuality, which is annoying at its worst, while they defend their priests, whom are well known to be predisposed towards Child Sexual Abuse. Apparently they don’t know that being sexually abused, especially as a child, makes one more vulnerable to rape, substance abuse, and domestic violence, increases the likelihood of mental illness, and is simply a horrid act that is entirely unforgivable.
go here for more info on what sort of pain your priests are responsible for: http://www.apa.org/releases/sexabuse/effects.html
I spent about a year in college researching CSA to qualify for my BA in Psychology, and I can honestly say that this is without question one of the most horrible things that can happen to a human being short of torturous murder. That you the faithful can be capable of defending, seeking moral guidance from, and holding in high regard people who RAPE CHILDREN makes you just as horrid a human being as them. If not more so for teaching your own children to who potential predators in high regard.
Muslims are little different, if not worse. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/978.htm
March 16th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I am from Key West. I am a White, Hispanic, Cuban-American, Legal American Citizen born in the United States (with American family born in the United States), Straight female, Pro Life, Christian-Roman Catholic, Sinner, Clinically obese, Natural Brunette, Dark Medium brown, Single mother w/2 children that have 2 different fathers of whom I do know are the real fathers that are legally listed on their birth certificates and I have never been married by choice.
I really don’t know how much more Politically Correct I can be at this point. I have done this for a reason. Does it really matter who is Christian or Non-Christian, Black or White, Fat or Fit, Gay or Straight and everything else in between. It is wonderful to identify ourselves, but there are times we pick ourselves and others apart too much for the sake of being Politically Correct. Therefore, this causes more hatred, resentment and separation.
As a human and as a Christian-Roman Catholic I say enough is enough. The hatred shown by the Extreme Christians and the Extreme Anti-Christians from both sides must stop. They will destroy themselves and everyone around them, before God. Most Christians, Homosexuals, Bisexuals and other religious and non-religious beliefs get along. The Extremists are the ones that create chaos and spread it around. It is up to ALL Non-Extremists to not allow this hatred to corrupt the world. I have many Gay, Bi and Straight friends and friends of other faiths. As a Roman Catholic I do NOT agree with anyone sexually abusing Children, People and/or animals. There is a difference between Homosexuality, Pedophilia and Bestiality.
I don’t agree with how the Vatican has handled the sexual abuse situations for many years. I think Pope John Paul was the greatest pope we ever had. However, I do not like the fact that our current Pope Benedict 16th has allowed the abuse to be covered up, protecting the abusers of which there is evidence and he can NOT be prosecuted because he lives in the Vatican where there is no reciprocity. I don’t like how some within the church have contributed to the cover ups. Religion does not abuse people. The abusers abuse and misuse religion to benefit their evil and vile deeds. Computers can be used for good or bad, guns can be used for good or bad and prescription medicines can be used for good or bad.
I know people that are Gay that attend Roman Catholic churches. Just because someone is Christian does not mean ALL Christians hate Homosexuals and Non-Christians. There are Christians that do not agree with Homosexuality, but are still friends to their homosexual friends and support them whenever those are hateful and/or physically abusive towards them. Not all Homosexuals hate Christians and Straights. I am Pro Life, but I do not go around bombing abortion clinics and killing Pro Choice advocates. They too have Extremists on both sides, but not all of them are Extremists.
Most Catholics do not agree with the atrocities that occurred during the Inquisition. Just like not all Germans were Nazis. The list goes on and on. Yes there is Free Will, but it should not be forced down anyone’s throat. I don’t have a problem with Homosexuality. I don’t like the fact how some Homosexuals shove their point of view and the same goes for some of the over righteous religions. Non-Extremist Christians don’t like how God is being taken out of our country.
Public schools do not want Christianity and other religions mentioned in their schools, but some public schools freely accommodate Islam. Teachings about Allah and Jihad are acceptable. Since the 9/11 attacks we have been overly accommodating to them and have excluded many others. Equality is one thing, but this is being forced upon the vast majority and excluding many others. What happened to separation of church and state?
Free Will is FREE, not exaggerated, not overly boastful or arrogant/obnoxious and not imposed/inflicted forcefully. My Homosexual friends agree. We are very open with what we agree and disagree. At the end of the day we still care for each other and have respect for the other person’s point of view. Many Homosexuals help abused women and children, hospitals, animals and the community in general, not just Gay causes and “GAY” AIDS. You don’t have to be Gay to have AIDS.
Whenever I go to an Art Exhibit I don’t look at the piece of art and wonder if it was by a Gay or Straight artist. Whenever I read a book I don’t wonder about the author’s race. I remember Tea by the Sea at Atlantic Shores, Drag shows at the Copa and dinner at La Te Da. I also remember all the Straight places as well. Now that I no longer live in Key West I can see how some places in Florida have hatred towards Catholics, Hispanics and Whites. Roll all those up into one and you have ME!
I haven’t had a chance to view the entire video Silencing Christians because I have dial up internet service. Although I really wish they would have picked someone else other than Ann Coulter to speak for the Christian cause. All in all, I truly wish we can all respect one another despite our differences and work together towards friendship and understanding. Stop hating, live life, love a lot and show random acts of kindness.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Wow, what interesting reading…
First let me clarify the constitutional law that separated church and state. This law was designed by our forefather’s, Biblically based by the way, to keep the state out of governance of the church… In other word’s the state is not allowed to tell us what can be taught in our churches not the other way around.
Next let me address those of you who seem to think it’s about “Religion”. Religion points to works, going to confession, good deeds, whatever a specific religion tells you, you must do to be saved. This is all incorrect teaching. My salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ alone and nothing else. It is a RELATIONSHIP not anything I can do. I can’t get myself to heaven on my own power and with faith in Christ; I can’t do anything to lose my salvation as long as I do truly have a relationship with Jesus. My salvation was bought and paid for by the blood of Christ alone…thank you Jesus!
As for us not being “tolerant” of the life styles of the secular thinker, as one person boldly wrote we are not called to tolerate only to love. I look at it like this…If you had a cancer and you were going to die and I had the only treatment that would cure you from your fateful death, am I being intolerant telling you, you need this medicine in order to live or am I showing you the greatest love and I can?
The bottom line is one day I do guarantee you every knee will bow and you will spend eternity somewhere, where you spend it is up to you, it is always a personal choice to have a relationship with our Sovereign Lord and King. If your read this entire comment, I can also guarantee one day you will find yourself reflecting on what I have said…because one day you will know it was spoken in Truth.
Grace and Shalom
March 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Elise–
A majority of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians (even if they respected some basic Christian philosophy and talked a good game, church-wise, when campaigning for public office). Furthermore, your interpretation of the seperation of church and state is laughably incomplete. The colonies had experienced many instances of theocracy (the Puritans of New England being among the worst offenders), and the Founding Fathers were greatly concerned about any one religious cult gaining the power of the state. The seperation of church and state, therefore, has as its primary purpose the protection of the state from theocracy; its secondary purpose is to protect individual belief systems (it can’t do one without the other, you see).
As such, I am glad that I live in a country where I can tell you that you *have* to tolerate me: it’s the secular law of my secular government. I have no intention of allowing my government to devolve into a theocracy: we see it in varoius parts of the Middle East and had it in Europe (we called it the Dark Ages for a reason). Sorry if that seems hostile, but I reject the “I don’t have to tolerate you” stance as dangerously close to theocracy. Something akin to the “I love you, so I will shove red hot needles under your fingernails until you convert” attitude of the Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects, ha-ha). Not on my watch, lady.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“If you had a cancer and you were going to die and I had the only treatment that would cure you from your fateful death, am I being intolerant telling you, you need this medicine in order to live or am I showing you the greatest love and I can?”
That is if your “cure” would consist of random, unfounded crap completely lacking of any scientific basis. Not only would you be intolerant, you’d be REALLY annoying.
That’s all I need to add, Kurt pretty much hit the nail on the head, and by “nail” i mean religious nut, and by “hit on the head” i mean hit in the head with a ball-peen hammer.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Elise, you are horrible mistaken in your analogy to a cure to a disease. You do not have the answer, you merely think you do. To maintain your analogy, you’re not offering a cure, you’re offering snake oil, that we can’t ever test, to someone who doesn’t want it.
For some reason, Religious people think they have right to intrude on the lives of others, to bother people with things they don’t care about, and really don’t want to be bothered with anymore. I doubt there is a single person alive in western europe who doesn’t know about the bible and it’s mythology. You’re done spreading your religion, now stop bothering us.
No, what you’re talking about is Cult, stemming from dogma, if you want to be nitpicky. Your religion prescribes your cult (yes, it means that as well), because it is prescribed in your dogma.
Of course, you have no real right to anything, because you can’t ever offer the smallest shred of evidence that your god exists, or that your whole religion is based on anything else then wishfull thinking and controlling the population.
Until you can provide some basis for your beliefs, I will continue to mock the christian faith (and faith in general) and will never respect anyones religion.
I’ll respect the believer, as a human being, but I really see no reason at all to be friendly and respect Christianity, and I don’t. I really don’t understand why I should follow your archaic beliefs or care about your false beliefs in general.
Yes, your beliefs are false, unless of course, you can prove otherwise.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Kurt,
In your statements as well as most found on this page you all scream more intolerance and bigotry than any a Christian could. Funny how you don’t see that…
As for “the protection of the state from Theocracy” you do not know your constitution well nor have you ever apparently read every single states preamble to the individual State constitutions for EVERY SINGLE STATE begins with the first paragraph PRAISING GOD ALMIGHTY. Here are just a few of those preambles: “We the people of the State of Alabama invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God”, “We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution”, “We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful in Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution”, “We the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty”… Well, you get the picture all state constitutions are available to the public so I’ll let you go read the others… On your watch sir, you’ll see the destruction of all mankind. Great goal to be moving toward, but then I’ve heard ignorance is bliss.
As far as arguing your opinion vs. mine I find myself being reminded of the inerrant word of God which teaches us that “Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.†Proverbs 1:7, and “Don’t waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice.†Proverbs 23:9
Good luck to you Kurt, you as well as all non-believers are in my earnest prayers each and every day that one day very soon your eyes will be open and your hearts will find the peace that passes all understanding. Shalom
March 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Sorry the other posting was a draft… this was the complete version..I was multi-tasking. :-)
Kurt,
In your statements as well as most found on this page you all scream more intolerance and bigotry than any a Christian could. Funny how you don’t see that…
With regard to the founding fathers being Deists, this is a part of the spin-doctoring campaign of the historical revisionists. The separation of church and state was put in place so that no SPECIFIC denomination would be required of people to be able to hold public office. When the sudo-intellectuals and revisionist are debated they often lose the debate based upon empirical evidence or fact. A good reference is The Light and The Glory, by Peter Marshall, good website is wallbuilders.org.
As for “the protection of the state from Theocracy” you do not know your constitution well nor have you ever apparently read every single states preamble to the individual State constitutions for EVERY SINGLE STATE begins with the first paragraph PRAISING GOD ALMIGHTY. Here are just a few of those preambles: “We the people of the State of Alabama invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God”, “We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution”, “We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful in Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution”, “We the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty”… Well, you get the picture all state constitutions are available to the public so I’ll let you go read the others… On your watch sir, you’ll see the destruction of all mankind. Great goal to be moving toward, but then I’ve heard ignorance is bliss.
Your indoctrination of neo-Darwinian view of the world is quite complete. It is ashamed you are not more open minded and such a “flat earth thinker”. I was once in that camp myself as were many of my friends until we started investigating the claims and sources of information. “Seek and ye shall findâ€, be prepared for uncomfortable answers…
As far as arguing your opinion vs. mine, mine is a reasoned faith not a blind faith. I find myself being reminded of the inerrant word of God which teaches us that “Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.†Proverbs 1:7, and “Don’t waste your breath on fools, for they will despise the wisest advice.†Proverbs 23:9. This is not circular logic or circular reasoning because the Bible has proven itself to be true on all matters of science, cosmology, biology, and history.
Good luck to you Kurt, you as well as all non-believers are in my earnest prayers each and every day that one day very soon your eyes will be open and your hearts will find the peace that passes all understanding. Shalom
March 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
irishthunder,
Your statement “i mean hit in the head with a ball-peen hammer”
Talk about an intolorant, violent attitude with an illusion to a physical threat and harm…
I’d agree with you whole heartedly if my opinion was not founded on scientific fact and evidence you’d be correct. But it is demonstrably proven true, the Bible could only have been written by a transendant being from outside the space-time domain.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
alcari,
I am not sure who wrote the out takes you seem to be referencing to me, but those are not mine. Sorry to disappoint you.
As for my offering of snake oil, this is what you are preaching as an evangilist for your world view. The sick often refuse their diagnosis of simply to acknowledge they are sick…
God did say the Cross is Foolishness to those who are dying…
March 17th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Well, that has to be the claim of the century. Care to back this up? And care to explain why this goes only for the bible, and not the untold millions of other books out there?
and none of that pansy “There was a guy named jesus”. You’ll have to prove that the bible, and the whole bible, could not possibly have had another source. I’ll send you my life saving if you can do this.
EDIT: I love the edit button ;)
Evangelist for my worldview?
First of all, without knowing my worldview, I find it curious you can judge me on that.
Secondly, I don’t care wether or not you follow my worldview, as long as you stop bothering me, or anyone else, with your incorrect one.
ps, Elise the first quote is yours, the second is Cindy.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
*sigh. Yet another believer who thinks that one iota of criticism of her religion is intolerant. It is in fact not. Just as criticizing the Democrats, or supply-side economic theory, or the ability of Yankees to win the World Series is not that same as being intolerant towards those who hold those beliefs.
Elise, you deserve respect, your religion does not. In reading through the comments, I found something very interesting. Not one of the commenters insulted you. They questioned your beliefs, facts, and conclusions, sometimes harshly, but avoided insulting you. Yet you returned and called them all ‘fools’.
Now I understand that you may be unaccustomed to hearing religion criticized since it has been taboo for many years. But understand that, when you think about it, the only reason that taboo exists is because of the often severe social repercussions associated with not sharing the majority religion. There certainly has been no reciprocal taboo against those who critique atheism. There is no reason that religion should have a privileged place in the market place of ideas. We free thinkers have realized this and are now refusing to submit to social punishments inflicted upon us by religionists. Criticism of your most cherished beliefs is something that you will simply have to get used to.
Oh, and a quick check of the preambles will reveal that New Hampshire does not praise God Almighty. Furthermore, none of the Constitutions praise God, but thank God. Not all of them use the phrase God Almighty either. Some use ‘Divine Guidance’ (Hawaii) others just use ‘God’ (Alaska). Also note that not a single one mention Jesus or the word ‘Christ’ and all of them have wording that expresses “No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. So the State Constitutions are not Christian, but some vague, monotheistic belief that lacks all dogma. Oh, wait… that’s called Deism.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
“But it is demonstrably proven true, the Bible could only have been written by a transendant being from outside the space-time domain.”
Wow, that almost made me laugh out loud until I realized your actually using it as an argument. I’d love to see some evidence, but i guess then it wouldn’t be “faith”. As far as being intolerant, I’ll be tolerant of religious people the minute they stop trying to “show me the way” and/or they acknowledge how much damage religion has had on the advancement of mankind throughout history.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Gosh this is fun, sadly one of us has to work…I was looking for articles when I stumbled onto this site and I would not be a disciple of my Lord if I did not defend the cross.
But let me understand; to state I should be hit in the head with a hammer (see irishthunder’s comment) is not a direct attack on my person? Hmm… The point of the Biblical quotes is well proven in all these responses. You don’t seek understanding, you don’t seek truth, you demand someone give it to you. Prove to me that God does not exist! Prove to me any other “holy†book has passed the test of time as the Bible has! Scientists, archeologists, and historians alike have come to faith in Jesus Christ as they went about their work in their field of expertise and discovered the inerrancy of the Bible proven through their very work. You can’t see it or understand it because as far as I can see not one of you is willing to take the time to look for truth. The truth has been proven, the evidence is out there and easily accessible. But you have to want it, and wanting it will convict you and it’s pretty hard when you see who you really are. I know, I was just like every one of you not long ago so I don’t come out of some Bible-belt thumping religious family protected from “free thought”. I denied Jesus and the Bible for much of my life. What changed? I’m an intellegent woman who doesn’t take what men (or women)say at face value and as I sought to find my own peace and purpose in this world the evidence was overwhelming and undeniable.
And as for Jesus Christ, He is the ONLY MAN who split time in half e.g. BC – Before Christ, AD – After Death… Let me see… someone who did not ever really exist…somehow managed to split our human calendar 2000 years ago. Explain that one? You tell me how that happened? I’m sure you must have your own story of how that happened…
As stated and well proven by scripture to continue to argue with fools is a moot cause as they will never see anything outside of what they want to see. Sadly, and I do mean sadly, for each one refuting the name of Jesus and the inerrant Word of God, they will stand before their Creator and my point will be well taken, but too late.
Keep seeking…”…and the Truth will set you Free” John 8:32
March 17th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Fact: I am certified to teach US History, from the state with the hardest requirements to become a teacher; my capstone research project was on the US Constitution. There is no spin-doctoring (and I abhor revisionists): private documents verify unequivocally that the majority of our Founding Fathers were Deists. Jefferson, specifically, railed against organized religious tyranny by those who try to force their private religious views on others.
As to state constitutions, they mean exactly squat, because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
“On your watch sir, you’ll see the destruction of all mankind. Great goal to be moving toward, but then I’ve heard ignorance is bliss.” — fancy that you know me and the policies I support so well without ever hearing them. Interesting that I am ignorant despite several degrees from accredited Universities.
Indoctrination is the antithesis of my world-view. I am not the one who believes that the world will end due to some magic powers battle akin to a bad Yu-Gi-Oh episode. In my cosmos, the Universe still has trillions of years, and I intend for humanity to be a part of it, in whatever form we evolve into, until the very end and even after that if possible.
You see, Elise, I am a scientist first and foremost. If you don’t like that, too bad. Facts first and foremost, opinion a distant second (if ever). So: “the Bible has proven itself to be true on all matters of science, cosmology, biology, and history.” Provide evidence of this. I’ve certainly never seen it (aside from some laughable garbage on the Jesus-Jumper channels which pretty much refutes itself).
Finally, peace only comes from understanding. Better an uncomfortable world view that fits the verifiable facts than an happy prison created by those who “know what’s best for us.” Your world-view, as presented, sounds a lot like “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
So I will close with: may you be able to afford the education which will open your eyes to the fact that this country and this world must be shared by all, and so cannot afford another episode of theocracy being forced upon free peoples.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Luckily, others live in other timezones, and are allready done ;) I’d like to say that, if you detect a mocking undertone in this post, your internet sensor is working correctly I am indeed mocking your religion, prove to me I have no reason to, and I will stop.
Similarly, I ask you to prove there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn in your room. Go ahead, i’m waiting. Oh.. you can’t?
You show you utter ignorance in the field of science and philosphy. You can’t prove a negative. EVER. The best approximation of an answer would be to explain how the universe doesn’t need a god to work. For this I point you to the entire fields of physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, mathematics and a few I forgot.
And i’m not the one making outrageous claims about an invisisble sky fairy. The burden of proof lies with you.
Baghavad Gitah, Tanakh, Quran. Buddism and Shintoism don’t even need a book to be succesfull.
Apearently not so easily accesibly as for you to post a link to it…
Where the hell did you get your education? On the back a cereal box?
1 - AD stands for Anno Domini, which was invited in 525AD, and took 300 years to get accepted. It’s also off by anywhere between 8 and 16 years.
2 - “Splitting time” depends on your calender. Muhamed and Emperor Huangdi have done the same. The hindu calendar doesn’t need a person to usher in a new era, same goes for most other calendars.
Erm… there is no such thing as “proven by scripture”, you see, you first need to prove you scripture is actually true. I’ll grant you the first step though, there was a man named Jesus, that has been well shown (not that I ever claimed otherwise).
Now, you need to show that Jesus was the son of God, and that that god is exactly as the bible describes him.
I’m waiting for you to prove god, or point to such proof.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Careful, or you’ll start commenting while at work ;)
Actually, A.D. stands for “Anno Domini”, which is Latin for “Year of our Lord”, and refers to the time after the birth of Jesus, not after his death. If B.C. and A.D. actually stood for what you suggest they do, our reckoning of years would not account for the 33 years of Jesus’ life.
EDIT: I agree with much of what alcari said (as usual), especially with respect to Mohammedan calendar and the question begging of ‘proven by scripture’. Great points. But I wouldn’t be so harsh on Elise for the A.D. mistake. It surprisingly common (at least here in the States).
I beg to differ. It was precisely my active pursuit of understanding and truth that led me to concluded that my hitherto Christian beliefs were utterly false. Please try not to make sweeping generalizations about people you really don’t know.
And scientists, archaeologists, and historians alike have concluded the errancy of the Bible through their work in their field of expertise.
Again, try to avoid sweeping generalizations. You couldn’t have been just like everyone of us since we are all quite different.
And where can we find this ‘overwhelming’ and ‘undeniable’ evidence? You want to be, as you put it, “a disciple of my Lord if I did not defend the cross” right? Pointing out such strong evidence would clearly be the best way seeing as evidence is highly valued in this group.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
@elise
the current level of scientific knowledge simply destroys genesis. there is no two ways about it: genesis read literally does not make much sense today. to your average bronze age joe it might have seemed like a plausible explanation.
if you start “interpreting” the supposed inerrant then it’s credibility goes out the window by default.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
“You don’t seek understanding, you don’t seek truth, you demand someone give it to you.”
I spent around four years(out of the 20 I’ve had so far) trying to find religion, I actively went numerous religious leaders in that search. I did. The simple demand for someone to prove that there is no god is quite pathetic. Following your logic, anyone can claim something and we should accept it as fact even if there is nothing pointing to the claims truth, in fact, anyone who doesn’t agree is wrong because they cannot prove it is false.
Seriously, if you don’t have anything better than what you’ve already used to “defend the cross”, then you shouldn’t bother. Because I already know you’ll just keep saying the same crap over and over again.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“Keep seeking…â€â€¦and the Truth will set you Free†John 8:32″
I have nothing to add to all that’s been said above, really, but I would just like to offer a kind smile to these words.
March 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Howdy all,
Well I must admit I am glad that someone picked up the common A.D. mistake. It is easily enough done due to its prevalence. I am not sure how choosing an arguably important person as a reference point constitutes splitting time though. Anyway onto more important things.
“The point of the Biblical quotes is well proven in all these responses. You don’t seek understanding, you don’t seek truth, you demand someone give it to you. Prove to me that God does not exist!”
Well I do believe that I am (and from what I’ve seen most of the regulars here) are seeking the Truth. The problem is that it is hard to be objective because we all filter information through our own personal perspectives. In order to guard against this we try to keep our minds open to ideas but demand that they have some sort of verifiable proof before they are taken as anything approaching fact. I do realise Elise that you believe that the bible has been proven. It appears that you believe this becuase you haven’t tried to verify both sides from an objective view point. This is only my opinion however. It may surprise you to learn that I have read some fairly compelling arguments for the existance of a god (please note that god is written with a lowercase “g” and referenced with an indefinate article) from Sidfaiwu. You would probably find that the definition of god in this case would differ from what you consider god to be however.
In trying to measure how objective I am concerning wether or not a god or gods exist I ask myself this question. What would prove to me that god or gods exist? If the answer is nothing could prove it to me, then I am being a closed minded bigot and must remind myself that I don’t have all the answers. Conversly I believe you should ask yourself the reverse question. What would prove to you that your God (please note the use of the uppercase “G” in this instance) is merely a myth?
Now in your posts you make alot of assurations claiming facts that are demonstrably proven true. You have not actually shown any data on when this was done. Most of the reasoning you have given here appear to contain overly simplified and geralised assumptions. Also the tone of your posts is very condescending, coming accross as a parent speaking to a small child. If you want me (and I’m assuming others here) to take you seriously and listen to what your saying please talk to us as equals. There are alot of very knowledagable people in various discplines on this site. Your apparent utter contempt for our beliefs (i.e. not believing in god) show very little respect. You do seem to expect us to show respect for your beliefs however. If you cannot see how this comes accross as highly hypocrytical on your part then I am afraid you appear to be preaching rather than discussing and I would doubt anyone here really wants to be preached at or preach back at you in return. We like to keep our discussion rather civil, hoping more for and exchange of ideas and opinions that conducting a heated religous argument that resolves nothing.
Cheers
Simon Bond
March 17th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Allright, i’ll chalk it up to a lacking education system then ;). I would think that someone mentioning it as a main point of debate would at least know the definition..
Still, I was a bit rude, sorry about that Elise.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I see no difference between what I read on this site and the “Christian” site. One claims to be tolerant and the other claims to love. However, both sides are angry at and intolerant of the other. One side thinks that the other is evil and one side thinks the other is ignorant. This site has no problem spewing the same ugliness and complaints about the behavior of the other. How can people here complain about the people there and act the same way as them. Seems a little contradictory.
The Dixie Chicks are a great example of the whole free speech issue. They were totally free to say whatever they wanted about the President. When the public responded negatively, they come back with that “mad as hell” song. People in America are protected (or should be) to speak freely. They need to know that when they do that, the rest of America is free to respond. The response may not always be what the speaker was hoping for though. Welcome to America.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Hello Dave,
As I’ve cautioned others be careful not to make sweeping generalizations. Certainly not all of the comments on this site are intolerant nor are they on the Christian site you are referencing (the one linked to in the OP, right?). Not all non-believers consider religionists to be ignorant* and not all religionists consider non-believers to be evil.
It would be more instructive to point to specific comments here that you think fits the description of intolerant and then compare and contrast them with quotes from the Christian site. Is there one comment that sticks out as particularly intolerant? What makes it intolerant?
I doubt that you’ll find much disagreement over the free speech issue. We my object to the content of what one says but none of us would ever question the speaker’s right to say it.
* Note that not all non-believers consider religionists to be ignorant in general, but perhaps ignorant about certain subjects. No human knows everything. Thus by definition, we are all ignorant about some (many) things. Thus anyone can be aptly described as ignorant. Perhaps ‘unintelligent’ is more appropriate for this discussion.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
i think that most believers choose to be ignorant on certain subjects that clash with their dogma. in those cases anything that even resembles an argument (like answersingenesis.org) will reassure the believer that there is some evil conspiracy to discredit the “inerrant word of god”.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
So Kurt, what you prove is in all the education you have you choose to remain ignorant, I don’t say this to be mean, but facts can be found that don’t support what you’ve said. Your degrees sir show nothing more than book smarts and considering the curriculum of our country and the liberal views taught throughout I am not surprised that you remain in this current state.
I did find a recent article responding to the debate over our founding fathers being primarily Deists…You can read the article in its entirety at: https://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=113
Here are a few highlights regarding what you said Kurt about the “vast majority†of our founding fathers being deists. I’ve bracketed any of the excerpts for easy recognition.
[A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the “voluminous writingsâ€" of the Founders…
Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,†“agnostic,†and “atheist†appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?
None of the notable Founders fit this description.]
The article goes on to outline the actual published writings of the men mentioned above, but as Kurt mentioned Jefferson himself let’s look at him.
[The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.†Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,†but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazarethâ€). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter†portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.†While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.]
This writing is currently digitally preserved for all to read showing it in Jefferson’s original handwriting next to the written version. Several letters which Jefferson wrote during the compilation of this work include one to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803 whereby Jefferson writes that he considers “the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct and sublime than those of the ancient philosophersâ€. So Mr. Jefferson not only believed in Jesus, but admired him.
Additionally I like the question the article posed at the conclusion:
[None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.
The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.
Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.]
Good point!
As far as our human race evolving any further Kurt, there is no evolution… Darwin said himself and I quote:†If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that which could not have been possible formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.â€
The single-cell unit is where Darwin believed all is derived. But, Darwin knew nothing about electron microscopes or cellular biology. Today we know for a fact, that the nucleus of a cell contains more information than all 30 volumes of the encyclopedia Britannica combined. A simple, single-cell is: vastly complex, specific, and perfectly ordered. Darwin by his admission proves his theory is a fraud.
Well, this writing is already quiet extensive enough I hope it stimulates further seeking.
Shalom
March 18th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
just a nitpick, really. Not really interesting comment #45 to read but Atheist is not synonym of agnostic and deist, small things like this generally erode the whole into nothing.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hello Elise
From the article you link:
Meriam Webster on Deist:
(emphasis mine). This is rather a terse definition. The American Heritage one is better:
(again, emphasis mine).
Meriam Webster on Atheist:
One believes in a Creator, the other does not, yet the article you link to says they are the same.
It then goes to quote Thomas Paine out of context in order to demonstrate that he was not a Deist. What a laugh!!! Thomas Paine pretty much founded American Deism. Read his essay, Of The Religion of Deism Compared With
the Christian Religion. Here are some of Thomas Paine’s own words:
Paine was unequivocally a non-Christian.
They move on to Franklin. They use out of context quotes and a couple of opinions to try to demonstrate that he was not a deist. The truth is that he was a devout Christian in his youth, but converted to Deism by the time the nation was being formed.
The article uses similar cherry-picking to argue as to whether George Washington was a Deists. In this case, his writings are mixed.
Honestly, the confusion stems from the fact that, “Deism for Washington, as with most historical figures classified as deists, was never an actual religious affiliation, but was a classification of theological belief.”
Similar ambiguity surrounds Jefferson:
The article completely leaves out other founders, such as Ethan Allan and James Madison, who also could be argued to be Deist.
Finally, this is from WallBuilders ‘about’ webpage:
The made the conclusion before even looking for the evidence! There was is a clear confirmation bias throughout the article. Worse yet, it only cites sources from it’s own website, which further brings their objectivity into question.
Considering the amount of cherry-picking of evidence, confirmation bias, and lack of due diligence that I found during a brief internet fact check of your linked article, it’s conclusions are highly suspect. Do you have any better researched evidence? Here is a much more balanced article that I wrote on this topic a couple of years ago. A few of the reference links are now dead, but most are still intact.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
well done sidfaiwu. elise, that was a very obvious lie regarding the meaning of deist, agnostic and atheist. did it ever occur to you to challenge the validity of “facts” in that article?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Wow Elise, that was a great job in avoiding ALL of the issues. It takes a certain ammount of cunning to skillfully evade every real point posted above, but make such a huge post concerning an increadibly small detail.
I’m still waiting for you support your previous claim concerning the validity of christianity.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Damn. I get home, see yet another personal attack on my skills, intelligence,affiliations (being a Libertarian, I get a wee bit upset when I’m labeled “liberal”), and get my engine running to blast off . . . then I see Sid’s already given most of my arguments for me . . . damn. Well, I can point out that the primary reason for the “conflicting” evidence is the simple difference between public speeches and writings (wherein anyone running for office had to *appear* Christian or kiss their political career goodbye) and private correspondence and diaries (where writers could express their true feelings). Other than that . . . oh!
Here we go: “As far as our human race evolving any further Kurt, there is no evolution.” Tell that to any biologist who has graduated from any reputable University. Elise, that quote shows that you have no understanding of the scientific method and scholarship; or need to see a doctor, apparently (since all modern medicine is based on Evolution). If the Theory of Evolution was false, it wouldn’t still be in use 150 years after it’s formal introduction. Again, facts first, opinion second (when it is informed) or last (when it is based on mystical or wishful thinking).
Finally, I note that you never seemed to be angered (or addressed the issue) when I noted that your stance is in favor of a Christian-centered theocracy . . . which really tells me all I need to know in this case.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“It then goes to quote Thomas Paine out of context in order to demonstrate that he was not a Deist. What a laugh!!! Thomas Paine pretty much founded American Deism. Read his essay, Of The Religion of Deism Compared With
the Christian Religion.”
No, read The Age of Reason, an entire book authored by Paine with the sole purpose of attacking the Bible and Christianity. Here’s a picking of quotes from just a cursory glance:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
This next one is from the introduction to the second part:
“If I have erred in anything in the former part of the Age of Reason, it has been by speaking better of some parts of those books (referring to the Bible) than they have deserved.”
If anyone calls Paine a Christian, they do not know the name of Thomas Paine. In conclusion: reference your references, kids, because if you don’t someone who knows something might see you.
I had a small set of excerpts from Jefferson that would also deal with that, but it’s about two hours’ drive from me now. One directly appealed to Jesus but simultaneously held Christianity at a distance.
Lastly, how is Darwin refuted again? Even giving you the advantage and taking his own words which you quote:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed that which could not have been possible formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
something being complex means exactly what about it not being possible?
Let me tell you a story. Maybe you’ve heard it. A man is selling beer at three cents a glass. It costs him four cents for each glass worth of beer. Someone who realizes this asks him why he is doing such a thing. “Why, it’s the big number that counts!” he says. That is, when he sells just one glass it’s certainly a loss. But when it’s a hundred, a thousand, a million…why look how big that number is! The moral is: numbers mean jack. Same for the parts of a cell. The number being big neither proves nor disproves anything.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
“One directly appealed to Jesus but simultaneously held Christianity at a distance.” Yes, Snurp, Jefferson respected Jesus’s philosophy; but he didn’t buy into miracles (a Deist hallmark), wound up questioning the divinity he had been taught as a child, and grew to deeply distrust organized religion (the “tyranny” quote at his memorial refers to organized religion, few are told the context).
And I love your story. Gasmonso should set up an area for a weekly “Story Time;” I nominate you for the first one!
March 21st, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Actually, the seperation of church and state was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is NOWHERE in the Consitution of the United States or in the Bill of Rights. Athiests used this to pass a law banning religion at schools, only christianity is banned, Islam is not. NOT TOO FAIR IS IT!!!
March 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Well when muslims start to push their religion into schools I will be the first one to stand up and fight. By the way, considering most of the founding fathers were not christians, i doubt they wanted to create a christian nation.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
<blockquoteActually, the seperation (sic) of church and state was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is NOWHERE in the Consitution (sic) of the United States or in the Bill of Rights.
Let’s start with Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution.
Then, let’s look at the first two clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I would also argue that the government becoming involved in religion would be a violation of the rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Nicely done, Sid; you could’ve also thrown in Madison and Jefferson’s writings on the issue, or the placement of the First Amendment (Article I, Section Nine, between Clauses Three and Four, for those who are really interested), or even the 1797 Tripoli Treaty . . . but I don’t think that will convince the theocrats. They are bound and determined to rewrite U S History and Jurisprudence so that America becomes what it never was: a country run by churches. This is in part because of the propoganda of Robertson and Falwell, who have convinced some Christians that they and their religion are “under attack” by the legislature, the courts, etc. . . when in fact, it’s just the normal discourse of a free society and the advancement of science that are bringing more people to question the stories they were told as children (and adults, for that matter).
And, after all, it’s tough to go from the center of the Universe to an insignificant speck in just a few hundred years.
March 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
“Yes, Snurp, Jefferson respected Jesus’s philosophy; but…(stuff about his not being Christian at all)”
Exactly my point, though I suppose it wasn’t too clear from what I said.
And the story is not mine. The credit goes to Dostoevsky, somewhere in The Brothers Karamazov, I believe.
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Ah, but you encapsulate it well! Besides, I don’t speak/read Russian . . . and as far as Russian literature, it’s only “The Master and Marguarita” and “War and Peace” for me so far.
March 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Fascinating discussion, I love this site! Thanks all :)
May 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I will be the first to say that many Christians go about God’s business the wrong way. We are called to tell others about the amazing love of Christ. We are to tell others about what He did for them on the cross, and how they can become the beneficiaries of eternal life. This only comes through the salvation afforded us by Jeus Christ death, burial, and resurrection. We can not change a person’s mind about who they are or save them ourselves. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves what they will do with the truth of God’s word.
The Bible tells me that everyone of us has sinned. And my sin is no different than that of a murder, homosexual, or drug addict. It all looks the same in God’s eyes. A sin is a sin. And with sin in our lives, we will not see God. No one will see God with out repenting and accepting Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is the message we are asked to spread.
Many “Christian” groups get confused, and think that their job is to “save” the world. They become self-righteous and try to force people into their mold. We are not the ones who save. Jesus is. We are just His messengers. It is not God’s way to blow up abortion clinics. It is not God’s way to insult others who are different than us. In fact, we are called to love our neighbors and our enemies. We are to reach them in love.
Now with that being said, I think it is wrong for our children to exposed to Islam, Wicka, evolution and the homosexual agenda in our schools without being given a fair voice. It’s ok to teach all of these things in our schools, but when someone mentions Christianity the world freaks out. What is fair for one should be fair for all. If you are allowed to believe what you believe, and voice it openly, why am I being silenced. What are you afraid of?
Are you being intolerant of someone that thinks differently than you? When you single me out as a Christian, aren’t you being discriminatory? Think about that for a moment.
I am a Christian, and what you do with your life is your business. But I should be able to speak freely about what I believe just as you do. God created you with free will. That’s what is great about Him, you don’t have to believe in Him if you don’t want to. But it is my responsibility to tell you about the consequences if you fail to accept Him. Beyond that the choice is up to you.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“The Bible tells me that everyone of us has sinned. And my sin is no different than that of a murder, homosexual, or drug addict. It all looks the same in God’s eyes.”
So being a homosexual is the same as taking an innocent life? Wow, just..wow
“I think it is wrong for our children to exposed to Islam, Wicka, evolution and the homosexual agenda in our schools without being given a fair voice.”
The problem is Evolution has evidence to support it in the scientific community, so teaching it is significantly different than religion, or “the homosexual agenda”.
“But it is my responsibility to tell you about the consequences if you fail to accept Him.”
No, no it is not. it’s your responsibility to not impose your religious beliefs on other people.
May 4th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Pastor John–
I wonder if you see your own discriminatory statements in the very post in which you decry discrimination of Christianity? For example, you feel that evolution shouldn’t be taught in schools, because not teaching “intelligent design” (creationism, and I bet the Christian and not the Raelian version is what you meant) isn’t “fair.” But evolution has had 150 years of work, evidence, and *scientific* methodology applied to it, and creationism has to be taken on faith, by definition. How is that not discriminatory? Would you have Aristotle’s theory of gravity taught alongside Newton’s as of equal value (instead of as an example of how the scientific method trumps ancient modes of thought)? If so, you would merely demonstrate an utter lack of knowledge of science and the scientific method.
In addition, your idea that Islam, Wicca, etc., should not be taught, but that Christianity should get a free pass, is nothing short of showing utter contempt for true freedom of religion. If your religion is so wonderful and right, it should be able to stand on its own against other teachings.
Ideas are indeed dangerous. They have ways of seeping into one’s paradigm without one’s knowledge. This is why critical thinking is the most valuable tool to teach children. Once children have learned to think for themselves, they invariably question many things, and search for real answers. Again, if your religion is true, it should be able to withstand critical voices and intense scrutiny.
But, from my personal experience, it doesn’t. It didn’t even make it past three months of critical inquiry. And I was a very devout believer as a child, with many years spent at the task.
*That* is what Christians (and Muslims, and Wiccans, etc.) truly fear: critical thinking, expressed aloud.
May 4th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
One thing: I realize it’s been a while since I have been in school, but I hardly doubt that public schools are encouraging children to be Muslim, as some have implied. In fact, looking at how much people freaked out about a certain politician with a Muslim sounding name, even though he is not a Muslim, seems to indicate that Islam is not exactly accepted nor encouraged, although perhaps children are being taught ABOUT other religions to try and make the next generation more tolerant.
God forbid
May 5th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Christians may be sheep, but in my honest opinion, atheists are dumb asses.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Apparently, when Christians express their contempt, bigotry and hatred for gays, it’s a hate crime. However, when gays express their contempt, bigotry and hatred of Christians, it’s not a hate crime. This is clearly a double standard.
Common law is supposed to apply to everyone. It’s not meant to give one group a political upper hand. The way much of current hate crime legislation is enforced is obviously hypocritical with a specific political agenda behind it.
Just because I’m tired of the way my politcal and philisophical opponents publicly parade their sentiments against my views, doesn’t mean that I can have them arrested. It’s not the same thing as if I had endured constant or recurring personal harassment, intrusions on my private life or violence against my person. People these days don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a violation of rights and a conflict of beliefs.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Fellow believers - You’re wasting your time… they cannot hear you.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.
Rom 1:28 And even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Steve Thomas –
“Apparently, when Christians express their contempt, bigotry and hatred for gays, it’s a hate crime. However, when gays express their contempt, bigotry and hatred of Christians, it’s not a hate crime.”
I’m not sure whether you’re speaking of legally-defined hate crime, where physical violence or coersion is involved, or socially-defined hate crime, where attitudes are what you’re talking about. How often do groups of gays go out to look for straights to beat up on a Saturday night? In other words, can you find examples of gay-initiated violence without “hate crime” laws being put into play? If you’re talking socially, though, I’ll agree there is animosity on both sides.
Having said that, “hate crime” legislation is foolish. Getting beaten up is getting beaten up; intent should add to the *severity* of the sentence (and proof of crime, of course), not the nature of the crime you are charged with. For example, intentional murder for any gain — political, monetary, etc. — should carry the heaviest penalties we choose to bring to bear; but murdering your best friend when you catch him in bed with your wife is much less heinous, so should not carry as heavy a penalty.
“Common law is supposed to apply to everyone. It’s not meant to give one group a political upper hand. The way much of current hate crime legislation is enforced is obviously hypocritical with a specific political agenda behind it.”
Spot on, my Brit friends would say.
“People these days don’t seem to be able to distinguish between a violation of rights and a conflict of beliefs.”
100% agreement, again.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I’m going to have to echo what Kurt said, Steve Thomas. Their should be no such thing as a ‘hate’ crime. It’s outlawing thoughts. People are being punished for what is in their heads and not their actions (which is exactly what Christians believe God does, by the way). There should be no thought-crime! You and your fellow Christians should be free to think and even say hateful, bigoted, ignorant things about homosexuals. And we non-believers should be free to call you ignorant, bigoted, hateful jackasses for it.
But notice that you are permitted to say and do those things. Hate crime legislation can only be applied if someone commits a violent act. No one in this country has been arrested and convicted of a hate crime simply because they were protesting. I still think hate crime legislation is wrong, but it’s not what you implied it to be in your comment.
Just look at going_home_soon’s comment, for instance. It’s hateful, even fearful of non-believers yet, no one is kicking down his or her door with an arrest warrant for a hate crime.
Note, also, Kurt’s question. How often have homosexuals gone out, rounded up a Christian, tied him to a fence, and beat him to death? Any instances? If so, were they charged with a hate crime in addition to homicide? The double standard might just exist in your imagination.