Ron's Rants

Children--Your New Sunday School Teacher is an Atheist

2007-12-10T14:53:00.000-05:00

Just how often does anyone think that the phrase above would ever be uttered in a fundamentalist Christian church?

My guess is never.

So, why in the hell would they expect a legitimate scientific institute to hire a nutbag that believes in Creationism? Well, that's exactly what some seem to expect.

It seems that one Nathaniel Abraham of India is suing the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts on the basis that they fired him because he didn't accept the Theory of Evolution. This nutbag's suit was already thrown out by The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination because "Abraham's request not to work on evolutionary aspects of research would be difficult for Woods Hole because its work is based on evolutionary theories."

But, Abraham the Creationist persists. This would be like me getting upset at a church for firing me because I wouldn't teach about God in Sunday school class. The Woods Institute has a reputation to uphold for work and research based on solid scientific foundations. Allowing some idiot who rejects these foundations to do research and then publish his nonsense as an employee would discredit the institute in the scientific community and ruin the careers of the real scientists who work there, not to mention ruin the educational value of the institute.

Mr. Abraham seems to be doing fine though, because he now has a position as a biology prof at Liberty University which was founded by Jerry Falwell. He should fit right in at this place and will be somewhere that his unfounded, unscientific views on biology will be blindly accepted by the ignorant. Liberty University, however doesn't offer any degrees in science, because they can't get the accreditation necessary to do so, so at least Mr. Abraham won't be training scientists.

Reverend Ron and His Glorious Future--Amen

2007-12-09T10:05:00.000-05:00

Hallelujah!! My deliverance is at hand, for yesterday I officially became an ordained minister. Praise be to God, etc. etc. Yes folks, at ????? today I received notice that my application for ordination in the Universal Life Church was accepted. I can now marry, bury, bless, and curse people with the full backing of the great bearded one, or as the e-mail I received puts it, I am "authorized by the church to perform all peaceful rites and ceremonies of the church, including weddings, funerals, baptisms, blessings, and to preach, teach and hold meetings." I am also "...entitled to all privileges and courtesies normally offered to members of the clergy."

I have already ordered my ordination certificate and the certificate entitling me to be called "Reverend Ron." I started to go for "Mother Superior," but changed my mind because "Reverend Ron" seemed a better money-making title. I also wanted Popenfuhrer, or "Panzer Cardinal," but some guy in Italy has already claimed both titles.

This also means that I can now endorse a presidential candidate. I'm waiting for the endorsement requests to come in before deciding who pays best, and therefore deserves my endorsement. Unlike Oprah or Chuck Norris I have no plans to choose a candidate based on their skin color or religion.

I haven't decided on a name for my ministry yet but am leaning towards:

Reverend Ron's Guaranteed First Class Ticket to Heaven Only True Apostolic Faith Assembly Holy Spirit Church of Christ, and God International

It seems that Stairway to Heaven was already used in some song or something.

However I have decided that I will not seek tax-exempt status, because, as all church leaders know, our lord, savior, and all around good guy Jeebus commanded that we should pay our taxes, and his most high sometimes cranky father, God commanded that we not try to take tax exemptions for donations to him or his representatives a.k.a. don't eat of the offering you have made, and since I am a nice man-of-God I don't want to lead any of my future flock down the road to Hell--bankruptcy court maybe, but not Hell.

This should keep me out of trouble with not only He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Vained, but also on good terms with the Senate Finance Committee.

I have also decided not to set up house in Las Vegas despite the fact that it is the perfect place for a preacher due to the availability of money and prostitutes. It seems that some fellow men of God have deemed it to be on the list for God's wrath, and I don't want my ministry cut short by some faith-based-bombing.

I figure that within the year I should have enough brain dead followers giving me money that I will be able to buy prostitutes, steal money, buy politicians, buy judges, drive fancy cars, smoke meth, and live in mansions just like the rest of my fellow servants of the Lord. I'll just have to do it in Atlantic City, Reno, or maybe Texas. Though with all of the mega-ministers that are based in Texas the competition for money might be a bit much.

Anyway, keep an eye out for a new blog on the teachings and life lessons from my new ministry.

Amen. Pass the plate. And don't forget that God is watching and wants you to give generously.

Decisions, Decisions

2007-12-07T12:13:00.000-05:00

I thought that it was about time that I wade into the great American popularity contest known as the Presidential Election.

In recent years elections in this country have undergone an Amereicanidolization of sorts in that people tend to vote based upon who likes or dislikes a candidate. This is far simpler than actually listening to the candidates or researching their positions on various topics important to the well being of the voter or this country. Being a good American I have decided to dumb down for a while and give this sort of thinking a try.

I do ask your indulgence for my attempts because I have never watched a single episode of American Idol so am new to this sort of thing. Anyway--here goes.

First off--Rudi Giuliani is out. This hurts a little, because he was the only leader this country had on 9/11, and we should all be grateful for his leadership during that horrific time. But, he now has the endorsement of Pat Robertson. If this moron likes Rudi then there must be some secret agenda that we are unaware of, so no to Rudi.

Then there's Mitt Romney--Didn't really like this guy to begin with but do remember the Tabernacle Choir's Christmas specials when I was a kid. Though, now that he has been endorsed by Bob Jones, I really don't like him. After all, this bigot endorsed our current idiot in chief.

Huckabee-Baptist minister/president--I don't think so.

Stephen Colbert does have the support of Jon Stewart which is a big plus, but since he's only running in South Carolina I'm not sure he will make it.

Then there's the underdog, Ron Paul--I have gotten e-mail asking for my support for this guy, and a good friend of mine likes him, but I'm not too fond of his positions (oops I slipped-forgive me). Anyway, while preachers are supporting everyone else, Paul did recently get a pretty good endorsement from some people in Nevada. If prostitutes are willing to put their reputations on the line and endorse this guy then maybe he's worth considering, but I will have to wait and see who Britney and Paris are supporting before making my decision.

No "Fruity Little Club" in Germany--Xenu Wins Again

2007-12-07T10:32:00.000-05:00

L. Ron Hubbard and the rest of Xenu's victims are probably quite upset today due to news out of Germany.

The German government has decided that The Church of Scientology is not "an organization that is compatible with the constitution (of Germany)," so have ruled it unconstitutional. It seems that they don't consider Scientology a religion. They see it as "a cult masquerading as a church to make money." Go figure.

Now, while I'll whole-heartily agree that this fruity little club is not a religion, and is a money making scheme, it seems a little hypocritical to pick on these poor thetans while allowing other money making cults (a.k.a. churches) to operate with impunity.

After all, a cult is merely a church that someone else belongs to, and all churches are in one way or another money making schemes, so if the Germans or anybody else for that matter, are serious about getting rid of organizations that prey on the weak for monetary gain then they need to look at all of them, and not just Tom Cruise and his deluded friends.

Heresy

2007-12-06T11:16:00.000-05:00

To quote Trent Reznor:

"God is dead, and no one cares."

It seems that God was murdered recently while getting drunk at a club in Greensboro, NC, and no one has come forth to claim responsibility.

Thanks to Ian by way of Planet Atheism for this bit 'o info.

Bigotry is Alive and Well

2007-12-06T10:53:00.001-05:00

Who says bigotry is dead in this country (aside from old-white bigots)? Well here is proof to the contrary. Maybe T.T. can get together with Denny Altes and burn a few crosses for God at the next Republican convention.

Thanks to Jesus' General for leading me to this nutbag.

Nicholas Day for the Nicolas Atheist

2007-12-06T07:25:00.000-05:00

Happy Nicholas Day everybody.

Here in the Nicolas household today in the traditional start of the Christmas season which runs until Twelfth Night on 6 January.

I'm assuming that this proclamation comes as something of a surprise to some readers due to my atheism, but I wasn't born an atheist I became one, so Christmas was a part of my childhood and has remained part of my life since. Atheism on my part is the result of combining intelligence, common sense, and scholarly pursuits--Christmastime traditions, on the other hand, come from family traditions. I believe that intellect and reasonable thinking are an important aspect of a good life, and I also believe that tradition is important to a good family life. I firmly believe that the loss of traditions and the absence of rites of passage are two major contributors to a lot of society's ills.

Anyway, I meant to talk about the Nicolas' celebration of Nicholas Day, and not preach, so let's move on.

The traditions surrounding Christmastime here in the Nicolas household go as follows:

On Nicholas Day (today) the tree (always a fir tree) is purchased and brought into the house. That evening it is decorated along with the rest of the house. But, any lights on the tree remain unlit until Christmas Eve. A statue of St. Nicholas (or Grandfather Frost for my Great-Grandmother--Russian immigrant) and another of Krampus are placed in front of the tree to remind the children that they should be good.

The Nicholas/Grandfather Frost and Krampus thing, as I understand it, is an amalgamation of Russian and German traditions that my paternal great-grandparents brought from their prospective ancestries. My great-grandfather was Irish/German, and my great-grandmother Russian. Only in America could such combinations happen.

Without going into all the history of these traditions (which I have done for myself) I'll just say that when I was a child, Grandfather Frost/Nicholas represented getting presents on Christmas if I was good while Krampus represented getting nothing if I was bad. My grandmother told me that for her Krampus represented a great deal of fear because the way she had understood it Krampus would come down the chimney on Christmas Eve and drag her off if she had been bad--Nicholas would take Krampus' place if she had been good and bring her fruit and a toy. Thankfully, this tradition had been toned down a bit for me, because I was already having nightmares about Dad's "Satan" coming to get me for celebrating Christmas with my grandmother.

You see, somewhere along the way my father had become a fire and brimstone Pentecostal who thought celebrating Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and any other fun holiday (including birthdays) was evil because of their connections to the Catholic Church and pagan tradition. However, my grandmother is an extremely strong woman and forced my father to let my brothers, sisters, and me stay with her through Christmas.

Anyway, I digress again.

So after the tree has been decorated and Frost/Nicholas and his buddy Krampus have been placed, the children and I light a candle for their mother. I started this the year my wife died because it was she who had made Christmas purely a time of fun for me. Since she was Catholic, Christmas was a big deal for her, and through her I began to enjoy Christmas even though by the time I had met her I had lost every bit of my belief in Christ. While she was alive, I accompanied her to mass throughout the Christmas season despite the fact that I could not actually participate in the various rituals.

After Nicholas Day it becomes pretty much a time for the normal hum drums of life with the occasional Christmas party thrown in until Christmas Eve when the tree is lit, Krampus is put aside, and a large family dinner is devoured. After the kids are in bed the presents are hauled out of hiding, assembled if need be, and placed under and around the tree. Midnight mass was on the agenda for several years, but I haven't been in a church since the day I buried my wife, except for touristy visits to St. Patrick's in New York.

Christmas morning is set aside for my children and me to open gifts and such, then the rest of the day is visiting/phone call time for family and friends.

On New Year's Eve I am in the woods somewhere camping. Sometimes the kids go with me, sometimes they don't. This night is more of a personal tradition that sprang up the year my wife died. I was extremely depressed after Christmas, so as is my way when life gets to me, I packed up my camping gear and went to the woods a few days after Christmas. That year I woke up at about two in the morning New Year's Day and it was snowing outside the tent. That was an extremely emotional moment for me, so I have been camping through New Year's every year since. This year ice climbing on Mt. Washington in New Hampshire is tentatively on the agenda, so the children probably won't go--it's way too cold for them there this time of year. Rock climbing in Red River Gorge Kentucky is the back-up plan, and the one the children are pushing.

The final event on my family Christmas calender is the taking down of the tree and all Christmas decorations on Twelfth Night (6 January) or as my wife called it "Epiphany." This is done (again according to my father's family) to avoid the bad luck that leaving these decorations up would bring to the household.

So there it is. Today, for me and mine, is the start of a truly mixed set of traditions brought from Russia, Germany, Ireland and who knows where else to the small house in the woods of Kentucky, USA where my grandmother lives then exported with a few additions to the small house in Indiana where I live.

Hopefully, these things will be carried at least in part to wherever my children end up living in their adulthood.

Explains a Lot

2007-12-05T14:02:00.000-05:00

I was reading through some of the posts I had missed recently on Ms. Kat's site and came across the following meter. I am not at all sure how they come up with the rating but I liked mine, and will proudly post it here.

This does go a long way toward explaining why I have had to explain things over and over sometimes before people understand me. I thought it was because I was stupid or something--well according to the above I'm not. It's always nice to have someone stroke your ego once in a while.

Another Battle in the Great Crusade

2007-12-05T07:29:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it seems that there is a new evil afoot that Christian fanatics are battling to protect us from--Nicole Kidman.

Well maybe not Nicole Kidman per se, but her new movie The Golden Compass.

It seems that the children's books that this movie are based on contain some anti-religious tones.

Having not read the books myself (yet) I can't say with any authority that these claims are true, but according to some the bad guys in the books are a religious group that has power over people and does bad things to them. Sounds to me like reality.

The movie has prompted calls for boycotts much like the ones on the Harry Potter, and Da Vinci Code books and films, and we all know how successful those boycotts were--I personally have all the books and DVDs, and will buy the fourth Harry Potter movie when it comes out on DVD next week.

You would think that with war, famine, genocide, global pollution, natural disasters and such that these groups could find something to fight that was a worthwhile contribution to the betterment of the downtrodden or even the human race as a whole. Instead they attack a fantasy that makes their fantasies look bad. Anyone who watches, reads, or listens to the news on a somewhat regular basis will see things that cast Christianity in a far worse light that any movie could.

I probably wouldn't have spent the time or money to see the movie in question in the theaters, but if Christians are raising this much hell about it then it is probably worth a look see.

Birthdays and Angels

2007-12-05T07:19:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I had another birthday (The present I had hoped for, but didn't get pictured at right), so have managed to survive for 42 years now which far surpasses most people's expectations and I am sure several people's hopes.

For my birthday I got to work overtime, have an argument with some idiot at the grocery about his complete lack of manners concerning his language and an elderly lady, and a sore throat.

But, my children did let me watch the Victoria's Secret fashion show last night, so the day wasn't a total bust.

Black Friday

2007-12-01T18:34:00.000-05:00

Here in the good ole U S of A we have a wonderful tradition on the Friday following Thanksgiving. It is on this day that the Christmas shopping season officially begins. In recent years this day has become known as Black Friday, due to it's importance to the bottom line of many retailers.

Over the last few years it has become the trend for many large retailers to offer what they call "early bird specials" on Black Friday. These specials are usually phenomenal deals on big ticket items such as computers and HD TVs that only the first few people in the door at opening time get.

As it turns out, this year I was drastically in need of not one, but two new computers. My daughter entered high school this year and was sorely in need of a laptop, and the computer I had at home was roughly the same model that God used to e-mail the Ten Commandments to Moses.

To my delight, both Best Buy and Circuit City were having really good Black Friday deals on laptops and desktop PCs, so I jumped into the fray. My Black Friday experience was enough to make me decide that from now on I will pay standard retail or buy ones that have "fallen off of a truck."

My foray into the world of early birds started with my setting up camp outside Circuit City at 9 P.M. Thanksgiving day. I thought I was being sly by getting there eight hours before opening with a camp chair, a thermos, and a sleeping bag. As it turned out I was number 52 in line behind people who had brought tents, battery operated televisions, portable heaters, and had support teams to bring them fresh coffee, and food. I was quite a rookie, and way out of my league, but I stuck it out.

During the next 8 hours I got very little sleep, but did manage to witness the true meaning of Christmas. The lack of sleep wasn't due to the sub freezing temperatures or off and on light rain, because my sleeping bag is the one I use quite often on mountaineering and rock climbing trips, and is quite bombproof in such conditions. No, the lack of sleep was due to the constant barrage of idiocy that seemed to be centered in the line ahead of me.

I was pulled from slumber twice due to local rednecks making rather rude and unwelcome propositions to the very attractive young woman in line in front of me. The first one left after she called him something in Hindi (she is of Indian descent) which she later told me roughly translated as a shit eating dog. The second guy left only after I told him that if he didn't I would [paraphrased] feed him his manhood. After that incident she called her brother who came with coffee for me, and company for her until the opening bell.

My beauty sleep was later interrupted when local law enforcement arrived to resolve an argument about someones place in line, or lack thereof. Following a five minute conversation, the officers escorted three people out of line and off the property which moved me to number 49.

Things were quiet after that until 4 A.M. when store employees started handing out vouchers. It was this presentation of golden tickets that we were all in line for. It seems that in years past retail establishments have had problems with fights over who gets in the door first, so they began handing out vouchers for the items on sale. These things are hot tickets because there may only be a few of a particularly hot item in stock so the early bird does in fact get the worm.

Due to my rookie status and high place in line I missed out on the laptop voucher, but I was lucky enough to get a desktop voucher. I felt like I had won the lottery because I got the last one. Thank Frodo those idiots arguing with the police got escorted away. Anyway, with my precious voucher in hand I was foolish enough to think my experience with greed and gluttony was over--once again I was proving just how much of a rookie I was.

When the doors finally opened I was damned near trampled to death by the horde of electronics junkies behind me, because I wasn't in enough of a hurry to get inside. Then once inside I decided to check out some of the other deals, and give the voucher lines time to die down a bit.

As I was looking around, I noticed a particularly good deal on a digital camera that would be a suitable replacement for one that got destroyed in a rather long fall off of a mountain in Columbia a few months ago. As I reached for the camera I was all but assaulted by an extremely obese woman who had eyed the same camera. Luckily my reflexes were better than hers so I got the camera and managed to not loose a limb in the process. She called me names in some rather un-ladylike manner, but then moved off to swallow other less agile shoppers.

This ordeal was followed by a 90 minute qeue to pay for my hardfought booty.

Granted, I got an incredible deal on a great computer (with which I am writing this story) and have a shiny new camera for my upcoming trips to Red River Gorge, New River Gorge, and the Creation Museum in Kentucky, but I vow to never again put my self in such peril just to save a few hundred dollars.

Oh, and in case you are wondering--I later found a really good deal on laptops that I didn't have to enter Gladiator school to get, so my daughter is currently IMing away with some 17 year old boy who isn't aware that I not only know his name, but his address and what he looks like.

So, Happy Christmahanaquanzica everybody.

A Note on Comments

2007-11-30T20:14:00.000-05:00

During my absence many people have seen fit to reply to my various posts--for this I say thank you.

While many of the remarks left beg for a retort, and many more were just rehashes of previous remarks there are only two that I will deal with for now--both of which were remarks left on my last pre-hiatus post

The first remark I'll address is the one from "James" whose profile is inaccessible. He said that "...Christians are treated unfairly. They are the most singled out and persecuted religion behind perhaps Islam".

Now, I am not sure what country, or even planet James is from, but in this country (United States) as well as the rest of the Western World, saying that Christians are persecuted is like saying that white males are discriminated against---it's impossible. You cannot persecute a majority unless you have some kind of apartheid control over them.

Christians in this country control everything from foreign policy to social programs. They have more power in the legislative, judicial, business, and educational bodies than anyone else, and therefore maintain control over the lives of virtually everyone on the planet in one way or another.

Christians are and have been the biggest persecutors the World has ever seen: the Inquisitions, the witch hunts in Europe, the Crusades, the Ku Klux Klan, Christian support of slavery, and Jerry Falwell are but a few examples of persecution in the name of Christ. A Christian screaming "persecution!!!!!" is similar to Hitler (who claimed to be "...fighting for the work of the Lord."Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.) calling someone a bigot.

The second remark I would like to address is one left by my friend Dan Marvin.

His comments leave open a lot of replies, but the one I'll address here is:

You all [atheists] seem to be fine and tolerate buddhism (sic), muslims (sic) or yes even satenism (sic) but when it comes to Jesus you get a deep hatred foaming at the mouth and slander whoever brings up the name Jesus Christ.

First of all, of course I tolerate Buddhists, Muslims, etc., just as I tolerate Christians. I just don't tolerate any of their attacks on me, or their baseless mythologies when they threaten to affect me or the ones I love.

Second, I have never slandered any body. Challenging their beliefs, and defending mine is in no way slanderous. Saying that they did something to me that they didn't would, however, be slanderous. As would saying that I have never backed up what I say.

Then there's the issue of hatred for people who bring up the name of Jeebus. I don't hate them, in many ways I pity them. And, in fact, I was married to a devout Catholic whom I loved very much, and to this day maintain correspondence with the Priest who held her funeral mass despite my having told him in a fit of grief at my wife's wake that his god could "go fuck himself if he was so compassionate that he would take my children's mother away from them and me." I have since apologized for that comment, but not the feelings behind it.

Now that I have addressed past comments I will move on with things and only address new challenges.

Congress and the Whore of Babylon

2007-11-29T19:03:00.000-05:00

During my sabbatical many interesting things occurred in the faith based community. Most of these events were the run-of-the-mill preacher activities involving sex, greed, drugs, and gambling, and are far too numerous to mention.

But--(I bet you all saw this coming) there is one ongoing event that has really peaked my interest--the investigation by Republican Senator Robert Grassley into the financial activities of six of the U.S.'s top televangelists.

Now, I am not so naive as to believe that this investigation will change the blind stupidity suffered by those who give money to these con-men, nor am I so stupid that I believe that a Republican Senator is going after members of the largest demographic of Republican donors without some ulterior motive. But, it does make for some pretty good entertainment, and material for my arguments when idiots like Creflo Dollar are grilled about their Rolls Royce, mansions, and corporate jets.

Hopefully, by now, at least one reader has wondered about my reference to the Whore of Babylon, because the explanation for this reference follows.

Years ago I had a discussion with a co-worker about the popular Protestant belief that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The topic was brought up by this idiot and struck a nerve with me for two very different reasons. First, it is a topic that I suffered through for my entire childhood. When I was a child, my fanatic Christian father would quite often get on one of his many Holy Spirit and alcohol induced tirades and babble on for hours about the evils of the World. His second favorite topic during these sermons was Pope John Paul II's un-holy alliance with Satan (his favorite topic was my going to Hell because I was not a good kid).

The second, and major reason I attacked this moron's preaching about the Pope was my late wife. She was a devout Catholic, and an extremely good person whom I loved very much, and my idiot co-worker continually rambled on about her going to Hell for her beliefs, so, as is my nature, I did some reading, and confronted my antagonist with passages from the Bible which showed that, in fact, Billy Graham (this guy's favorite preacher) was the Anti-Christ not the Pope.

Part of my "proof" revolved around the Anti-Christ coming from the Whore of Babylon, and went something like this:

According to the Bible salvation and sex are gifts from God. A prostitute is evil because she charges money for something that is a gift from God, not a commodity to be bought and sold. Salvation is also a gift from God delivered by Jesus Christ who made a point of throwing a hissy fit when he caught people doing business inside a church.

With these points in mind, a televangelist, who makes money by promising to deliver a gift freely given by God is merely a whore. The Whore of Babylon in the bible is obviously an institution, and the primary institution on this planet that exhibits whore-like qualities is televangelism. Billy Graham was the first major televangelist (born from the Whore known as televangelism) in the World, so is the primary candidate for Anti-Christ.

Since my discovery, I have often referred to televangelism as the Whore of Babylon as I did above.

Have a great day all, and beware of people promising salvation (or a good time) for money.

Let the Games Begin---Again

2007-11-29T07:24:00.000-05:00

Jeebus Christ--I disappear for a few months (Well almost a year) and people try to hijack my blog to spread their own messages. I guess I should be flattered.

Anyway--sorry about the absence. I had an incredible opportunity to do some things, and see some places, so I jumped on it, but the fun's over and now I return to my normal life, and my normal rants.

So, let the games begin---again.

Debate With Dan--Part Four

2007-02-23T04:15:00.000-05:00

Continuing from comment on Fighting the Good Fight

This comment from Pastor Cornell illustrates the problem with many believers' opinions about atheists. This guy is a believer speaking to believers. His intention is not an explanation, it is retention. He is trying to keep his flock in line by making assertions that he knows nothing about.

Relying on a preacher to explain atheism is like going to a Republican for an explanation of why there should be a Democratic president.

"An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose."

Wrong. It is just a different purpose than the pastor's.

"The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic."

Terribly wrong. It is logic that breeds atheism.

"...the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle)."

Wrong again. But, this guy knows that. He is talking to believers not atheists.

"The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

Wrong again. I have already covered this in a previous post.

"Always remember that the atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it."

Wrong. There is no evidence for God outside of the Bible which I have repeatedly said and shown is an unreliable source of information.

"This is what scripture teaches."

His only source of evidence.

This is a sermon, not an explanation. If you want your pipes fixed you get a plumber not a roofer. If you want to know what atheists think you ask atheists, not someone whose source of income is dependant on people believing in a fairy-tale.

Technorati Tags:

atheism atheism debate

Fighting the Good Fight

2007-02-22T08:10:00.000-05:00

There's an important case coming before the US Supreme Court next week brought by Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). Gaylor will argue that President Bush's Faith Based Initiatives is a government promotion of religion and therefore unconstitutional.

While news reports about the case aren't very optimistic about Gaylor's chances of winning, they do concede that she and the FFRF have been successful over the last few years at whittling away pieces of the initiative.

Religious legal groups argue that "real people with real problems are no longer getting help because of some of their [Gaylor and the FFRF] lawsuits," but don't mention that money given to these Church groups could be just as easily given to government programs that are forbidden by law to discriminate.

Whether Gaylor wins her case or not, it helps me have some hope for my children's futures to know that there are people out there with the time and resources to fight the good fight.

Technorati Tags:

church and state annie laurie gaylor freedom from religion foundation supreme court

Fifteen Minutes of Stupidity

2007-02-22T00:45:00.000-05:00

Today marks the 20th anniversary of Andy Warhol's death.

I am old enough to remember Warhol and The Factory, so remember, and appreciate the contributions that this man made to art, and pop culture, and have been fascinated for decades with his life, philosophy, and work.

I was also lucky enough to have seen some of his work at MoMA last summer when I was in New York with my son. I took the picture above while I was there. While there, something that really showed me just how brilliant Warhol's work is, was my son's fascination with it. He (my son) knew who Warhol was because of his part in "The Doors," the Oliver Stone movie about the band, but really didn't know any of his work. Then as we went through the museum the only piece of work that grabbed my son's attention more than the Campbell Soup Cans was the Richard Avedon portrait of Lennon (at left), which is itself similar to some of Warhol's work.

Along with his creating "Pop" art, Warhol was fascinated with fame, and is known for the quote:

"In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes."

As time went on, and he got tired of being asked about the quote he occasionaly changed the quote to "In the future 15 people will be famous" or "In 15 minutes everybody will be famous," but the original quote is something that has turned out to be somewhat prophetic.

With the popularity of stupidity like "Survivor," "American Idol," and other so-called reality TV shows (which Ron Jeremy has compared to porn flicks), and the World's fascination with people like Anna Nicole Smith, and Paris Hilton whose only claim to fame is fame itself, it seems that the Western World's main goal behind war is bringing Warhol's statement to life.

Case-in-point, during the time I have sat here writing this there have been two news spots on the Anna Nicole stupidity, and a full length segment on Britney Spears head-shaving rehab-quitting maneuvers on the morning news, and no mention of the mess in the land of the fabled Garden of Eden.

Everything I've read about Warhol seems to point toward his wanting and being fascinated with fame, but I really wonder sometimes what he would think of the fame machine now.

Technorati Tags:

andy warhol

Hey, NAE. Wanna Help? Then Get Out of the Way.

2007-02-21T14:43:00.000-05:00

Last month the National Association of Evangelicals, sans Ted Haggard, announced an effort to begin protecting the environment. This extremely belated decision is quite a change from two decades ago when the Secretary of the Interior for the then Evangelical in Chief, Ronald Reagan, announced that environmental issues were a waste of time because of the impending return of Christ who wouldn't allow us to self-destruct before he got here.

But, now even Pat Robertson has come around, and no longer thinks that Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the evil Christian hating, Gay loving, feminista left.

According to the NAE's announcement they will start looking for ways to "reverse the degradation of Creation," and "not allow it to be progressively destroyed by human folly." Naturally, I have some suggestions for ways they can help.

First step: They should actually mean what they say. On the same day that the NAE announced their new stand on the environment, there was an announcement on the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance's website saying the exact opposite. For some, this contradiction says that there is a split in the Evangelical community over the whole issue, and I agree, but it also points to the NAE's attempt to play both sides of the issue, which will ensure that their current flow of money will continue pouring in to them. Money that people like the NAE's former leader, Ted Haggard, will need for prostitutes and meth.

However, the most important step they could take, would be halting their attempts to take science back to the Dark Ages.

The people who are now calling for "fundamental change in values, lifestyles, and public policies required to address these worsening problems before it is too late," and are pledging to "work together toward a responsible care for Creation and call with one voice to the religious, scientific, business, political and educational arenas to join them in this historic initiative" are the same people who routinely call for an end to the study of real science in American public schools, and are thereby promulgating their ignorance of science.

While famous failed attempts at dumbing down our children in places like Pennsylvania, and the comedic back and forth on the issue by educators in Kansas draw a lot of media and public attention, it is the daily battles fought by fanatic undereducated educators that really harm our society's chances to do something positive about the damage we have done to the Earth's environment.

Luckily, other economically powerful countries and groups like Japan and the European Union aren't as stupid as ours when it comes to science education, which goes a long way toward explaining why the richest and most powerful country on the planet consistently ranks behind virtually every European and Asian country in terms of the science and math proficiency of its students.

Luckily for the rest of us, these same countries have taken positive steps to help matters, despite the current American administration's continued road blocks over the past six years.

If the NAE really wants to make positive steps toward a survivable environment, then they simply need to take several steps away from public schools and education, and accept the Constituion's stance on religion and government, thereby allowing people who know what they are doing to get things done.

Technorati Tags:

creationism evangelicals evolution stupidity global warming

Jesus de Florida Update

2007-02-21T00:38:00.000-05:00

Well it seems that CNN finally got word about Jesus being in Florida. I found out weeks ago. However, CNN did get some details that I was originally unaware of.

I knew about the whole "no sin" thing, and I knew that he had a lot of followers, but I didn't know that there was a club tattoo. It seems that instead of just giving him lots of money, like with any preacher, you also get to get a nifty tattoo of the number 666 (must be Iron Maiden fans).

Of course other religious leaders are calling Jesus a cult leader. He doesn't just say that the spirit of Christ is in him--he says that he is Christ incarnate, and was told so by angels. Naturally he preaches that his particular brand of Christianity is the one true one, and his followers believe him. Sounds like any number of Christian churches to me.

Maybe he is a cult leader, but how is he any different than any number of other religious leaders? As long as he isn't bombing abortion clinics, preaching hate, or calling for the assasination of World leaders, then I say if people are going to follow him, and give him their money that's their problem. If they are that gullible they would just be following some other con-man with a Bible if this guy hadn't shown up.

Technorati Tags:

christianity Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda jesus in florida

Stop the Madness

2007-02-20T13:58:00.000-05:00

Well folks, this whole "bald celebrity" stupidity is getting way out of hand.

So, now we are looking at the possibility of Donald Trump's sporting a chrome dome, based on the winner of a choreographed dance between two steroid-ridden morons?

What's next--Oscar loser shearings? Least strange Scientologist head shaving?

Maybe they could just have a contest to see who can jump from the tallest building before news programs are full of shiny bald heads.

Dead Strippers and Bald Has-Beens: Story at 11--And Every 15 Minutes Until Then

2007-02-20T10:52:00.000-05:00

In the last couple of weeks there have been terrorist attacks in India, continuing death in Afghanistan and Iraq, continuing war in Somalia, increasing Cold War type tensions between the US and Russia in places like the Czech Republic and Poland, and a successful Chinese test of a rocket that can knock satellites from orbit.

President Bush seems determined to start another war; the Congress is too busy arguing about who supported what war when to deal with rising crime and poverty rates; and the mess called the Middle East is getting worse daily.

But what have been the big stories on television news? The paternity battle over a dead stripper's kid, and the hairdo, or lack thereof, and mental breakdown of a washed up pop star.

This is sad for so many reasons it's hard to pick one in particular to rant about. First we have the obvious stupidity of the average American news consumer, and then there's the obvious entertainment over information priority of the news outlets. But I guess the easiest target for a rant would be who has been picked for all of the attention.

When was the last time Anna Nicole Smith did anything that could even be remotely considered to be an addition to pop culture? It's been many, many years since her Playboy spread, and she wouldn't have even been in the news lately if it hadn't been for her drug using son's dying. Now she's the recipient of widespread mourning, and damned near 24 hour news coverage. Why? How many drug-addict strippers have died in the last year? I don't know either, so why is this one so damned important?

Then there's Britney. I don't give a shit if she's bald. But, obviously, the major news outlets seem to think I do. This last thing this pop-tart contributed, that I can remember, was her "take-me-from-behind" statue, and her musical contributions before that weren't anything to sing about. Let her have her breakdown, maybe then someone will take her kids and put them somewhere safe.

If the media needs a singer to talk about: today is Kurt Cobain's birthday (my son let me know that one before he left for school this morning). Surely they can milk his story for a couple of days, and, at least he actually contributed some good music to the World and had a real effect on American culture.

OK. I'm done ranting now. I guess I'll run a search for Paris Hilton, and Jessica Simpson--wouldn't want to lose track of who they're banging, and with the other two bimbos getting so much attention, they are surely planning something newsworthy.

Kentucky's New Family Fantasy Fun-Land

2007-02-19T15:07:00.000-05:00

By way of Planet Atheism, I found an article at Discover.Com about the new Creationist Museum in Kentucky.

This place is definately being put on my to-do list for the Summer. My children love fantasy themed exhibits as much as I do, so it will probably be a family outing, and since it's only about an hour and a half away it will make for a good day-trip.

Hopefully, by then they will have an exhibit about how the Sun orbits the Earth as I plan on doing a post on this subject soon, and would be interested in their take on the subject.

Debate With Dan--Part Three

2007-02-19T07:07:00.000-05:00

And so we come to Part Three. This part is significantly shorter than the others because the debate keeps taking a circular route around the actual issue of the debate, which is the validity of the Bible as an inerrant life-manual.

Below I address only those questions or statements posed by Dan's latest entry that are relevant to the debate. The entire comment can be found in the comments section of Debate With Dan--Part Two.

His statements are in quotes and blocked, my statements follow.

Dan,

So are you saying that you have no answers to my questions about the inaccuracies and contradictions of a supposedly divinely inspired truth? I have pointed out dozens of flaws in the Bible and the beliefs you have pulled out of it, and you have addressed none of those points with anything other than sermons. Is that because the fairy tales and resulting religions have no defense or just that you don't know enough about either to offer the defense.?

The questions you have asked me with your comment are addressed below. The preaching serves no purpose in this debate, so unless it is relevant I have excluded it.

"Not to disapoint you I will copy you as a responce to your post"

I am not really sure what this means since I didn't write any of the stuff you use below.

"I guess there is only one thing to ask then: Do you think The Bible is a fake?"

I believe that it, like other religious texts, is nothing more that philosophical beliefs codified in literary form. I don't believe that it is a historical or true account of a real, supernatural entity.

"I believe it was written by 40 or 50 people over 1500-3000 years all pointing or prophesizing (sic) events that did come true (provable throughout history and no other book in the history of the world can claim that)..."

The authorship of the Bible is far from being that simple, but that subject has been covered by scores of books, and treatises which I cordially invite you to read. As for the prophecies, I don't have the time or space to address the inaccuracy and fallacy of Biblical prophesy, but there are many others who do. One good article I have found on this subject can be found HERE.
H. G. Wells predicted the atomic bomb, aerial bombing, robotics, and many other things in his stories--does that mean that you believe Martians will invade the Earth?

"...and that has lasted or transcended all sorts of rejections, and hundreds of different governments, over this many years and has moved 500 men (at first) back then to preach the good news ...the 2 billion people of this day ... all believing in the same thing..."

If longevity is proof of validity, then shouldn't you be Hindu? Or Buddhist? or Jewish? These religions are hundreds or even thousands of years older that Christianity. As for 2 billion people believing the same thing: there are over fifty different version of the Bible, and over 300,000 different Christian sects--this is hardly believing the same thing.

"The book has eye witness account (sic) of very credible people in that time frame and throughout history (too many to count here) comparable and more accurate then (sic) any history, written about those times, books we have to date."

The Iliad has a credible report of Troy, so do you believe in Zeus and Achilles? And, the accuracy of the Bible's history is more flawed than most fantasy novels. The Bible has people alive in time periods after they died, the wrong leaders in the wrong time periods, and hundreds of characters and events that have never shown up in any contemporary documents or accounts. The Bible also repeatedly contradicts itself on stories that can't be proven to have happened in the first place. This is far from being historically accurate. There are literally thousands of historical documents and books, and many works of fiction, that are far more accurate.

"...Can you honestly say that this Christianity thing is just fake, fad or that there are that many very confused people?"

Yes

"Aren’t you concerned that maybe you missed something or maybe missed the bus? That would frighten me if I missed something that most all of humanity understands and welcomes."

No. More people don't believe the Bible than do. And, I would counter that very few of those who believe actually understand. Otherwise they would be able to answer some simple questions--questions you have dodged repeatedly.

"There is a movement these days to debunk Christianity but that also was written in the bible (sic) talking about the last days."

And here we go again with the only defense you ever offer, the fear of a supernatural being written about in a collection of tales that cannot be shown to be accurate much less divine.

"Good luck and may God bless you on your path; my advice to you is to pick the narrow one."

Okay. Thank you. Are you supposed to believe in luck?

Once again the debate was ignored and other subjects were turned to. It is starting to look like there is no defense other than the circular tactic of turning to the Bible to defend itself. So I pose only the following questions (again).

If the Bible cannot be validated as inerrant and truthful, then how the Hell can it be used as the only proof for its own validity? If it can be shown to be inerrant and truthful then why can't you do so?

Technorati Tags:

atheism debate bible contradictions christianity jesus religious indoctrination

Old MacDonald's Barnyard Freaks

2007-02-18T12:19:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it seems that Ole' MacDonald the god of barnyard animals and vowels is trying to send me a message.

I made a statement in another post about never having seen a four-legged bird, then today I am told about a four legged chicken in Romania, and then I find a story about a four-legged duck in England.

Okay, Lord MacDonald I apologize--E, I, E, I, O...so sayeth the Lord.

One Truth? Two Truths? No Truth.

2007-02-18T11:06:00.000-05:00

Well folks, since I said in my last post that my next post which is this post, would be about Gospel proof vis. Matthew and Mark, that the New Testament cannot be a collection of truths which were written by divinely guided hands I here present the contradictions and fallible comments of the Gospel according to Matthew and Mark.

Why Matthew and Mark?

I could have used any two, any three, or all of the Gospels for this post, but there are reasons for just using these two:

Matthew and Mark were presented to me in a previous comment as examples of the accuracy and infallibility of the Gospels.
Matthew, being the largest of the Gospels is the one most people use when speaking about the teachings and life of Christ, and is the only Gospel that contains all of the most familiar stories making it the obvious choice as one to be compared to the others.
Matthew contradicts all of the other Gospels in many ways making it the best source of contradictions.
Like all of the Gospels, Mark contains contradictions with the other three. Basically it is as good as any of the others for this purpose, and it does contain some of the more easily explained contradictions.

Explanation of Comparison:

It has been my experience here in this blog and in other venues, that some people do not understand the point of my making comparisons such as this one. So, before I begin I will explain the concept of comparison as it pertains to the Bible.

First of all I am not comparing two normal pieces of literature or chapters, whatever you want to call them--I am comparing two pieces of work that hold the distinction of being considered by many to be divinely pre-edited by an omnipotent entity. According to this belief, everything contained in these works is the truth. Though written by fallible men, the hands and thoughts of these men were supposedly guided by one perfect being. If this is the case then the works should agree on detail thereby revealing one truth, because there cannot be two truths about an event.

Establishing the validity of the Gospels is important, because they and the rest of the New Testament constitute the only place on the planet with mention of Jesus' ever having existed. If the Gospels can be shown to be unreliable sources of factual information, then they can not be used as valid proof of the laws and existence of Jesus, and since there is no other substantiated evidence for his existence, the whole thing becomes no more valid than stories of other mythological beings like Zeus, Thor, elves, gnomes, and even Frodo Baggins.

Remember:

None of the Gospel writers were present at all of the events recorded, and Mark, Luke, and Paul who is given credit for the Epistles, weren't there at all, so these writers have to have divine guidance or else they would not get the story right. The New Testament cannot be considered historically accurate if the stories in it contradict each other

So,

One omnipotent God+One occurrence+divinely guided writers=The same story written by different authors.

But,

Two different stories about the same event=No Omnipotent pre-editor, and no validity for their claims.

So, do Matthew and Mark tell the same divinely guided inerrant story? Let's see.

Of all the tenants of the Christian faith, the passion story of Jesus is the most important. It is through his death and resurrection that Jesus acquires his standing as the Savior. No resurrection--no divinity. No divinity--no authority to make rules. No authority--no reason to believe.

The importance of this story is a central point in the rest of the New Testament, and in the religion that has formed around it. Therefore, if there is any story in the Bible that is important enough to be presented correctly by God, then this is it.

Please feel free to follow along with your own Bible, or use the links I provide here. (all book, chapter, and verse references are from the King James Version of the Bible, since that is the version most fanatics use)

Background:

The accepted story to the point of Jesus' resurection goes something like this:

Jesus is born of a virgin, he grows up and then begins his ministry following a baptism, he gathers twelve disciples, he performs some miracles and teaches many people many things, he is betrayed by one of his disciples, he is arrested, all of his disciples run away fearing for their own welfare, Jesus is tried, crucified, and dies, he is then buried.

There are many contradictions in the New Testament concerning all of this, but those things are for another time.

Contrary to the three days and three nights that Jesus is supposed to spend dead, he is resurrected after two nights on the morning of the second day after his death.

The proof of the resurrection comes first from his tomb's being empty. Who found the empty tomb?

Matthew 28:1 says that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" (not his Mother) go to the tomb. Two women go to the tomb.

Mark 16:1 says that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, AND Salome go to the tomb. Three women go to the tomb.

Normally a story where there is a difference of opinion about the number of women involved wouldn't be a problem. But, this is supposed to be two inerrant accounts of the same event. One's wrong.

When the women get to the tomb what do they see?

According to Matthew 28:2-7 two women arrive and feel an earthquake and watch an angel move the stone away from the opening. The guards around the tomb pass out. Then the angel sits on the stone, and tells them that Jesus is no longer there. The angel then invites the two women to look into the tomb, then tells them that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee and commands them to go tell the disciples what they have seen and heard.

According to Mark 16:3-7 three women head toward the tomb wondering among themselves how they will move the big stone in front of the opening. When they get there the stone has already been moved, and the guards are gone. So, they go inside. Inside the tomb they find a young man in a white robe who tells them the same thing that Matthew's angel said.

So is it two women showing up to see some guards and an angel who moves the stone, or is it three women who see an open tomb and nobody around except the young man inside. Mark's version is not as exciting, and is obviously different. One story is wrong.

Both stories say that the women freak out and run away. What do the women do after they leave?

According to Matthew 28:8 the two women do what they are told, and head out to go tell the disciples what has happened.

According to Mark 16:8: the three women just run away and tell nobody what they have seen. Later Mary Magdalene tells the disciples, but that's covered below.

So do two women go straight to the disciples or do three women just run away and tell nobody? One story is obviously wrong.

So now that Jesus is out of the tomb who does he appear to first?

According to Matthew 28:9-10 Jesus appears to the two Mary's as they are headed to tell the disciples. Then tells them again to go tell the disciples.

Mark 16:9-10 says the Jesus "appeared first to Mary Magdalene." This is after she and the other two women ran away from the tomb. After Mary (alone) sees him, she does what the the young man in the tomb had told her to do--goes to tell the disciples.

So, does Jesus appear to two women on their way to the disciples, or to just one woman who then goes to the disciples. The only thing for sure here is that Jesus seems to have had something for Magdalene, and that God and/or proponents of an inerrant Bible can't count.

So after Mary, or Mary and Mary tell the disciples about Jesus' not being dead anymore what is the reaction of the disciples?

Matthew's version has the disciples believing the women and running straight to their secret hideout in the mountains near Galilee. "Holy resurrected messiah Batman. To the Bat Cave!"

Mark's disciples are a bit more skeptical. They don't believe Mary. "Yeah right, you lying whore. Next thing you're going to tell us is that you're carrying his love-child. Run along Monalisa." Not only do Mark's disciples not believe Mary, they don't even believe two of their own club that Jesus appears to while they were out for a Sunday stroll through the country.

So, do the disciples believe the two Marys and run off to the mountain in Galilee, or are they agnostics and call Mary Magdalene and two of their own crew deluded liars? Obviously, either Matthew or Mark has his divinely guided facts wrong. Or do both of them have the story wrong?

Now that Jesus has appeared to either two or five people where does he finally catch up with his whole posse?

According to Matthew, Jesus appears to his faithful followers after they arrive at their mountain retreat in Galilee.

According to Mark, the disciples stay put, so Jesus surprises his little band of agnostics while they are having supper. He then jumps their shit for not believing Mary, or the two he appeared to out in the country.

So, did Jesus have to catch a bus to Galilee or not. Somebody wasn't listening to God while he was writing his story, otherwise they would be the same story.

So, now Jesus has convinced his disciples that he is really not dead. Now what?

Well Jesus tells his little band of evangelicals to run out and spread the word. Then:

In Matthew Jesus tells them that he will be with them always. End of story.

But, in Mark Jesus ascends to Heaven and sits down next to his old man thus giving us two gods looking down on us. From there Jesus helps his posse spread the word. Amen.

So, did Jesus ascend or not? This is a pretty big deal. You would think these guys could at least get this part of the story straight. But, considering all the other differences between Matthew's stories and Mark stories, like take the staff, no wait a minute don't take the staff, I guess it is to be expected that they wouldn't tell the same story about this.

Unless of course, they were divinely inspired and their hands and minds were guided by an omnipotent God who doesn't make mistakes, and then went on to write a believable story about a real person and a real series of events, that could be used as a valid basis for the way a person should or should not live his or her life.

But as we have seen here--that simply cannot be the case.

Technorati Tags:

bible bible contradictions christianity jesus

Debate With Dan -Part Two

2007-02-17T01:23:00.000-05:00

And so it continues.

My Debate with Dan continues, and since the comments back and forth are sometimes rather long I have promised to make separate posts as things go along. I am doing just that here.

This post is a reply to the last comment Dan left on Debate With Dan. The comment can be read in its entirety there, but I will be posting the parts replied to here for clarity. I will edit the comment only in the following ways:

His comments will be in quotes and blocked.

I will break down parts of the comment to make it easier to read.

I will emphasize with italics specific points of debate (unless otherwise stated all italics in his comments are mine).

I won't present parts that are irrelevant to my reply unless they are needed for context, though as I said above the entire comment is on the other post.

So, let's get started.

Part 1:

"It was funny that you made the comment on dumbing it down for me. The bible says the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. So maybe I should dumb it down for you."

The comment I believe you are talking about is the following:

"As to helping you understand, I would say again to read all of what I write. Beyond that, I could simplify the language I use if you want, to make what I say easier to understand. I didn't do so before, because I didn't want you to feel that I was talking down to you, or doubted your abilities of comprehension."

You are the one who said: "The bible is infallible. Please point something out so I can understand what you are talking about" in the prior comment. This implies that I hadn't pointed out anything for you. As I had pointed out within my posts and comments that your parable was wrong; that the creation stories in Genesis were in fact fallible; that there couldn't be two different inspired truths about a single event; and pointed out in my comment that your reply didn't address any of these issues but had wondered off in different directions, I felt that either the language, or metaphors were confusing which was why you didn't see or understand my post and the points contained therein, or that you hadn't read all of it (which was my main point).

I often confuse people that I talk to, and have to change my vocabulary and allusions to help them understand. I didn't say that I would dumb down for you, only that I was willing to use simpler language.

As for you needing to dumb down--I have no problem understanding your points, allusions, metaphors, similes, or vocabulary, even when they are misspelled, use the wrong tense, aren't punctuated, used improperly, or used in poorly constructed sentences, so there is no need for you to dumb anything down for me, but thanks anyway.

Part 2:

"It makes me remember a verse I just read not too long ago what (sic) Moses said to God when he was chosen for the task of leading his people to the Promised Land. Moses said in Exodus 4:10-12 And Moses said unto the LORD, O my LORD, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue. And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say."

I am not sure what a discussion between Moses and God about Moses' public speaking abilities has to do with writing. Unless you are implying that one or the other of us is uttering the inspired words of God.

Part 3:

"You are a funny guy to say the least."

Thank you Dan--I try. But I don't see the relevance.

Part 4:

"Let's go further with it shale [sic] we. I put what I wrote you and the other Christian site in quotes and if you Google it you will see that not even I wrote it and that is why the quotes are there. My original comment was for the other Christian site and I thought it was fitting to you so I copied you for your rant."

Generally, in what I write, and in what I read, when someone else's words or ideas are used they are attributed to their sources so that the quote or idea can be placed in context, and to avoid the appearance of plagiarism. While I didn't actually say anything about your using other's word except that such tactics wouldn't dissuade my views, it is something I have always felt strongly about.

As for what I called "the form letter" part of the reply in question, I stated that the reply made no sense in context to the post of mine you were replying to, and that its style showed a deal of disingenuosness. Also implied was that by using out of context form-letter replies you convey an appearance of not having read my posts and/or replies, or don't have answers to the questions stated and/or raised.

Part 5:

"My first priority (sic) is my wife and three kids and I talk to a lot people (sic) a day whether it's one on one witnessing or online (as you can see) or even preaching in online games. I really don't have that much time to spend with people that (sic) are hard of heart because God made you (sic) that way (remember 2 Thessalonians 2 comment in the past blogs) so I give most all of my attention to the humble at heart and sow the seeds for God to water."

As for your priorities I would expect nothing less, and never implied that I did. Neither have I implied or said that your replies weren't timely. In fact I would prefer that you take all the time needed to read what I write, toss it around for a while, and make your replies your own.

Due to my work schedule I have a lot of time to read and write. Due to my academic background and line of work I have become adept at thinking about several things at once, and retaining what I read. These things combined with my children being old enough that they prefer to do for themselves and don't require the maintenance they once did, and my not having any kind of time-dependant relationships or hobbies, I can usually reply relatively quickly, but I do not expect the same from others--unless they press me for quick answers in which case I press back.

As for your referance to 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, and the sentence preceeding this referance: the passage, as I'm sure you are aware, talks about servants of Satan who follow him due to his "power and signs and lying wonders" whom Jesus WILL cause to believe lies so he can punish them--basically supernatural entrapment. This is to happen after the rise of Satan into prominence.

Since you said that God had "hardened my heart," and then used this chapter to explain yourself. Am I to assume that you, like many in the Bible, believe that thought comes from the heart? Are you saying that Satan has risen to prominence, so the end is nigh? Worst of all--Are you saying that I have seen the signs and powers of Satan and worship him?

As for the first two questions: that's on you. But, as to the third question: I have never seen the powers of anyone or anything that I am willing to worship. I don't believe in a Satan, and as a result don't worship it.

As for the rest of the comment--it is always easier to feed the people who want to be fed, so I understand why you put so much time into it.

Part 6:

"If you tell your kids there is a Santa Clause then you have lied and you are a liar even though you claim not to be, you are too proud to see that. How many lies does it take before someone is called a liar 1, 3, 10, 400 if I lied to you once, you would call me a liar? If I stole $1.00 or $100.00 from you I am still a thief. How many murders before you are called a murderer? Jesus said if you hate someone you are a murderer of the heart. You lied when you said you have never committed adultery because Jesus said in Matthew that if you look at someone with lust you commit adultery of the heart. God knows our thought life and we will be judged by his law (The Ten Commandments). The fifth Commandment is Honor you Mother and Father, Have you done that every time (sic) even when you were a teenager?"

"Have lied," and "are lying" are two different things. Just because I slept last night does not mean I am sleeping now. If you lie to me once I will say you lied. If you lie to me now I will say you are lying. If you lie with every opening of your mouth I will say you are a liar. But all of this is merely a matter of semantics and is somewhat based on opinion. The context for this part of your reply is my statement that I do not live what would be considered a sinful life and, my use of examples of how my lifestyle differs from that of many evangelical leaders.

I did not lie about my not committing adultery. First: adultery is defined by Websters as: "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband," and is something that I never did. Second: your definition of adultery is based upon Biblical statements, the validity of which you have still not established. Third: my affinity for Angelina Jolie didn't begin until well after my wife died (I first saw her in Gia which came out around 98 or 99 I believe--four or five years after my wife's death), and I never lusted after anyone while with my wife. The commandment you should be referring to is the one in which I made the Jolie comment in context with--#10 And no, Brad Pitt is not my neighbor. Fourth: you are again in violation of Jesus' instructions as per Matthew 5:22.

As for the honoring of parents thing: that is another Biblical concept, and once again, I point out that you have not established the validity of the Bible.

Which brings me to an interlude.

Once again you are quoting scripture to convince me. The original basis for this debate was a statement you left on my blog referring me to yours. After reading yours I told you that what you referred me to was nothing new, and I said that Biblical quotes and form-letter sermons would not convince me.

You continued to press the Bible and said: "I can prove there is a God." When I said that you had to prove the validity of the Bible, and raised a number of my reasons for saying so, you started going off subject, accused me of not presenting reasons, and have yet to answer questions that I have posed. You haven't proven there is a God, and you haven't shown how my points about the unreliability of the Bible are wrong.

I understand that you are using points given by Ray Comfort's Atheist Debate Instructions, but, frankly, this is why you are floundering. These instructions assume that the believer can control the conversation, and that the atheist can't or won't put the believer on the spot with questions. I have never seen this tactic work in person, and it is impossible to pull off in a venue like this.

What is happening here is that you are dodging questions in an attempt to wrest control. While I am willing to play point/counter-point with you, your increasing use of prejudicial attacks on my character as a means to try to scare me to the arms of Christ and side step the issues being debated will not only not scare me, but will weaken your point in the eyes of anyone reading this, because it makes it appear that you have no answer to my replies and questions, which weakens your position to anyone who does not already accept it. Side note: I am more than willing to openly, publicly debate the validity of my thoughts and ideas in a collegiate venue as the Living Waters evangelism resources page suggests its followers to do.

Back to your comment.

Part 7:

"Come on who are you trying to convince here me or you?"

You.

Part 8:

"The first commandment...Have you broken that commandment?"

Yes

Part 9:

"God said if you break one commandment you break them all. You are in serious trouble here on judgment day. If you die in your sins then you will be guilty of [breaking] God's laws and what do you think that will be, heaven or hell?[sic] Justice will be served be sure of that."

You have yet to establish the validity of the Bible so this segment is irrelevant, because I have no reason to believe much less fear it. Again, see Matthew 5:22. I don't believe in heaven or hell, and anyone's going to either is in doubt according to the Bible anyway.

Part 10:

"What if someone raped you (sic) child and then died in his sleep the next day of a heart attack. Do you think justice would be served?"

His odds of making it to the next day if I know him would be slim at best. But to answer your question--no.

Part 11:

"Be sure God will punish the wicked and evil..."

See part 9 above.

Part 12:

"...(you are 54% evil right? or is that just your site)."

My site--it says so in the sentence before the number 54

Part 13:

"You sure are a proud of that aren't you?"

Yes. Using the same scale yours is 37%.

Part 14:

"Go to http://home.comcast.net/~danmarvin/wotm_are_you_a_good_person.pps and click open for more."

The link doesn't work properly, but I have taken this test before at another's site, and found out that even if you answer innocent to every question you are still condemned to Hell, so it is a useless test--the thing should just get to the point.

Part 15:

"I am man enough here to say I have broken every single commandment 10 times over and I am very grateful that God gave me a way to wash away my sins and avoid Hell (God's jail) So I will follow him because I am grateful and humbled to his glory and kindness towards me."

I am happy for you, though a bit shoked that you have killed ten people, worshiped ten false idols, worshiped ten other gods, and commited adultery ten times.

As for how this applies to me: that is covered by my comment on part 9

Part 16:

"Matthew and Mark two different people are describing the same things. Describing not interpreting. Do you need the definition for you (sic) to understand the analogy I was giving? It seemed to go over your head a little."

You said: "In Matthew and Mark two different people are describing the same things. They do not use the exact words because two different brains are interpreting the same occurrence."

I said: "they are not 'interpreting' an event they are reporting said event."

You say they are doing both--I disagreed and said they were describing (reporting is a synonym for describing). So who needs a definition? (again you have resorted to attacks)

I understood your analogy--Matthew and Mark reporting on the events of say "Easter" Sunday is compared with the two of us watching fireworks. I explained how this analogy fails in context with my statements about contradictions. Very little I read goes over my head. So the real question here is which of us is having trouble with comprehension.

As for Matthew and Mark observing the SAME thing. I don't want to use the space here to cover this inaccuracy and the contradictions, but will do so with my next post.

Part 17:

"You crack me up because you said that you believe in Einstein's relativity and you don't even know that even one of the smartest men in the world ever, believes (sic) in God, here is (sic) some of his quotes: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Or "God is subtle but he is not malicious." Or "God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.""

I said I "believe" relativity, not "believe in" it. That's two different things. Einstein is dead therefore believes nothing. As for whether or not he believed in God: I will let him speak for himself on the subject:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, published by Princeton University Press.

"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me." The Quotable Einstein

You might want to find the quotes you used in their original context, so you understand what they mean. You should probably read his thesis on relativity, because that will help too.

Part 18:

"So you are a very lost and (sic) sad and misinformed person."

Read the quotes above. Then reread your quote here, cite it to yourself, and you have my answer.

Part 19:

"You are the one that (sic) is not sincere because look at your bio you just love Pissing people off and...Well that's the biggest one except maybe exposing stupidity for the World to see."

And I seem to have done both here.

Part 20:

"I am not angry at you... ."

Your continued barrage of personal attacks belies this comment (see below).

Part 21:

"...but I pity you."

And I you.

Part 22:

"So you are a proud person, until that day when God changes your heart to help you with your conviction."

We STILL haven't seen your establishment of the validity of the book that this statement is based on.

Part 23:

"(an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence in case you didn't understand)."

I know what conviction means, but you obviously don't. The definition says nothing about proof or evidence. You are defining a religious form of faith.

Part 24:

"So you are wrong I am sincere but I am not taking you seriously, how can I? You are trying to disprove a creator."

I said your use of form-letter replies give the appearance of insincerity, I never made a statement as to whether or not you were sincere. cf. my final comment on Debate With Dan. I am not trying to disprove a creator--I am proving the fallibility and contradictory nature of the Bible that constitutes the only so-called "proof" of the Biblical creator, in response to your assertion on my post that I was wrong. You have yet to debate any of the points I have made in that debate, with the exception of your incorrect assertion that I didn't understand the fireworks-viewing analogy you made that I replied to and have yet to see a rebuttal thereof.

It is obvious that you aren't taking me seriously because you have yet to answer any of the points I've made or questions I've posed.

Part 25:

"I think everyone is worth a chance to help them understand The truth my blog (sic) at dmarvin811.blogspot.com."

We quit debating the accuracy of your blog long ago when I said that it was well written but flawed and you said you would prove the accuracy of it and the existence of God; then went on to dodge every question and/or point I posed. If you can't address these things then admit it.

That marks the end of my reply to this latest comment.

As I have stated numerous times in this post, the original debateing points have not been addressed, so I will, as promised earlier, do what you requested with the statement "The bible is infallible. Please point something out so I can understand what you are talking about." I will present one of my points by discussing the contradictions contained in the two books you threw at me (Matthew and Mark KJV Bible) as sources of reasons that I should believe in your god.

My point in that post will be that the two books have different versions, not interpretations, of the same series of events surounding one of the most important and critical events in all of the New Testament, and thereby have no validity as a divinely inspired collection of truths, based on the premis that there can be only one true series of events in any situation.

So, you are welcome to restart the actual debate with my next post, unless you wish to address all of the unanswered questions and statements contained in my previous posts instead.

Your choice.

Technorati Tags:

atheism atheism debate bible jesus religious indoctrination

The above post was edited on 19 February 2007 to correct my using the word right when I should have used write. This stupid mistake was spitefully pointed out by another reader, and since it seemed to distract him from the issue at hand I corrected it.Thank You,
Ron

Light a Match Noah!!!

2007-02-16T09:49:00.000-05:00

According to a story from National Geographic News this week, native Americans have been cooking with domestic chili peppers for at least 6,000 years.

So, since Americans were cultivating chilies about two thousand years before Noah, it is quite possible that Noah and his family could have had chili on their cruise--that's pretty cool. However, I don't understand how these chilies could have only grown in the place they were domesticated (Latin America) before the flood, and then only grown in Latin America until Columbus found them three thousand years later. It seems to me that the seeds would have floated around during the flood, and then sprouted in other favorable climates like Africa, or Australia. Maybe a creationist can clear this up for me.

There is one issue in the Bible that this report does clear up for me though.

As you may know, spicy Hispanic foods tend to give some people, myself included, problems with flatulence. If Noah and other Biblefolk had chili and the like, it would explain why the Bible talks about farting:

"Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kirharesh." [Isaiah 16:11 KJV Bible]

Technorati Tags:

bible noah

Be Careful What You Pray For...

2007-02-16T07:03:00.000-05:00

Well folks, the same group of people who are constantly calling for having God put into politics, are now engaged in prayers, because of God being part of politics.

Officials in Uzbekistan have arrested Dmitry Shestakov (a.k.a. Pastor David), a Pentecostal preacher for inciting religious hatred, insulting Islam and distributing banned literature. Evangelical leaders in Uzbekistan, and elsewhere are crying foul saying that Shestakov's arrest is part of a pattern of religious intolerance by the government of this predominantly Islamic nation.

The Russian Orthodox Church is recognized by and registered with the government, as are some other Christian groups, but according to the Uzbek authorities, Shestakov was preaching without permission.

While I, by no means, support arresting people because of their religion, Uzbekistan's government and religious leaders make some good points about Shestakov and his ilk.

Some of Uzbekistan's Imams feel that Shestakov's arrest is a good thing because he and other pentecostal missionaries "set out their traps and our young people fall into them. We must punish in the harshest way those who poison the minds of our youth." Uzbek government spokesmen have questioned Shestakov’s being a real pastor because, "Earlier he abused alcohol and was dependent on drugs and now he presents himself as pastor David."

These claims have been confirmed by Shestakov's wife who also added that the good pastor had been in prison "several times." It has also been confirmed that Shestakov has been officially warned twice before about his "illegal religious activities."

The only person who has been allowed to see the pastor is his personal lawyer. According to Shestakov's followers his getting his own lawyer instead of a state appointed lawyer was in answer to their prayers. They didn't say why they didn't just get him released by praying for that.

Let me reiterate that I don't favor religious oppression, but if Pentecostals and other Evangelicals are going to rant and rave about having religion in government then they should shut up, and obey the laws put in place when a god is put into government. It is this exact type of situation that Jefferson saw happening in the American colonies and was trying to avoid by "building a wall of separation between Church & State." A wall which American Evangelicals are constantly trying to tear down.

Of course the issue here for Evangelicals would seem to be that it is not necessarily religious oppression that is the issue, but rather that this time they aren't the ones trying to oppress. When Evangelical leaders like Pat Robertson call Muslims "evil," and "Satanic," then compare the to Hitler and, say that Islam "is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy,", it is alright, but when drug addict/Evangelical preachers are called bad people it is "intolerance." When Evangelicals like Jerry Falwell say that America cannot accommodate ideas "that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth," it is "God's will," but when one of theirs is arrested for trying to control, and dominate children it is oppression.

Where are these self-proclaimed champions of tolerance when atheists are attacked by Christians, because they don't believe in God, or even when Evangelical Christians attack other Christians because they worship the same god differently (occurrences of which have according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have risen sharply in the last few years)? They were standing behind the attackers pressing them on, that's where.

Evangelicals, and other religious folk, need to stand back and face the truth--you can't have it both ways: if religion is involved with government things like this are inevitable, so my advice to these hypocrites is simple:

Shut the Hell up! And, Be careful what you pray for

Technorati Tags:

evangelicals hypocrisy jerry falwell pat robertson pentecostals

Dawkins and Johnson on CNN

2007-02-15T14:44:00.000-05:00

I found this video by way of The Atheist Jew. I've been looking for it, and was quite happy to have finally found it. Thanks AJ.

It is a CNN segment on discrimination in America of atheists, and includes a short interview with Richard Dawkins and a talking heads panel including American Atheists president Ellen Johnson.

Dawkins is, as usual, quite impressive, and makes several good points. Ellen Johnson doesn't do so well, but she is faced with a typical minister who won't shut up. However, the minister does a good job of proving some of Dawkins' points.

Enjoy.

Technorati Tags:

richard dawkins ellen johnson bigotry atheism

Scientific Creationists: Oxymorons and Just Plain Morons

2007-02-15T07:56:00.000-05:00

Since I have been all but trapped in my house for the last couple of days due to Ole' Man Winter's rearing his ugly head, I have had a lot of time to cruise the web catching up on a lot of things. During my travels I came across an interesting article posted on the Telegraph's website. According to this article, which is a month old, a group of Evangelical (a.k.a. fundamentalist) churches in Kenya is banding together to try and force Kenya's national museum to hide its collection of hominid fossils from the public. These fossils represent decades of archaeological finds in Kenya's Great Rift Valley by people such as Dr. Richard Leakey, and his family, and are considered to be the " clearest record yet discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens."

Basically, what this means is that Evangelicals want the Kenyan museum to hide all of the evidence that they have debunking the idiocy commonly called creationism. The churches' argue that their doctrine is "not that we evolved from apes...", so therefore don't want the fossils displayed, because it runs contrary to that doctrine (evolution from apes to man is also not the doctrine of evolution as anyone who has actually halfway researched it knows). Dr. Leakey said the group's plans were "the most outrageous comments I have ever heard."

But, unlike Dr. Leakey, I live in the American mid-west, and have the misfortune of seeing and hearing such tactics regularly. When Bible thumpers here are hit with something that runs contrary to their mythology, they make serious attempts to hide the opposing viewpoint. Here they generally go after children by trying to supplant real science with so-called "scientific creationism," or as it is called now, "intelligent design."

Such ideas are neither scientific, or intelligent, so their attempts generally fail, or are overturned later. The problem is that during their attempts many children are denied true knowledge that they would need to succeed in real Universities, and become so bombarded with un-substantiated and irrational claims that they spend years if not all their life confused and mis-informed about real science.

But, confusion and dis-information are the only things that creationists have on their side to "prove" their outrageous, and outdated claims that the fairy-tales found in Genesis are true. They claim that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and that its stories of divine creation, a world wide flood, supernatural sources for linguistic differences, etc. are true. But, when pressed to show their evidence they tend to take the course of attacking the other side, and pointing to the Bible as the truth. The "evidence" presented by proponents such as Duane Gish amounts to collections of attacks, unsubstantiated claims, misquotes, and , quite often, downright lies.

The tactics of the creationists involve instilling a fear of eternal pain, making sensationalist claims and statements, and the knowledge that your average person won't think to ask for sources, or won't take the time to seek them out. I have a great deal of experience with these methods, because they were used on me throughout my childhood by my father. He would force me to read nonsense such as a pamphlet from his preacher of choice entitled "Did Humans Evolve from Lower Life Forms, or Did God Create Adam?" (I still have my original copy), but then forbid me to read anything that presents the other side. I remember one instance when I was in middle-school, where dear ole' Christian Dad beat me silly for bringing home a book from the school library about evolution, and then burned the book because it was "evil and full of Satan's lies."

What Dad, and other creationists, didn't count on was that I, like so many others, had the ability to read, ask questions, and do my own research on the subject. Not only did I read and research the evolutionist viewpoint, but also read and researched the creationist side. I found the creationist side severely lacking any proof at all, and further found that their only documented source of information, the Bible, was so messed up that I eventually got to the point that I not only could no longer believe the darned thing, but couldn't believe that I had been so blind as to have ever believed it in the first place.

To present all of the evidence for the evolution side of the debate would not only take more time and space than I have here, but would be senseless, because an indoctrinated creationist wouldn't read it to begin with. But, I do have the space and time to present documented evidence for my claim that the Bible is as far from a reliable scientific document as you can get, and provide links at the end for further information about evolution, and other ACTUAL scientific studies--This is a hell of a lot more than any creationist is willing or even able to give about their claims. Besides, they want to use the Bible as proof, so I will go their route and challenge them to support their evidence.

The Bible is rife with statements, stories, and claims that are easily proven wrong by science, but it also full of statements that are easily proven wrong by a trip to the zoo or even your own backyard. I present just a few of these idiocies here. The entries here are just some of what I saw when I was checking a reference to "proof" of the Bible's being scientifically accurate left in the comments section of one of my previous posts.

All you need to double check my assertions and statements are a Bible, a brain, two eyes (one eye would suffice), and the ability to read (which you obviously have, otherwise these squiggly lines mean little or nothing to you).

Four-legged birds?

In your entire lifetime, how many four-legged birds have you ever seen? Weird dreams and sci-fi movies don't count. I have never seen a single one. I have seen fossil evidence that birds evolved from four-legged animals but have never seen any evidence for a four-legged bird. According to the Bible--there are such things.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination to you." [Lev. 11:20 KJV Bible emphasis mine]

Feathered Bats?

I have seen many bats in my lifetime. I used to crawl into some caves behind my grandmothers house and catch them; a past time that Granny severely disapproved of, especially since I occasionally brought them into the house. But, none of the bats I ever caught, and in fact no bat ever recorded, caught, or photographed by anyone, had feathers. This is because they aren't birds--they're mammals, and mammals don't have feathers. But, the bats in the Bible are birds:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ... the stork, and the lapwing, and the bat." [Lev. 11:13-19 KJV Bible emphasis mine]

Hoofed rabbits?

Rabbits are something else I have seen a lot of. There are currently three living in my backyard, and I used to hunt them with a girl-friend's father when I was in high-school (the things a guy will do for a girl, huh). But, alive or dead, I never saw a rabbit with hooves. I have never seen pictures of hoofed rabbits either. I have seen jackalopes mounted, but I thought they were novelties constructed by taxidermists: I never knew they were mentioned in the Bible:

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." [Lev. 11:6 KJV Bible emphasis mine]

I am not sure that rabbits or hares chew their cud either, because I do know that they can't regurgitate, which is part of the "cud" process--I will research this.

Camel hoof?

There is a reason for the term "camel toe." The reason is that camels have feet with two toes. They don't have hooves. Granted, the only camels I've actually seen are ones in the zoos I've been to, but I have never seen pictures of camel hooves either, and according to everything I have ever read about them, they don't have hooves. Well, everything I've read but the Bible:

"... the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." [Lev. 11:4 KJV Bible emphasis mine]

Four-legged Insects?

To the chagrin of my Grandmother, I also liked collecting insects when I was young. Being the type of person that tends to research anything I become interested in, I learned that all insects have six legs, and that grasshoppers, locusts, and beetles are insects. My children knew these things before they could even write. But the "scientific" writers of the Bible didn't know it:

"Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind."

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." [Lev. 11:22-23 KJV Bible emphasis mine]

Then there are stories about boats holding representatives of every animal on the planet when the boat wouldn't have been large enough to hold two of every insect much less two of every other animal, a family, and a year's worth of the food needed for the family and animals. Stories about every human, of every race on the planet being from one family in Turkey who lived 4,000 years ago. And, other outlandish stories that are supposed to be accepted as history, not fairy-tale.

The Bible can't even get its first story straight, much less be intelligently considered scientifically accurate. But, its deluded proponents continue to try to convince people that they have the only true source of information about everything even though they have no evidence for their claim, and try to hide the evidence against it.

And, as for the passage I mentioned above that was presented to me as "proof":

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood... ." [Lev. 17:11 KJV Bible]

Genesis 2:7 says:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

These guys can't even decide if it's breath, or blood that is gives life. Scientists claim that it is both, but what do they know?

Evolution links as promised above (some contain explanations in simple language, some are scholarly, and some contain articles about creationism, but all are documented, cited, and refer you to their sources):

Evolution site at Berkeley

National Academies of Science evolution pages

The complete works of Darwin from Cambridge

Tree of Life project--Web collection of douments about the evolution of damned near everything

TalkOrigins archive--Many documents debunking creationism

National Center for Science Education "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools"

No Answers in Genesis: collection of anti-creationism documents

Leakey Foundation

Evolution Sciences versus Doctrines of Creationism and Intelligent Design

Their are many, many more places to find information on this subject. Just run a search for evolution and you will find thousands of documents and links.

Technorati Tags:

bible creationism evangelicals evolution leakey religious indoctrination stupidity

Organized Crime for Christ

2007-02-14T06:28:00.000-05:00

Stealing a church, buying male prostitutes, smoking meth, and environmental activism.

The crimes committed by leaders of the gay agenda? No?

Crimes committed by godless atheists? No?

Actually these are the activities of some of the leaders of the most active group in American organized crime today: The Evangelical Christian Mafioso.

Our Crook Pastor for the day is one Randall Radic, former pastor of Ripon's First Congregational Church in Ripon, California. This man of God managed to forge papers making him look like the owner of the Church property. He then used the papers to get $200,000 dollars in loans with the property as collateral, then sold the property for $525,000. Of course, since he is a man of God, no one from whom he got the loans, the people to whom he sold the church, or his blindly faithful flock thought that maybe he was up to no good.

The really good part about this is that aside from the six months he spent in jail, he will receive no further punishment. It seems that he has entered into a plea agreement--freedom in return for ratting out a murderer who supposedly confessed to him while he was in prison.

The pastor turned snitch has also found a publisher for a book he has written entitled "The Sound of Meat," a memoir of sorts about how he managed to sell a church right out from under its members. As I have always said: Illegal crime may not pay, but religion sure does.

Now, I'm sure that there are a number of people out there who will of course immediately say something to the effect that he "was not a true Christian." I've never understood what that meant, but I will say that he sure looks like a pastor to me, and according to Grace Notes, an online Bible study resource, Pastor Radic sure sounds like a typical Christian pastor:

Dr. Randall Radic

Dr. Randall Radic is the pastor of First Congregational Church in Ripon, California. He has graciously consented to provide some of his writings for distribution by Grace Notes. I think that you will really enjoy this teaching and receive blessing and help from his spiritual communication.

Dr. Radic has had an extensive and eclectic education in the Word of God. He received a B.A. in Classics from the University of Arizona; then he attended Bellview College in Westminster, Colorado, where he receive the Bachelors in Biblical Studies. He went on to receive the Master of Ministry and Doctor of Theology degrees from Trinity Seminar. Finally, he attended Agape Seminary where he received a doctorate in Sacred Theology.

He is a well-prepared pastor who has the rare ability to produce scholarly lessons that are readily understandable by most Christians.

That last line is my favorite.

I read some of his stuff, it is well written from a feed the believer standpoint. I'm surprised that some of his quotes haven't shown up here yet. My favorite article was one he wrote entitled "The False Prophet and the Mark of the Beast." I guess it takes one to know one.

I also liked the note that appears near the bottom of the bio. pages at Grace Notes:

There is no charge for Grace Notes Materials.

The ministry is supported by Christians who pray for the work and share in the expenses.

Radic's supporters sure prayed and paid.

Update on an Evangelical don I mentioned in a previous post: Estavam Hernandes-Filho and his wife have pleaded not guilty to smuggling charges in Florida. Brazilian officials are still waiting to get their hands on them for fraud and money laundering.

In other news, American evangelicals, the people formerly led by the solicitor/ice head Ted Haggard, are worried about negative growth in their numbers. To reverse this trend they are going after Hispanics and other ethnic groups. I guess the poor undereducated Caucasian population has been tapped out.

They are also going after children with activities that include clowns and parades, and trying to attract single-moms by offering to change their oil.

Incidents like this always bring the words of Ben Franklin to mind:

When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Granted single moms, and Hispanics don't constitute a civil power, but the basic message is the same.

There are Baptists in Texas who are putting this growth drive in jeopardy though. It seems that 2.3 million Baptist Texans are being asked by their leaders to help the environment by voicing their opposition to 18 new coal-fired power plants that the governor is proposing. This moves is also in opposition to the Southern Baptist Convention, who last summer denounced environmental activism and warned that it was "threatening to become a wedge issue to divide the evangelical community."

There is also concern that this will divide Baptists in Texas. It seems that God is telling different people different things. Quite the jokester this guy.

Next thing you know we will have an Evangelical preacher/reformed lover of prostitutes having a show on the Discovery Channel a bastion of scientific programs, or even Spike TV home of shows like Spike's Women of Action, Late Night Strip, and Films of Fury, which they describe as: "a kung-fu flick of unparalleled ass-kickin-ness." Their website is interesting too, especially the feature called "The Babe-A-Lizer."

Wait a minute folks--such a thing has happened. It seems that America's favorite cry-baby/prostitute lover Evangelical leader, Jimmy Swaggart, airs his BS on these two channels. OK, now I can't be surprised anymore.

Technorati Tags:

baptists christianity evangelicals hypocrisy jimmy swaggart ted haggard

Fire With Fire--Pt 2 (sort of)

2007-02-13T07:19:00.000-05:00

It seems that I have started attracting readers who can't understand why simply slapping down a verse from the Bible doesn't send me running to the nearest church.

Well Penn Jilliate said it best when he stated:

"We need more Atheists, and nothing will get you there quicker than reading the Bible."

You see my Christian friends, I went through my childhood with a daily and quite extensive regimen of Bible studies. This constant reading and studying of the Bible led, in part, to my current lack of faith in it. I was not born or raised an Atheist--I learned my way there. In fact you might say that I intellectually evolved. Time permitting I will tell the story of this evolution in a future post.

So, to prove my point about the Bible, I will give you the second installment of my new Series--Fire With Fire, which began with a previous post about Judas.

The Genesis Creation Stories:

Most Christians know, or at least think they know, the creation story as laid out in Genesis. The story generally goes something like:

First there was nothing. Then in six days, God created everything from the stars to wallabies. He created things in order beginning with light, and eventually formed the first man, Adam, out of clay. In order to give Adam some company, he took from Adam a rib, and from that created the first woman, Eve, and all was good.

After creation, Eve was tricked by a talking snake into eating something she wasn't supposed to. Eve in turn tricked Adam into doing the same. God got pissed, and made the formerly immortal couple mortal, and cursed the woman with child-bearing.

They lived unhappily ever after.

This story is based on Genesis chapters one,two and three (one and two are discussed in the following--three will be saved for later.) Nice story, but it is a combination of two distinctly different stories. Most people don't see this because they know the story before they read it, which causes them to read into the stories what they already believe, and to read over the parts that don't make sense.

Here I will rectify this mistake.

Story One--Genesis 1

(Since the Bible in all of its versions can be found online I will give links to the chapters and verses I will use, and will only quote the verses when necessary for clarification. I invite readers, especially the believers, to follow along with whatever version they have or the online connections I supply)

Genesis 1:1-5:

"In the beginning" God creates the heavens and the Earth. The Earth is kind of a blob with water on it and is dark. God creates light, separates it from the darkness and calls the light day and the dark night. He is done for day one.

Genesis 1:6-8

God creates the sky which divides the water; some water on the Earth and some above the sky. He calls the sky "heaven," and is done for day two.

Genesis 1:9-13

God gathers all the water under the sky into one place, and causes dry land to appear. On the dry land he put plants including trees, and then stops for the day. End of day three.

Genesis 1:14-19

God creates the stars and other heavenly lights to be used to determine days, seasons, and years and puts them in the sky. He then creates the Sun and the Moon and puts them in the sky. He stops for the day. Day four complete.

Genesis 1:20-23

God creates all of the fish, and birds. He gives them the ability to procreate then ends his work for day five.

Genesis 1:24-31

Day six. God creates all of the land animals. Then they decide to create man in their image and put them in charge of the other things they have created. Then God makes men and women, and commands them to procreate and care for the Earth. He then makes everything vegetarian, stands back and looks at his creations and declares them "Good." End of day six.

Genesis 2:1-3

These verses are the end of the story in chapter 1.

(Remember, originally the Bible didn't have chapters and verses these were added later by the Catholic church to make the Bible easier to read.)

God is finished with creating and takes day seven to rest. He sanctifies this day making it a day of rest.

Now the contradictions begin:

Genesis 2:4

Intro to the story of creation, which was concluded in the last verse. ????

Genesis 2:5

There is an Earth, but no plants, no rain, and no man. Yes there are--he created them on days three (plants), one (rain), and six (mankind).

Genesis 2:6-7

God causes it to rain, then creates a man. There are still no plants or animals. Which contradicts Genesis 1:11-25 during which time he creates all of the plants and animals before man. How do I know there aren't any plants or animals yet? Well, just read on.

Genesis 2:8

God creates Eden, and puts the man (no name yet) there.

Genesis 2:9

God creates plants, or at least trees:

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So is it trees before man and woman (Genesis 1:11 then 1:27), or man (no woman) then trees as it says here. Did he create everything then decide that it was in fact not good and start all over? Or is this two different stories?

Genesis 2:10-15

God creates some rivers, and precious stones then puts the man back in the garden to take care of it. It doesn't say when he took our gardener out of the garden after having already put him there, but at least now he's back.

Genesis 2:16-17

God informs the man that he can eat anything in the garden but fruit from "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." God informs the man that if he does eat from that tree he "shalt surely die."

Genesis 2:18-20

God decides that the man needs help in the garden so he creates all of the animals to help the man out.

OK stop, in the last chapter God created all of the animals over a couple of days, and THEN created men and women. Here it says that he created a man, no woman, then created the animals (no fish yet, though) to be the man's little helpers. Which is the actual story?

Anyway, when God takes the animals to the man we finally find out that the man's name is Adam. Adam names all of the animals, but can't find any animals that will be good helpers.

Genesis 2:21-25

To rectify his mistake of not creating a good helper-animal ("...,but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." 2:20) God puts Adam to sleep, removes one of his ribs (ouch) and creates a woman from the rib. When God shows his creation to Adam he declares that she is a woman.

Adam and his un-named wife happily roam around the garden naked.

This ends the creation saga. Genesis 3 is the story of the "fall of man," and as such does not have bearing on this subject. Although there is a glaring problem in chapter three that I will cover in a future post.

So, to clarify, we are to believe that every word of the Bible is true, and does not contradict itself. This has to be the case, because if the Bible contained contradictions it could not be entirely true. Since this is the only document in the Universe in which we are told about God, and is in fact the word of this God, it has to be entirely true, or it is a lie.

The first two books of this Bible clearly contradict each other.

Chapter one order of creation:

The Universe, Earth and water.

Then the light and darkness.

Then the sky.

Then the ground and seas.

Then the plants.

Then the sun, moon, stars, and other planets galaxies etc.

Then fish and birds.

Then land animals.

Then the last thing he creates--men AND women at the same time.

This order of creation is completely different from chapter two:

Chapter 2 vs Chapter 1:

First verses 4 and 5 of chapter 2 say that nothing is here except for the Earth. Since the sky, heavenly bodies, and seas are never mentioned in chapter 2 I am willing to concede that they have been created at this point. The problem is that no life talked about in chapter 1 is here now. Did God start over? If so then the whole seven days thing does not exist. Or is this in fact a different story?

Many believers have tried to explain this problem by saying that chapter two is merely a less detailed retelling of chapter 1. Well that could be the case if both stories got things in the same order and they simply don't.

In chapter two God creates a man (7) THEN trees (9). Earlier we are told that the order is trees then man and woman last.

God creates birds and land animals (19) after trees and a man. Earlier he created birds, then animals, then finally, mankind.

God then creates a woman. Here we have a definite problem. Man-trees-animals-then woman. Earlier it says plants-animals-man and woman at the same time:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

This, according to chapter 1, was God's final act of creation, and was done on the same day.

Clearly, to anyone who can read, this is two separate and different stories. You can have only one truth, therefore one of these stories must be untrue, which throws the validity of the "true word of God" right out the window. And, if some of the Bible is a lie or fairy-tale then why believe any of it that cannot be supported elsewhere.

Homer's Iliad tells of the Trojan War, complete with Helen of Troy, Achilles, Odysseus, Zeus, Hera, and many other supernatural and superhuman characters. For centuries most people thought that the whole story, and it's companion The Odyssey were a collection of mythology and morality tales, and that Troy never existed. Then in the 1870's the fabled city of Troy was found to be real.

Does the finding of Troy make the Iliad and Odyssey true stories. There are no contradictions in these tales and there is historical evidence for the Greeks, and Trojans having really existed, so these stories have just as much proof of their validity as the Bible, without the contradictions, and predate the Bible by many centuries. It would be much easier to believe in the story of Achilles than in the story of Adam, or Noah, or even Jesus.

Now I am not so naieve as to believe that these facts will change the minds of people who prefer only facts that support their position, but until contradictins like those between Genesis 1 and 2, or Genesis 1 and 3, or the stories of Judas' death, etc. can be explained fully in logical terms that can't be refuted by the Bible itself, there will be no need for me to believe in the Bible's validity as an instruction maunal for life.

Debate With Dan

2007-02-13T06:53:00.000-05:00

For the past couple of days, I have been engaged in a debate with Dan, the author of a Blog entitled "The Truth".

Until now this debate has taken place in the comments section of his blog and in the comments sections of three of my previous posts: here, here, and here. Since the debate is not fully contained in any one place, and my most recent reply is not only long, but, I think, useful to others, I have decided to simplify things, and use posts here to continue our discussion.

The following is Dan's most recent statement, and came to me by way of e-mail. It was later published on his blog. My previous reply can be found here:

RE: This was my response to what you wrote
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:30:59 -0800
I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator

I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

I live by “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.”

If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to “Hell’s best kept secret”

God bless you on your journey

My retort follows: (I have broken Dan's comment into pieces to ensure an understandable context for my answers)

Paragraph One:

"I can prove there is a God. If you see a building you know there is a builder and if you see a painting you know there is a painter and if you observe all of creation then you know in your heart that there is a creator"

I already covered this with a prior comment.

Paragraph Two:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise. I have experienced God and he reviled himself to me so no man on this earth can tell me otherwise. John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him."

Since this paragraph is something of a run-on, I will break it into pieces and address the pieces separately.

First piece:

"I know for a fact because I have experience. For example a kid is told by his dad not to touch that iron because it is hot and he says OK and believes it is hot but when the dad leaves the room the kid touches the iron and burns himself. Now if a friend or an adult comes by and says touch that iron because I promises it is not hot the kid would say “NO WAY” because he went from a belief that the iron is hot to an experience that it is hot and no one can tell him otherwise."

First--a bit of confusion on my part--Are you saying that the child/iron parable is your experience? If so, a parable hardly qualifies as experience. If not then OK.

As for the example/parable: If the child believes the iron to be hot, he would not touch it. What is more likely going on is that he doesn't trust his father (perhaps because his father had lied in the past), and then proves to himself, by way of a simplified form of the scientific method, that his father was right. The child will now believe that all irons are hot; at least until further scientific study shows that he is wrong, and that, in fact, only "some" Irons are hot.

The lad has engaged in an activity that will prove invaluable throughout his life: he has formed a hypothesis--the iron's not hot, an experiment--touching the iron, and then based upon his experiment, formed a theory--all irons are hot. He will no doubt perform another experiment or series of them and discover that his initial theory is flawed and form a modified theory based on his new findings such as--not all irons are hot.

Eventually, through many repetitions of his experiment, and with the same findings coming from others who perform the same exact experiments our lad will formulate a law such as--some, but not all irons are hot.

Then he, or maybe someone following in his footsteps will pursue the question--why are some irons hot and others not.

But, the young man will always know that some irons are hot, in the same way that he knows that the initial iron is hot when the second, and I might say abusive, adult comes along and says that the iron isn't hot, because he has proof that it is; proof that he can easily share by showing the second adult (the non-believer if you will) the burn on his hand, thereby supplying empirical evidence for his position.

You have yet to show me your burn.

As for the piece where you discuss God making himself hated by you I am confused. Unless, of course you mean revealed and not reviled. In which case, I would counter with my own experience with the Baggins. [see previous retort]

I would be considered insane if I went up and down the street shouting that I had seen the Baggins, and I dare say that few if any would come to me for some divine knowledge. But, many people have claimed to have seen God--Jim Jones, and David Koresh come immediately to mind as does Joseph Smith. Despite their claims I have not decided to drink poison kool-aid, not burnt myself alive at a compound in Texas, and have not become a Mormon. This is because I don't have a habit of blindly accepting anything I am told.

In fact Muhammad also had God reveal himself to him. Should I believe that?

Then we have your philosophy on life:

"I live by 'I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't and die to find out there is.'"

If this is how you decide to live, then that is your decision, but for me this is an old argument which was once thrown at me by my late-wife's priest. He and I had regular philosophical debates. I like talking with Catholic Priests about such things because they are generally better educated than most clergy, and don't hold to the antiquated notion that the Bible is literal truth. But, I digress.

Under this logic, shouldn't you believe in the Hindu afterlife, the Jewish after-life, the Buddhist, the ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Sumerian, Babylonian or any number of other beliefs that were written down long before the Christian one? What if I said that if you don't follow the teachings of Frodo Baggins and Gandolf you will go to Hell? You would naturally say that these beliefs were silly and had no basis in reality, and therefore wouldn't consider it a risk to not follow them.

Better yet what if my neighbor wrote two conflicting stories about my Frodo-given ability to create Wallabies out of muffins, then presented them to you as the only place in the universe that told that story, and said that it was the Frodo's honest truth. It would no doubt be easy for you to refute his claim because of the two conflicting stories. Without some kind of unbiased supporting document or a news story saying the same thing my neighbor's story would fall flat on it's own merits.

In the spirit of this parable read Genesis chapter one then go back later and read chapter two. Then answer the following question: If the Bible can't even get the creation story straight then how am I supposed to believe any of it? And since it is the only place there is an argument for the Christian god in the entire universe, why should I believe in such a god based on flawed evidence? (In case you don't see what I am talking about--I had already intended to post a blog about the conflict in the Genesis creation stories, so I will do so following this one for clarification)

For that matter explain the two versions of Judas' death I talked about in an earlier post. The Catholics have a good, albeit flawed, answer for these issues, but it involves accepting a lot of the Bible as fairy-tale, which I doubt you are ready to do.

So, I reverse the statement, and say that I would rather live my life, the only one I get. I know that I will eventually die and that will be the end of me, so I won't waste my life by expending time, money, or energy that could be spent with my children or in any number of other useful and/or enjoyable activities by following a religion based on Bronze Age myths.

Then we have a rather unwieldy Paragraph Four:

"If you take the law of averages which scientist loves then you have to admit that Christianity is ranked number one at 2-3 billion Christians. So if 30 people tell you your drunk then fall down. Well 3 billion people base there various and different experiences and intellects and cultures on ONE faith not to mention entire countries basing there dating system on Jesus i.e. the year is 2006 after our lord Jesus rose from the dead. You must conclude in a scientific hypothesis that Christ did exist and even Islam admits to that and that makes over 70% of the entire world believes in Jesus. But you are here to tell me he doesn’t and that makes you a foolish person in denial. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

First off, the law of averages does not apply here, a census does. And, as we are shown in in 2 Samuel chapter 24 God will kill at least 70,000 of his own people in payment for a king taking a census. As for a hypothesis based on the census... . A hypothesis is an educated guess that is put to experimentation in order to arrive at a theory. Due to my education, I would never arrive at a hypothesis as baseless as the existence of Christ.

So many things--so little space, so bear with me here.

First: If thirty people tell me I'm drunk, and I haven't been drinking then I will suspect that those thirty people are nuts or trying to fool me. If I am in fact drunk, then I will know that before they tell me.

Second: Actually it is the year 2006 after the year your lord was supposedly born--get your facts straight. It has nothing to do with death as many people believe. A.D. is an abbreviation for anno Domini and actually means "the year of our lord." It is also incorrect by several years.

As for using the B.C./A.D. system, the Chinese calender, and the Jewish calender predate ours which is only some five hundred years old. It was created by an Italian doctor, and decreed as official by Pope Gregory XIII (hence the name--Gregorian calender). We continue to use it and the B.C./A.D. system out of simplicity not out of a belief in Jesus. If the World's still using it could prove anything along the line of religion, it would be that the Catholics were, and thereby, are right because they conceived the whole idea. And, in fact, most scholarly material now uses B.C.E. and C.E. which stands for: "Before Christian (or Common) era", and "Christian (or Common) era", and acknowledges only the existence of Christians, not Christ.

Third: Not too many years ago, the entire population of the planet, save for a few smart people, believed that the Earth was flat, and that the Sun, stars, and all other things in the universe revolved around the Earth, both concepts found in the Bible. Did majority opinion make these things true?

Two-hundred years ago, the majority of Christian American citizens believed that slavery was morally acceptable. Is that true?

By your argument, anybody who believed that Christ was God in 20 a.c.e. was a fool, because the majority of the World's population had never heard of the guy. Does their ignorance of your savior exclude them from your logic? Just because a majority of people are ignorant of a fact the fact is still a fact, and just because a majority of people believe a lie--it is still a lie.

Fourth: If your god exists, and the Bible is his word then by calling me foolish, you have earned the wrath of your god and are looking at going to your own Hell
by violating the words of Jesus found in Matthew 5:22:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

If you are right about the whole Jesus thing then you may want to start begging for forgiveness.

A fool as defined by Websters can be a few things (including a dessert), but the two most commonly held definitions are:

1) "a person lacking in judgment or prudence"
2) "a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers of understanding"

Both definitions imply a lack of ability to understand things and see beyond what they are told to believe, i.e. one who can't think for ones self, as in "a fool and his money are soon parted." Only a fool believes something for which there is no proof, and much proof against.

As for my being in denial: that infers that I have all of the evidence laid out before me, yet continue to ignore it--it would seem that I am not the one in denial, because I am not the one disregarding evidence. I cannot be in denial about something unless there is some shadow of belief.

Fifth: As for the quote from John, I think I have already established that I have no more fear of his warnings than I do of Thor's.

Next you say:

"You may be spending eternity in the lake of fire. If you are wrong are you willing to base your salvation on what you believe? If I am right I will spend eternity in Heaven and if I am wrong I just turn into worm meat. IF you are right you become worm meat but if you are wrong you will spend eternity in Hell. Have you done the research like us Christians? Google and go to 'Hell’s best kept secret'"

Simple answers to the questions are: Yes and Yes. Both of which I think I have shown here. Can you answer both questions the same way?

As for the writings and teachings of Ray Comfort, I am way ahead of you, which is why it was so easy to refute your claims, many of which it would seem are plagiarised from Mr. Comfort.

I promise that his teachings will be covered by a future post, doing so here would get off of the subject and take up too much space.

So, stay tuned.

Finally we have:

"God bless you on your journey"

Thanks for the blessing. Frodo bless you.

Your Turn.

The Rev and E. R. Rudolph--Self-Appointed Archangel and Killer for Their Baby-Killer God

2007-02-12T14:01:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it's been a few days since the Rev doomed me to Hell, and still no response back to my request for a debate. I know that Michelle is probably right and such a debate will never happen, so I figure that I will explain some of the allusions I made in my invitation to Mr. Spitz.

NOTE:

In this post I give links to Don Spitz's website as a form of citation for my statements and assertions. Some of these links will immediately expose you to genuinely horrific photos of mutilated human fetuses. I cannot emphasize enough how horrific these photos are. The inclusion of these photos on the Rev's site is a standard, and extremely distasteful part of the tactics employed by Don Spitz and his followers during the abortion debates of the late 90's.

While I somewhat agree with the position that use of such graphic imagery is protected under the First Amendment, I do not agree that such imagery should be used in public or without warning--it is no different than pornography, and should be regulated as such.

Further more, nothing I say in the following REQUIRES the reader to follow the links; I will give all necessary information and quotes here. I only add the links, because I was taught to always cite my sources, and as a way to prove to detractors that I am not making this shit up.

Thank you--now on to my Rant.

In the post that caught the Rev's attention, and in my reply post to the Rev, I alluded to fundamentalist Christian terrorists and/or the Rev's support of these pieces of human filth. The reference that generated Rev's interest and comments was a man by the name of Eric Robert Rudolph.

Rudolph was engaged in a series of bombings in the American South during the late 1990's that killed three people, and injured 150 others. His "targets" were abortion clinics, a lesbian nightclub, and the Atlanta Olympics. Rudolph's reasoning for these attacks was to stop abortion, the "gay agenda", and to strike at the federal government which, he said supported these things.

Rudolph was put on the FBI's Most Wanted list in 1998, and captured without a fight five years later outside Murphy, North Carolina while digging through garbage cans for food.

Following his capture, Rudolph entered into a plea agreement to avoid the death penalty, and now resides in an 80 square foot concrete cell at the ADX Florence supermax federal prison in Colorado.

I well remember Rudolph's terrorist acts, and his capture. At the time of his capture I was living in Asheville, North Carolina which is just a couple of hours, by mountain roads, from Murphy. Rudolph's capture was front page news for sometime, as was the continuing investigation into people in and around Murphy who helped Rudolph during his time as a fugitive (He was clean shaven and was wearing new shoes when he was caught.) Many wackos in the area around Murphy were vocal supporters of Rudolph, and saw him as a hero. Rudolph's brother videotaped himself cutting his own hand off with a power-saw as a sign of support for his sibling--talk about a screwed up family. The hand was successfully reattached by doctors with scientific medical training, and not by a faith healer.

What does Rudolph have to do with Don Spitz? Well, the Rev was, and still is, Rudolph's most vocal supporter. The Rev's website (SEE WARNING ABOVE) lists Rudolph, along with other murderers, among those whom he calls "Heroes of the Faith," and "Prisoners of Christ." (I know---The last title seems stupid, because Christ is obviously not running federal prisons, but it's the Rev's title not mine.)

Rev's support of Rudolph is based on a number of principles:

1)- Abortion is a sin in God's eyes.
2)- The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.
3)- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Obviously this reasoning is stupid in the eyes of any sane person, and society in general, but the Rev, and his kind, feel that they are immune from society's rules if these rules are superseded by God's. So, let's pretend that God's rules apply. If this were the case, then Rudolph is bound for Hell, and so is the Rev for supporting him. If Rev actually read the book he is so fond of thumping he would know this.

First principle--Abortion is a sin--Is it? No.

Unlike the word kill (as in 'Thou shalt not kill'), the word abortion is no where in the Bible, so for anyone who is mandated to only follow rules from the Bible, making rules concerning abortion would be in violation of their own code.

However, there is one instance of law in the Bible that could be construed to pertain to abortion:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."

Exodus--21:22-25
(All Biblical references contained in this post are from the King James Version of the Bible. I do this because most fundamentalists don't accept the authority of other translations, and because it reminds me of Shakespeare)

(This whole chapter of Exodus is basically a statement of laws among which are killing a murderous ox, and letting a slave go free if you put out his eye)

In plain English, this law states that if you do something to a pregnant woman that causes her to miscarry (spontaneously abort a fetus), but don't do anything else that harms her, then you are to be judged by men: especially the woman's husband. But if following the miscarriage you do her further harm you are to suffer the same harm you caused--cut her: you get cut, cause her to lose an arm: your arm comes off, kill her: you die.

Obviously, the condition of the fetus is not the issue--God doesn't care about the fetus, only the woman. This is likely based on the premise that a person is not a person until he/she has been born as shown numerous times in the Bible; such as when God created Adam and:

"breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis--2:7

So, killing a fetus is not a sin, because people are not "living souls" until birth. And, any perceived problems with the well-being of the mother are not the fault of anyone around the man who caused the abortion: only the man. Plus there is no mention of a woman being in trouble for abortion, or miscarriage, so she's not sinning. And, the punishment applies only to MEN, so a female doctor has no possible problems at all with being a sinner. Before anyone claims than MEN means mankind, you should first read your Bible. God uses the word man sometimes to mean men and women, but never the word men. When he says "men," he means adult male humans.

But, killing a woman (without cause) is definitely a sin.

Spitz-principle #2--The killing of anyone associated with abortion is sanctioned by God.

Well, aside from what I have shown above about abortion not being sin, and only the actual man doing harm being punished, there is the matter of the people Rudolph actually killed: an off-duty police officer, a nurse, and an innocent bystander.

The nurse worked at an abortion clinic, in Birmingham, and the officer was moonlighting as night security at the same clinic. Rudolph and Spitz claim that under the association clause of their principles these were killings sanctioned by God, which I have already shown would not be the case.

The first of Rudolph's victims was a woman who was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and was killed by Rudolph's Olympic Park bombing during the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. This woman was not gay, was not an agent of the federal government, and had neither performed nor had an abortion nor worked at an abortion clinic. She was simply a parent enjoying the Olympics with her son.

Eric Rudolph murdered a completely innocent woman without cause, and is therefore guilty of murder in the eyes of God and is to be put to death. By giving Rudolph the sanction of God in this murder, Rev. Spitz is blaspheming, lying, and putting words into God's mouth falsely. Any one of these actions is, according to Spitz's Bible, punishable by death. So, who's going to Hell now Rev?

Then there's the last principle-- The killing of someone who performs, or allows to be performed, an abortion is no different than killing a person who is about to murder a child. And anybody would say it was OK to kill someone who is about to shoot an innocent child.

Well we have already seen that the first part of this is wrong. However, I will agree with the justification for killing someone about to kill an innocent child. This brings up a rather interesting conundrum for Spitz, his supporters, and his followers, as well as most Bible thumpers, because, if the Bible is true, God is the biggest killer of innocent children in recorded history.

Through direct action by, or upon instruction from God an untold number of innocent children were killed when the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed; Every innocent child on the planet was killed by the flood in Genesis; Following a battle with the Midianites, every male Midianite child was killed; Menahem, a king of Israel and servant of God followed a battle by "ripping up" all pregnant women on the other side, and on and on and on.

Here are some more passages describing the baby killer God in action:

Deuteronomy 2:34-- utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.

Deuteronomy 28:53-- And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.

I Samuel 15:3-- slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.

2 Kings 8:12-- dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

Isaiah 13:16-- Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished. (rape is fine too)

Isaiah 13:18-- They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.

Lamentations 2:20-- Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.

Ezekiel 9:6-- Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.

Hosea 9:14-- give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. (a supernatural abortionist)

Hosea 13:16-- their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

And what state of mind should baby killers have?

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
Psalm 137:9

Then there's the problem with murder by inaction. If a good person kills someone who is about to kill an innocent child, then wouldn't it follow that an evil person allows the death of innocent children? If you have the power to stop the killing of a baby with no chance of harm coming to you, and don't use that power, aren't you at least an accessory in that killing? Well of course you are.

So, when an all-powerful God allows, much less causes, babies to die is he not evil? God (assuming that he's real) can stop the death of a child when he wants to: he did so in Genesis 22. He can even bring children back after he allows them to die as is shown in Job 42.

So with all of this power to save babies why has God allowed every abortion, miscarriage, death from AIDS, act of infanticide, and death from "acts of God" of every baby killed in such ways throughout human history. Surely a being such as this does not deserve to exist, and quite frankly sounds like more of a demon than a benevolent God.

Then there are all of the abortions that could be laid at Don Spitz's feet. Many, leaders and observers of the anti-abortion side of the abortion debate have credited the actions of Don Spitz, and his followers and heroes, with turning undecided Americans against the "pro-life" movement in the 90's, as well as strengthening the case for the pro-choice side. It could easily be assumed that this caused the abortion debate to be initially lost by the anti side, and thereby allowing every legal abortion performed in this country for the last decade.

So, if Don Spitz truly believes that abortion is a sin, and that anyone who helps it happen should be killed he should fall on his own sword. But, he, like Rudolph, is obviously afraid of death, and their residence afterward, so I'm sure this won't happen.
I rest my case---for now.

Atheist Answers

2007-02-12T08:57:00.000-05:00

In celebration of my having drawn a second Christian attack on the percieved state of my soul, I would like to offer up the following links.

They are links to youtube videos of the six parts of a series put out by
digitalfreethought.com called Atheism 101. It is essentially answers to many questions and challenges thrown at atheist by religious folk. There are many answers that I had already had, but there are some really good well thought out answers that I had never considered.

If I had the power I would show this in every Sunday school class across the World.

If you would rather not watch the videos the digital free thought link above will take you to a text version--just click on the "answers" button in the right margin.

Hope you enjoy and/or learn something.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Text Version Remember--click the "answers" button.

Hypocrite Update

2007-02-11T21:53:00.000-05:00

I thought I would take a moment to update you fine folks on the trials of a certain piece of slime I have mentioned a couple of times here on my little slice of the web.

It seems that meth addict solicitor Ted Haggard has been cured of the gay. Yes folks. According to Rev. Tim Ralph, one of the four ministers involved in his counseling, Ted Haggard is now "completely heterosexual."

Naturally, my initial reaction was "Praise the Lord!" Well, actually, it was more on the line of "Bullshit!" But, you get the message either way.

Now, I can't say that I'm surprised about his "cure", after all, there is a precedent for this with Swaggart's recovery from hooker addiction (twice), but what I was confused about was the type of cure.

According to Ralph, Haggard underwent three weeks of "counseling." I don't see how this would help, because as Haggard said many times, homosexuality is demonic, and active warfare against the demons is needed. So, it would seem that an exorcism would be necessary, and there is no mention of one having taken place.

Then there's the problem with the cure only taking three weeks. According to Haggard's fellow bullshit artist/minister, James Dobson, the cure should have taken four or five years.

This leaves one with the suspicion that maybe the demons are just hiding until Haggard can find a new playmate, and a new ice dealer.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

In the mean time: there's a rumor that Ted is thinking of becoming a police officer, but that is unsubstantiated for the moment.

The Myth of Judeo-Christian

2007-02-11T14:03:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it's Sunday, and I thought I would celebrate my not being compelled to go somewhere and babble to the sky god of the Christians, by having a few beers, and attacking one of their most sacred premises: the myth that the United States was founded on "Judeo-Christian" values.

According to this myth, the intention of the 'Founding Fathers' was to establish a nation on North America whose morals, laws, civil codes, etc. were based on some unified set of beliefs codified by some (non-existent) amalgamated system of Jewish/Christian belief. There are so many things wrong with this idea that I hardly know where to start.

Before I begin, let me start with my qualifications for a redress of this issue. I have a hard won (and much paid for) BA in American history, and am six hours short of an MA in the same subject (which is where my tendencies of over detailing and over citing my posts come from). I also have a lifetime of experience with supposed Christian values, and an extensive amount of time studying the Bible. While none of this makes me some kind of top-dog scholar in this area, it is far more expertise and qualification in this subject than 99.9% of the people who spout the nonsense to begin with.

First, let's look at the term Judeo-Christian Values. Simply put: there is no such thing. The term itself, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, was first used in 1899 (well after the founding), but in relation to the separation of Jewish and Christian beliefs. The first usage of the term in its modern context wasn't until 1938 as an alternative the term 'Christian civilization' in light of Hitler's attacks on Judaism: basically a political move by what would become the Allies to not be seen as anti-Semitic.

As for some actual set of Judeo-Christian beliefs, no such thing exists. Simply put, Christianity, under Jewish law, is a large heresy, and vice-versa. While their are beliefs common to both sides: the Ten Commandments, the Patriarchs, God..., the very basis of Christianity (i.e. Jesus as God) puts all Christians in violation of the first commandment 'there is only one god, and God is it.' The majority view under Jewish law is that Christians and Jews do not worship the same god.

So, Judeo-Christian values cannot actually exist. But, when Christians use the term they don't mean to include Judaism anyway, they are more accurately meaning:

Christian values some of which are based on select Jewish values, but only those which we agree with.

Otherwise, no Christian would eat pork and the inquisitions would have never happened.

So, these idiots actually maintain that the United States was founded on Christian values, and never intended for there to be a separation of religion from government. Which, is another assertion based on ignorance and mythology.

Now there needs to be a clarification of the term the United States was founded. Technically the United States was founded in 1781 with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, but was not an actual sovereign state until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. In fact the Articles of Confederation were considered to be a temporary system under which the original colonies could have a system of government during the ongoing war with England. The United States government as it stands now began on 1789 with the ratification of the US Constitution.

None of these documents call for a place in government, and one, the Constitution, actually forbids such a union twice:

First in Article VI when it expressly forbids religious belief being a prerequisite for government office:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Then again in the oft' misquoted, and extremely misread First Amendment (section in bold commonly forgotten by religious folk):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Side Note: An Amendment that is often overlooked by those in this country who want religion to be part of government is the Ninth Amendment, which forbids the adoption of any amendment which contradicts the first ten. Basically meaning that Congress cannot just make an amendment in violation of the first ten such as an amendment requiring or allowing a union of religion and government.

For sensible literate people these documents are proof that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. were against a melding of religion (including Christianity) and government. But, there are the stubborn who say something to the effect that we are reading all of this wrong--that the founding fathers believed in a Christian government and we have perverted their intentions. Statements to this effect are not only stupid, but can be proven wrong with the words of the founding fathers themselves.

First up we have Thomas Jefferson, author of The Declaration of Independence, and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.For some people, the "inalienable rights" line in the Declaration is proof of Jefferson's intention to have a Christian government, which is another example of misread and misquote.

Here is the line:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Pay special attention to the two words their creator. Notice that it does not say "our" creator, or "the" creator. This entity could be, the Egyptian creator, the Sumerian creator, Vishnu, basically any creator whom the person mentioned believes in.

Yes, Jefferson believed in the Christian god, but not in the way most Christians today do, and Jefferson held a firm belief that this, or any, god had no place in government, which he quite eloquently states in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

Section 2: "...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Section 3: "...that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Jefferson wrote this, and Madison championed it. The two men combined forces again when they got the Establishment Clause codified into the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson was so proud of this statute that he requested that it be considered one of his three greatest accomplishments along with the establishment of the University of Virginia, and the Declaration of Independence.

But, I have heard the argument made that these documents were edited, amended, or otherwise changed and therefore do not actually represent the personal ideology of Jefferson and Madison--Wrong again.

In a letter to the Danbury Baptists written in 1802, Jefferson said the following concerning the First Amendment:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

From this we get Jefferson's rationale for the Separation Clause. His obvious and stated intention was to build a "wall of separation" between government and religion so that a perceived set of religious rights could not interfere with governmental duties. This letter was a show of solidarity with the Baptists who had written him a letter regarding their fears that a majority religion could gain control of the government. They felt that such a thing was unacceptable because "Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals... no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions." Something of a slap in the face of current Baptists who believe differently.

This opinion was echoed by James Madison in a letter he wrote to the Baptist churches in 1811. In this letter, Madison says that:

"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States"

Eight years later in a letter to Robert Walsh, Madison reaffirmed this belief when he said that there was a:

"total separation of the church from the state"

Which, according to Madison, was:

"Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States,"... .

For anyone who thinks the above statements from Madison, or Jefferson are out of context, the Library of Congress has them online, and you are welcome to do some of your own research.

Madison and Jefferson were by no means the only Founding Fathers to have reservations about religion.

In 1776, in his pamphlet, Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote:

"As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government, to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith…"

And there's my favorite letter on religion, written by Benjamin Franklin to Richard Price a "friend or Quaker" in 1780:

I am fully of your opinion respecting religious tests; but, though the people of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that people were 100 years ago, we must allow they have gone great lengths in liberality of sentiment on religious subjects; and we may hope for greater degrees of perfection, when their constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure religion itself, as the emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Not only does Franklin believe government and religion should be separate, but he believed that getting paid to preach was wrong, and that a religion that had to get help from a government was not sanctioned by God.

Amen Benny--Amen.

Technorati Tags:

church and state judeo-christian jefferson

When at Fault--Always Blame Others. So Sayeth the Lord

2007-02-10T13:01:00.000-05:00

Today I came across a tragic story out of Pittsburgh that I feel compelled to address.

It seems that last November Rev. Brent Dugan, pastor of Community Presbyterian Church of Ben Avon committed suicide in a motel room because of an upcoming investigative report from KDKA-TV, a local television station. The report was supposed to expose "illicit, possibly illegal, activity by a local minister, activities which at the very least violated the rules of his denomination." The behavior to be exposed, was the pastor's having been involved in a homosexual relationship for the preceding four years.

This story strikes at several issues that I have somewhat strong opinions about, but didn't show up on my radar until I found a story at Fox News this morning about the aftermath of the pastor's suicide. According to the story (that Fox mislabeled--more on this later), a coalition of religious leaders in Pittsburgh has lodged a complaint with the FCC saying that KDKA's news department had "'sentenced' Dugan before the presbytery had a chance to investigate and deal with his behavior."

All of reports and opinions I have seen about this chain of events, zero in on the KDKA's reporter's actions, which, admittedly were out of line, but by no means something new or odd.

By and large, the American news media had become a source of entertainment. Gone are the Murrow's and Cronkite's of decades past. Information-based news has been largely replaced by inaccuracy, sensationalism, and entertainment news designed to improve ratings and draw advertisers. Fox News, where I found the article, is the most notorious proof of this, but other news agencies are guilty too.

Fox labeled the story as "News Report on Porn Led to Priest's Suicide, Group Alleges in FCC Complaint." The report had nothing to do with "porn." The story was about Rev. Dugan's being secretly homosexual, and no where in the AP report that Fox used does it say so. Clearly the headline was designed to grab the attention of Fox News' largest demographic--right-wing conservatives, and had nothing to do with journalistic accuracy.

The top two headlines this morning on CNN's website were about the death of Anna Nicole Smith and the paternity fight over her baby. Clearly, for the folks at CNN, the death, and sex-life of a Playboy centerfold/Trim Spa spokesperson, take precedence over stories lower on the "Top Stories" list such as those about unethical and illegal behavior by the vice-presidential staff, the situation of the war in Iraq, and the tragic death of six children in a house fire in Kentucky.

It's no wonder more registered American voters vote for American Idol contestants than presidents. As Jefferson warned, ignorance is the biggest enemy of Democracy.

Investigative reporting can be a good thing. Investigative reporters exposed the Watergate scandal, the actions that led to the ongoing Libby trial mentioned above, the Abu Ghraib abuses, and many other useful informative stories, but the story at issue here is not one of them. Instead it falls more in the category of Anna Nicole Smith's love-child.

I am not saying that exposing a religious leader's hypocrisy is a bad thing, but that is not what appears to have happened here. Unlike sleazeballs like Ted Haggard, or Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Dugan was not simply "caught:" he was, it appears, set-up. It seems that his lover arranged a meeting with him, and set it up so that the news cameras were there.

But, even being "set-up" is not the problem, because unlike douche bags like Haggard, Swaggart, or even my buddy Don Spitz, Rev. Dugan was not (that I can find) actively spreading hate, intolerance, and general stupidity, in fact, his denomination, Presbyterian, is one of the more compassionate Christian denominations in this country having taken the lead in compassion toward, acceptance of, and even ordination of homosexuals, and women.

My problem with this series of events revolves not around the hypocrisy of the victim of the story, or even the story itself, but rather what it says about Rev. Dugan's community, and American society.

The issue here is not hypocrisy, like with Haggard, and Swaggart, but rather society's response to this man's sex-life. The basis for the story wasn't an anti-gay homophobe turning out to be gay, it was a community leader's being gay period. In a church where being gay is not demonized, a pastor had to hide his being gay. Why?

Obviously Rev. Dugan felt that his life would be ruined when his "faithful" congregation, fellow religious leaders, and the rest of the community found out that he was gay. He knew that the very people who are publicly mourning him now, would have driven his ass out of town, and publicly condemned him as evil. Herein we see the true hypocrisy.

Religious leaders in Pittsburgh, and members of Rev. Dugan's congregation have publicly blamed the news report for Dugan's suicide. But, as wrong as the report was, it wasn't the prospect of being on television that drove Rev. Dugan to suicide: it was the bigotry of the people casting blame. He knew what would happen to him, so he, like so many gays who face this, saw no way out and ended his own life.

The people so actively engaged in placing blame for this know in their hearts where the blame truly lies, and need only do one thing to see who is really to blame.

All they need to do is look in the mirror.

Technorati Tags:

bigotry Don Spitz homophobia hypocrisy jimmy swaggart Rev. Brent Dugan ted haggard

And Your Point Is...?

2007-02-09T09:05:00.000-05:00

The following news stories appeared on my news feed within minutes of each other.

First a story about the Pentagon's having had proof of an Al Qaeda connection in Iraq.

Then, three minutes later, a story about the Pentagon's having proof of an Iranian connection in Iraq.

To be honest, I don't find it hard to believe that there are Iranians causing problems in Iraq--it is a logical assumption (unlike the Al Qaeda connection years ago), but does the Pentagon actually believe that anybody actually trusts them anymore.

They are going to do what they want to do regardless of what anybody thinks--they have proven that time and time again. The least they can do is not try to insult our intelligence (pun intended) by "proving" anything.

Rev Spitz--Terrorist Sympathizer/Ron Reader

2007-02-09T07:36:00.000-05:00

Well folks, yesterday marks one of the proudest moments of my Internet career. I obtained a special new fan, and, better yet, was given enough material for several posts, which will allow me to avoid not having something to Rant about for quite some time.

Yesterday I had the following reply to my post "Jesus Love the Little Children":

Rev. Don Spitz said...
You are quite the anti-Christian bigot. Suffice it to say, most, if not all problems on the planet earth are from people like you who reject Jesus Christ. Our prisons are filled with people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. Most if not all rapes, murders, robberies and thefts are committed by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. AIDS is mainly spread by people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ and have sex outside of marriage or else like children with AIDS get it from people, like you, who reject Jesus Christ. I hope you will turn from your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and escape the fires of eternal hell. Turning from your sins and giving your life to Jesus Christ is the only way you can escape the fires of hell and receive everlasting life. If you persist in your sins and continue to turn your back on Jesus Christ, you will be lost forever.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.

February 8, 2007 12:06 PM

Rev Spitz read only the post he commented on and took just 8:15 to read and respond to the post.

I was quite honored by his visit for a couple of reasons:

1)--As Michelle so eloquently put it, I had garnered my first "firebreathing raving godbag" troll.

2)--My visitor is not your run-of-the-mill Jesus freak, in fact, among the Christian-terrorist-nutbag demographic, Donald Spitz (the Rev) is something of a hero/media darling.

The Rev is the self-appointed spokesman/apologist for The Army of God, a fringe group of Christian fanatics whose major claim to fame for more than a decade has been the supporting of the cause of American domestic terrorists.

There is so much material here that I hardly know where to begin. But, I do know that to put it all in one post would make said post quite large, and after the post that the Rev commented on I promised myself that I would try not to make another post of that size for a while.

So that I can also tackle other issues that come to mind, I will most likely do several posts about the Rev and his entertaining attack on me.

In this post I will tackle the obvious starting point and address his comment.

First, a general observation about his comment. He did a better job with his comment of proving my point than anything I could have written. But, his fanaticism, and methods have a history of helping his opposition (more on this in a future post).

So, now to addressing the comment--

First we have the name calling intro:

"You are quite the anti-Christian bigot".

This line goes a long way toward showing the Rev's tendency to read things into what he reads instead of reading it, his tendency to make prejudicial assumptions based on little or no knowledge, and his lack of familiarity with the English language.

Had the Rev actually read the post then formed an opinion, instead of reading his opinion into the post, he would have seen the following lines:

"...my attacks on religions, primarily Christianity, have a serious side which stems largely from my opinion that fanatical religious beliefs are dangerous."

"I won’t go so far as to say that patriotism, ethnic pride, or even religious belief are in and of themselves evil, but such things in the wrong hands can be very dangerous."

My post is obviously directed at the fanaticism and actions of the subject of the post. I am not anti-Christian, or even anti-Christianity, otherwise I would actively engage in attempts to "convert" the 95% of the people in my life who are Christian, and definitely wouldn't have tutored religious studies at the Catholic University I attended. However, I will admit, as I have done for many years, that religious beliefs, in my opinion, are to knowledge, and social progress, what castration is to one's ability to procreate. I am anti-fanatic-of-any-religion, and, as the Rev and his people show, for good reason.

The Rev's opinion that I am anti-Christian stems not from anything I have said about Christians, but rather from his delusion that he represents true Christianity. So, when I attacked the wacko fanaticism that he holds to, and used his pal Rudolph as an example of the dangers of such ideas, he became defensive and lashed out, which is in stark contrast to the teachings of his dear Lord:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:38-39 KJV Bible

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Matthew 5:43-47 KJV Bible

As I am not bound by the words of a mythological creature I may lash out all I want, but the Rev is supposed to be an example of faith--so far he's not doing such a good job. His imaginary boss would be pissed.

Then there's the term bigot.

Webster's defines the word bigot as:

One who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So, he is comparing my views on Christianity to those of white-supremacists. Being a bigot, entails hatred of a group, so it would follow that I could no more love a Christian than a Klansman could love a black, much less marry one. Well, as it turns out, I did love AND marry a Christian, and not one of those Christian-when-it-suits-my-needs Christians, but rather an honest to goodness actual Christian whose faith was a large, and generally positive, part of her life.

My late-wife was a devout Catholic, we were married in the church, and both of my children were christened in the church. Admittedly, my children have become quite agnostic in their beliefs, but they know that they have the freedom to pursue other beliefs without fear of reprisal, which is more latitude than I was ever given by my fundamentalist wacko father.

You can't get more Christian than Catholics. The Catholic church along with the Eastern Orthodox church is the closest thing on the planet to being the original Christian church. The other 130,000+ Christian sects, (including the Rev's little group--Pentecostals) throughout the World are merely offshoots who have manipulated the words in the Bible to suit there own needs.

Of course a bigot, according to Webster's, could also entail being:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

This also couldn't apply to me because I am show no intolerance to people who hold beliefs different to my own. Once again I turn to my late-wife. She was Catholic--I an atheist, she was "pro-life"--I pro-choice, she voted for the first Prez Bush-I voted for Clinton. Not only proof that I am not intolerant, but also that opposites not only attract, but can have a loving wonderful marriage.

Then there's the prejudice of a bigot--I did not prejudge anyone whom I mentioned in my post or even the Rev, because of their religion. I researched Becky Fischer, watched the film, and read her website's various documents before I formed an opinion. As for the Rev, not only have I researched him, but I actually remember his being on television, and remember the terrorists that he supports (also, more on this in a future post).

But, this definition would definitely mean that the Rev is a Bigot, and, as a result, a hypocrite.

As for the cause of all of the World's problems, the population of prisons, people with AIDS, and criminals being people like me, that is not so easy to prove without a great deal of research, but I will say that it is unlikely, because Atheists like myself are an extremely small minority compared to Christians, so statistically his assertions are doubtful. I have never been in prison, don't have AIDS, never cheated on my wife, and am not a member of the Bush White House, any religious denomination, or Al Qaeda, so have not caused the World's problems. I will say however, that there are more convicted murderers, and thieves among his list of heroes than among mine (again, more later).

But, if he means people who are not true Christians, he is definitely right, because as we have seen, anyone who disagrees with him is (in his fantasy world) not a true Christian. This eliminates every human on the face of the planet except for a handful of people who share his beliefs, a good many of which are either in prison or have already been executed for their crimes (details ..you guessed it--in a future post).

Then we have his saying that I am bound for Hell. Well, once again he is in violation of the words of his sky-pixie:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 5:22 KJV Bible

For those unfamiliar with ancient Greek, Raca means (in modern terms) "your opinions are moronic." The Rev is bound for his own fire, poor guy.

Then we have the Rev's own version of talking to one's self. As it turns out this too is in violation of the words of Jesus:

The part of the prayer in which he asks for eternal life is in violation of Matthew 6:8 which says:

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

E.G. don't ask for things because God already knows what you need. To ask for things is to show distrust of God's will and knowledge.

Then there is the whole prayer itself, which is in direct violation of Gods command contained in Matthew 6:9-13:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

This is the only prayer you are to use, and its main theme is being given the ability to forgive other sinners, not a reward for yourself which is greedy. Don't believe me:

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Matthew 6:14-15 KJV Bible

Yes, Rev--you are in deep shit if your sky-god exists.

Well that covers my reply to his comment. Being a person who believes in a tit-for-tat approach to blogging, I left the following comment on the Rev's blog:

Well Rev it seems that you have been busy trolling the web and attacking people.

I came here to challenge you to defend the comment left on my last post if you think you can.

So, I do hereby challenge you to defend your positions as a self-appointed soldier of God. If you in fact have God and truth on your side then your beliefs should be unrepraochable, and stand up to scrutiny, because your god is supposed to be all powerful and infallible.

I personally feel sorry for Christianity if its self-appointed defender cannot defend it.

I also feel badly for all of the actual decent Christians in the World because they are so often represented by wing-nuts like yourself.

I look forward to more of your infantile ravings and leave you with the following quote from a self-proclaimed Christian who reminds me a lot of you:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

p. 46 Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler

Good day sir--I look forward to hearing from you.

11:33 AM [ 8 February 2007]

I'm not overly confident that he will take up my challenge, but if he does it promises to be fun, and I promise to share it with you.

Unless I do receive a reply, my next post concerning the Rev will most likely entail a discussion of the Rev's background and co-wackos.

Jesus Loves the Little Children

2007-02-08T08:43:00.000-05:00

Anyone who knows me, or has perused this blog knows that I tend to go into religious conversations with sarcasm, and jokes. And, many people have told me that I have a sadistic streak when it comes to religious discussions, and that my attacks on Christians are similar to challenging a quadriplegic to a foot race.

This may or may not be true (probably is), but my attacks on religions, primarily Christianity, have a serious side which stems largely from my opinion that fanatical religious beliefs are dangerous.

This opinion has been justified time and time again throughout my life: Jonestown, Waco, Oklahoma City, Al Qaeda, Eric Robert Rudolph, and, on and on and on... But, never in my life have I seen Christian radicalism that sickened me more than what I have been looking into for the last couple of days.

While working on Monday's post I came across a mention of a documentary DVD entitled Jesus Camp. Anytime I see the word Jesus it peaks my interest, so I checked it out. In this post I intend to tell, and show you what I found.

Before I continue, I want to warn you that this post will likely entail an expenditure of a great deal of time by the reader. For this I apologize, but I feel that this subject warrants a good deal of time to fully appreciate.

BACKGROUND:

Jesus Camp is a documentary from film makers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady of Loki Films; an independent documentary film company whose stated goal is:

"Making films that evoke a deeper understanding of the human experience with all its complexities, high stakes and humor."

The film follows some children to and through the Kids on Fire Pentecostal summer camp in Devil's Lake, North Dakota run by Becky Fischer of Kids In Ministry International (KIMI).

KIMI is an Evangelical organization whose purpose is to:

"Teach, train, and equip children to do the work of ministry and release them in their giftings and callings."

The film was released last year, and made the film festival rounds, including Michael Moore's Traverse City film festival, where it won the "Scariest Movie" award (for good reason, as I intend to show).

The film also features an appearance by Ted Haggard who was (at the time the documentary was filmed) the head of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) a coalition of Evangelical churches claiming a membership of over 4.5 million members.

Haggard has since resigned his post at the NAE due to a scandal involving his having a three year relationship with a male prostitute and methamphetamine use. Haggard has since confessed to "sexual immorality", and will probably be forgiven by his deluded followers. Before his downfall, Haggard was among a select group of church leaders who had weekly conference calls with the White House concerning issues such as a national ban on gay marriage.

THE FILM:

Okay, now on to the film.

I intend to use clips of the film throughout this post, but if you like, the entire thing can be viewed online here. It is broken into 17 clips which can be viewed one at a time or as a whole. I would recommend watching the whole thing, but it is almost an hour and a half long, so I have placed a few clips within this post to show the points I'm talking about.

The film starts out the way most independent documentaries do, with an audio and video collage designed to give you a taste of what the film makers are going to 'discuss'. Then, in clip two, we are shown a portion of a typical Pentecostal service that gives the viewer a good idea of what Becky Fischer is all about.

For those of you who don't know, The Pentecostal movement began in the late 1890's in the mountains of North Carolina, USA, and for a while was a regional anomaly staying mostly in the Appalachian regions of North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia.

Over time it has become a fragmented group of over 11,000 different Evangelical denominations including the Church of God with Signs Following, who are the infamous "snake handlers" who believe that true faith, and the grace of God can be shown by handling poisonous snakes and drinking poison.

While Pentecostal churches differ in details of their faith, and teaching, there are some core beliefs they all adhere to.

They believe in baptism by water as most Christian groups do, but they also believe in what they call baptism in the Holy Spirit. They believe that once a person has been "bathed" in the Holy Spirit they achieve a higher connection with God.

This higher connection manifests, according to believers through certain gifts, such as the ability to prophesize, and to "speak in tongues." When a person is speaking in tongues he/she basically babbles incoherently. For a non-believer it looks quite silly, but for a believer it is a form of holy communication. For many Pentecostals 'tongues' is THE sign of having been bathed in the Holy Spirit--no babble = no connection. Therefore, they all babble.

The baptisms are followed, according to adherents, by what is known as sanctification. When a person has been 'sanctified in the Lord' he/she has had the effects of their past sins wiped away--similar to the absolution of a Catholic.

Public repentance of one's sins is very important and is often a major part of Pentecostal services. Proselytizing is also very important, and is what makes them so annoying to run into.

Pentecostals tend to be poor and/or rural, poorly educated, and frankly quite annoying. They are also a group with whom I have (unfortunately) had quite a bit of experience with having grown up in Kentucky, and living for a good while in Asheville, NC quite near the epicenter of the Pentecostal movement.

I have, out of curiosity, been to many Pentecostal services. For someone like myself, all of the babbling, screaming, crying, and mayhem during these services can be a mixture of entertainment and quite honestly fear. For adherents, they can be a source of what I would term religious ecstasy.

The beliefs and drama of Pentecostal churches lend themselves quite well to people whose lives feel devoid of meaning and/or happiness, after all, what better promise can be made to someone who is suffering through the hardships of poverty and rural drudgery than the powers and love of Heaven. This is especially true for children who are given a sense of power and purpose far beyond what they could realistically expect otherwise: something shown quite well in this documentary.

Back to the film.

Clip three is very important. This clip contains an interview with Fischer wherein she discusses how easy it is to spread her message to children, and inadvertently shows why people like her prey (no pun intended) on children. She then discusses why it's important to use this predation to fight the evil followers of Islam.

I won't interject what I see her saying, and why it scares me, because nothing I could say would do it justice. You have to watch it to really see what's going on. She also discusses George Bush, but more on that subject later.

(View the clip at the link above, here, or below.)

As the film moves on we are shown the type of environment that the children in the film are raised. Many Evangelical children are home schooled which is a major tool of indoctrination. Homeschooling a child can be a good thing if the parent doing the schooling ensures that the child gets a proper education, but, most of the time, that is not the motivating factor in a parent's decision to home school.

The vast majority of the time a parent opts for homeschooling because they don't want their children exposed to ideas contrary to their own--especially scientific subjects like evolution, and social topics such as; tolerance of other races, religions, and lifestyles. This idea is also seen in cult situations, where one of the most powerful tools used is isolation from outside influences.

As a result, many of these children become incapable of participating in the larger society as an adult, and end up perpetuating the belief structure they are taught as a child. Clips 4,5,and 6 show the mechanics and result of this quite well.

In the last five minutes of clip seven we begin to see the indoctrination take shape. Fischer begins breaking down the children, and giving them their only source of hope--her ideas. It is at this point, that the film really starts to become disturbing.

(View the clip at the link above, here, or below.)

In clip eight we are shown where this indoctrination is headed with statements and messages from the instructors like: "How many want to be those who will give up their life for Jesus?" Down with the government. Put God back into government. "Make war." "Are you a part of it or not?"

While these people do a good job of putting forth their agenda regarding the government, this same agenda was summarized better more than a half-century ago:

"Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years."

The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872.

Sound familiar? It does to me.

The Fischer philosophy on government continues in clip thirteen when the film takes an almost surreal twist as the children are asked to bless and pray over a cardboard cutout of George Bush. They are then informed that they are the most important generation in American history (talk about a sense of meaning) and are lectured on the evils of abortion. Followed by being taught a ritual using small plastic dolls to pray against abortion.

(View the clip at the link above, here, or below.)

Following the beatification of Bush, and the demonizing of abortion, we are introduced to Ted Haggard, not quite as disturbing as the other clips, but good for seeing a hypocrite in action. (You can view the clip here)

The last few clips of the film follow some of the children after they leave the camp, and show them putting their indoctrination to work, by proselytising and participating in an anti-abortion rally.

Clip fifteen ends with two of the children talking about how wonderful it is not to be afraid of dying in God's service, and how cool it would be to be a martyr.

The final clip before the end credits is especially haunting. In this clip we get really good insight to just has insane this leader and teacher of children truly is.

(View the clip at the link above, here, or below.)

And, in case you were wondering, Fischer likes the film. She believes that it casts a positive, or at least fair light on her and her cause. In contrast, Haggard felt that the film made him look too extreme.

Many people who see films or television shows like this have a hard time understanding how anyone can succumb to such a thing, but, like I said before fanatic Evangelicals prey primarily on the type of people who are the most susceptible to indoctrination: the poor, those without hope, the undereducated, the downtrodden, and especially children. Religions and governments have been doing the same thing for millennia.

Whether it’s the indoctrination of Catholic children through ritual, the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance by American school children, or the telling a small child that he or she has been given a gift and/or mission from an almighty god, all forms of establishment use a form of indoctrinating children to achieve order and control. How else could a man like Jim Jones convince hundreds of people to commit mass suicide and murder?

I won’t go so far as to say that patriotism, ethnic pride, or even religious belief are in and of themselves evil, but such things in the wrong hands can be very dangerous. Look at what Hitler was able to do to a proud honorable people who had been smacked down, and then punished for World War I. By manipulating the suffering, pride, bigotries, and desire for a better life of the German people he was able to commit atrocities the likes of which the World had never seen. And Hitler knew well that children were especially susceptible to fanatic indoctrination:

"While the older generation could still waver, the younger generation has pledged itself to us and is ours, body and soul!"

Adolf Hitler, Speech at Nuremberg, 1934

Becky Fischer, and others like her, well know this idea.

There are also the people who will say:

"This group of radicals does not represent Christianity as a whole”

Maybe not, but Osama Bin Laden does not represent Islam as a whole, yet it is his fanatic followers that have brought us to where we are today, along with radicals on the other side that continue to up the ante.

Then there are the people who watch this and try to convince themselves that a fringe group of radicals could never truly impact their lives. Much the same thoughts were around in the 1930’s when people thought that the ridiculous events in Germany would stay put, and again in the 1990’s when radicals in Afghanistan were hardly seen as a real threat to the rest of the World.

One quote that nicely summarizes the beliefs of these two different groups of people, as well as of all the Becky Fischers of the World is the following:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

p. 46 Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler

In the World as it is today; full of fear, doubt, suffering, and struggle there are many people who are susceptible to the rantings of lunatics and the promises of a better life to come through their teachings. And, there are many people willing to manipulate these people, and guide them to their own destruction. Don’t believe me? Watch the news, read the newspaper, or visit a local church.

Technorati Tags:

christianity homophobia jesus jesus camp pentecostals religious indoctrination terrorism religion

The Penis Prince

2007-02-07T17:26:00.000-05:00

Well folks, the prudes have come out from under their holy rocks again.

It seems that there are some idiots complaining about Prince's Superbowl half-time show last Sunday. It seems that they are upset about a part of the show that showed prince as a projected shadow playing his guitar. If you look at the shadow with the right (or wrong?) frame of mind he appears to have two enormous penis' (or would that be penae?).

Come on people! It's Prince for Pete's sake!

This is the guy who gave the World assless pants, and some of the most sexually suggestive songs in history. And of course the guitar looks like a schlong--they all do. Why do you think young boys like playing with them, it's an extension of their perceived manhood. My son plays guitar, and I don't run to his room or the garage and tell him to put it away because it looks like he's masturbating.

As far as Super Bowl shows go, Prince's was one of the best ones I have seen. It beats the Hell out of the hip-hop bullshit that you see everywhere else--this guy actually has musical talent, and puts on a great show. Bob Dylan even referred to him as a "boy genius." Can't get better reviews than that. Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters also said about Prince's covering one of the Foo Fighter's songs during the show that he was "...flattered beyond words, what an honor to be covered by one of your heroes!"

Confession time: I saw him live 'back in the day' and loved the show.

These morons are probably upset that it wasn't Toby Keith singing one of his I-Wanna-Have-Bush's-Love child songs, or some stupid rapper--remember: you can't spell crap without r-a-p.

These people really need to get a life.

Not Bad for a Hell-Bound Atheist

2007-02-06T11:34:00.000-05:00

I was roaming around the web a little bored and found a quiz. Being a person who likes to be told he's smart I took said quiz, and was told , once again, (this time by someone other than my children or myself) that I was smart.

Proof Below:

You know the Bible 92%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

Now I plan on starting my own ministry. My late wife always told me that I would make a good preacher, not because I was a Godly man, but because I was good at "bullshitting people" and had a good amount of knowledge about the Bible.

I'm not sure yet what to call my ministry, but I do know that I will be accepting donations to help me come up with a name.

Eva Mendes vs Pickles

2007-02-05T09:17:00.000-05:00

Southern Baptists are doing their part for US troops in Iraq. They are taking time out from preaching about the benefits of hating everybody that isn't a Southern Baptist, their desire for Theocracy, hatred of gays, and support for the war these troops are dying in and the person responsible for their being there, to send CARE packages to troops fighting the heathens in Iraq.

According to the AP:

Southern Baptists are sending Christian magazines to troops in Iraq as an alternative to the "lad mags" that feature scantily clad women, hoping to get clean, positive images in front of the servicemen.

Lifeway Christian Resources, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, is working with Baptist associations and churches to create "Lifeboxes," which include magazines like Christian Single, notes of encouragement, gum, socks, candy, stationery supplies and wet wipes.

The gum, socks, candy, etc. are likely appreciated. As a former infantry soldier myself, I know that such packages do supply a bit of a morale boost to their receiver.

But, Christian Single magazine? Give me a break.

The "lad mags" they are trying to replace are Maxim and Stuff, so lets compare these magazines with Christian Single to see which magazine an average 20 year old American male hopped up on testosterone, forced to live in a foreign country, and facing death would prefer to browse during their down time.

First up--Maxim:

Maxim has been sending free copies of their magazine to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan for almost two years, at the request of the troops.

At right is the cover of their latest issue.

Inside this issue is an interview with Eva Mendes (and several photos), a photo shoot with the Victoria's secret models, a review of Switchfoot's new CD, a review of the Jackass 2 DVD, an interview with Michael Madson, a list of the 50 lamest things of all time ("crooks finding Jesus' comes in at #4), and an article containing the six steps to a successful quickie.

Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Maxim has written articles on the war and the people fighting it, and done USO type tours and shows for the troops.

Then, there's Stuff:

Their latest cover.

They interview Dominique Swain from the movie Alpha Dog, and Jesse James (of West Coast Choppers--not the dead outlaw), have an article about police pursuit pilots, review the Discovery Channel show Future Weapons (a show about military weapons hosted by a former navy SEA)L , and talk about the new Oasis, and Shins CDs.

Then we have the competition donated by the Southern Baptists--Christian Single

The cover of the latest issue--

They don't have a link to the contents of the latest issue, and I can't find it anywhere, but they do have a pdf file of a sample issue, so subscribers know what to expect.

In the sample issue there is an interview with Tia and Tamera Mowry, the teenage twin stars of ABC's then the WB's (now known as the CW) television show Sister, Sister. In the interview, the girls talk about how they kept their faith during their time in Hollywood. The girls also grace the cover of the sample issue, which is ironic, since Tia once said in an interview with Christianity Today that:

"In Hollywood, you're not on the cover of a magazine because you helped the poor or volunteered at a hospital; you're on the cover because you're worth so-and-so amount of money."

Anyway, hypocrisy aside, the sample issue also has a review of 5 CDs from groups I have never heard of (However, one group, "Mainstay", was compared to Switchfoot whose new CD was reviewed in the new Maxim), and a review of a DVD of the movie End of the Spear (which I have also never heard of) which is about missionaries killed in 1956 for trying to interfere in a tribal war in Ecuador. The reviewer says that the "highlight of the movie is actually found in its closing credits." Sounds like a must-see.

Also contained in this issue is an article about how Christians should treat the Homeless (pray for them, make them some soup, and give to Christian homeless shelters), advice for first-date conversation starters ("If you could hang with anybody for a day (except Jesus), who would it be?), and a pickle recipe.

So, there we have it. The competition.

First, let me say that I am not endorsing Maxim, or Stuff, although I do agree that Eva Mendes is very good looking, and like the pictures of her. I got over the whole "lad-mag" thing years ago. However, I was once a 20 year old US Army soldier, thousands of miles away from home facing death, and remember what it felt like.

During what we called "down-time" my friends and I wanted to forget about what we did for a living. We went out when we could. When we did go out, we drank way too much and tried our damnedest to impress any woman around. When we couldn't go out on the town, we sat around the barracks, tents, or where ever, and talked about girls back home, movies, music, and women who we "admired"--basically anything that wasn't what we were doing where we were at.

As has been the case for as long as there have been magazines and photographs, soldiers in combat have turned to pictures of beautiful women for a relief from reality. Whether it was pinups of Betty Grable during WW II and the Korean War, pictures of Marilyn Monroe and Playboy centerfolds during the Vietnam war, or Maxim's photos of Eva Mendes and the Victoria's Secret models now, these photos have allowed young men who are suffering in ways most people could never understand to escape for a while into the realm of fantasy that helps keep them sane.

They don't want, or need, to be preached to.

Save that for when you are trying to explain why they had to see their best friend's head blown off, or why they no longer have legs.

All The Boobs Fit to Report

2007-02-04T10:02:00.000-05:00

As a person who watches, and reads a lot of news from many different sources, I am quite familiar with the reputation that Fox News has gotten, as being the most slanted news organization on network television, and of being the right arm of the right-wing. Having watched a good bit of their shtick, I tend to agree.

As a result, Fox News is usually the last place I turn to for news, but I do check them out for opposing viewpoints on politically charged issues, since they usually have the exact same opinion as the White House.

So, this morning I was checking out their website for updates on the terrorist attack in Boston. I had already checked CNN, CNBC, NPR, the BBC, ABC, and several other news sites. These sites were focused on the tornadoes which ripped through Florida, the bombs ripping through Iraq, or the sub-zero weather here in the mid-west. All stories, which, I guess, deserve mention, but only Fox News had the stones to report on news that is actually important.

The top video stories from Fox this morning were: "Miami based models battle it out in beach volleyball," and "Former Florida high school history teacher Erica Chevillar appearing in Playboy next month." Obviously Fox News has their finger on the pulse of world events that matter most to the 18-24 frat-boy demographic that has so much influence in today's political climate.

This would probably go a long way toward explaining way 80% of Fox News viewers believed in the propaganda that led to the current war in Iraq, while only 23% of NPR listeners believed the same bullshit. Why tell people the truth when you can show them bouncing breasts instead?

Tonight on Fox News: "Will the Iraq War ever end?", "Will global warming wipe out humanity?", "Are we winning the war on terror?", more on these issues later--but first we have the following:

Guerrilla Advertising-1, Boston-0

2007-02-03T09:48:00.000-05:00

Well folks, I decided that hiding in a bomb shelter might not be the way to live. Especially since I ran out of supplies (e.g. beer), and had forgotten to take a TV with me.

Thinking back over the last couple of days, it seems that I, like the city of Boston, may have over-reacted just a little bit. But, in my defense, all I spent on my reaction to the "terrorist attack" was a little time on the keyboard, and $6.50 on beer. Boston spent $500,000.00 on closing down the city to "investigate/disarm" some Lite-Brites, and is continuing to spend money in an effort to not look so stupid.

As it turns out, these "devices" had been all but ignored in several major cities including New York City. If any city in the world has a reason to over-react it would be NYC, but police there just took the signs down--end of story. And to top it off, the signs had been up in Boston for two weeks, and seen by many people (notice the post date on this picture) before some idiot decided they were bombs.

The only slightly credible remark I have heard in defense of Boston's reaction falls in the category of "better safe than sorry." The logic behind this argument implies that cities like Boston need to take all threats seriously in order to protect their citizens. The problem with this argument is that the devices had been in the city for two weeks in plain sight. If they had been bombs then authorities definitely dropped the ball.

This is not an example of authorities protecting citizens. It is an example of people embracing paranoia and fear instead of commonsense and rationality, and then, instead of admitting their over-reaction, trying instead to label the events of that day as a hoax perpetrated against them---"We're not stupid. It's their fault."

If the perpetrators of this "hoax" get anything more than a fine for placing ads without a permit, it will be the definition of "scapegoat justice."

The term hoax implies an intention to deceive. If the courts convict these two guys of perpetrating a hoax then they are convicting them of intending to trick people into believing they were under attack by terrorists, which is something that even the judge in the case so far doesn't believe happened. By placing blinking Mooninite signs around the city, the only hoax that could have been perpetrated was one involving an attack by Mooninites.

The only things proved by this incident are:

1)-This country has become way too stupid and paranoid.

and,

2)-There is no such thing as bad publicity.

Ozzy, Marilyn Manson, and many other shock-rock performers have been saying for years that every time some preacher or government official got on television and talked about them their album sales went up. In this case, it's Turner Broadcasting, the guys arrested, and the company handling the ad campaign that will reap the benefits.

All the hype and stupidity surrounding this virtually guarantees more viewers for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and more ticket and DVD sales from the movie based on the cartoon which is slated for release next month.

$500,000.00 to Boston from Turner is a small price to pay for international advertising for such relatively small products.

The two guys arrested are now media stars, and will be riding this wave for some time to come.

And, the company responsible for the campaign will have a backlog of potential customers for years.

Guerrilla advertising definitely works.

So, enough on this subject for now. Back to exposing stupidity in other areas.

Update on the End of the World

2007-02-02T16:25:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I told you folks about Boston's near miss with a Moon invasion, and today I have some more disturbing news regarding our impending doom.

First of all it seems that the courts in Boston have let the agents of our destruction out of jail (I figured they would be in Guantanamo by now) at which point they began trying to brainwash the media into getting 70's style haircuts. It is obviously working, because none of the reporters is asking stupid questions like they normally do. They are instead standing around trying to keep their heads from exploding.

Here is a link to a news broadcast about these villains (just be aware of their evil brainwashing plot).

The most shocking part about this news clip is the assertion that no reasonable person could perceive these Lite-Brites as bombs. Come on people look at it:

Looks like a bomb to me. And, what's even scarier, is the fact that I have seen literally scores of devices in and around Indianapolis that look just as much (if not more) like bombs. Here is a stock photo of one of these devices:

See what I mean. Notice the similarities--they both have lights, and they are both hung at intersections. These damned terrorists are everywhere. The device pictured above is especially devious, because it somehow convinces people to stop their cars right in front of it. I now believe that the intent of this is to give a stationary target, so I haven't stopped for one all day.

Then after I arrived safely home from dodging these bombs, I discovered that I had been taking pictures of light bombs since at least last July.

Case in point: the pictures below.

The first one was taken here in Indianapolis, and clearly shows several globe shaped devices that I now believe to be bombs. I also saw a UFO that night, but was unable to get a clear picture.

The second photo was taken in NYC, and clearly shows one of the traffic halting devices as well as how the police just stand around like they are innocent devices, and not weapons of the Apocalypse. I saw Elvis standing under that light, but the march participants blocked my view before I could get a picture.

How could anyone in this post yesterday world ,with any common sense not see these things as bombs. President Bush has been trying to tell us for years that we are all in mortal danger, but people keep believing that he is merely keeping us scared shitless for political gain, and to further his goal to be Emperor. These are probably the same people don't believe the prophecies of L. Ron Hubbard.

Come to think of it this looks like a bomb:

And so does this:

That's it! I'm taking my shotgun, beer, and children and heading to the nearest bomb shelter. I'll see folks when this is over--if you're still here.

Boston Averts Attack From the Moon

2007-02-01T08:55:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Boston authorities narrowly averted a terrorist attack from the moon.

At a cost of a mere one half million tax-payer dollars, and along with help from Homeland Security and the US Coast Guard, Boston police were able to destroy or disarm at least eleven bombs (one pictured here) cleverly disguised as blinking LED representations of the evil Mooninites.

The fear caused by the reaction of Boston authorities to these cleverly disguised WMDs was immense, and rightly so. It has nothing to do with delusional paranoia as some have suggested. Simply put--it was due to the fact that we can ill afford a war with the Moon right now.

It seems that these devices have been planted in large cities across the country including Philadelphia, where authorities found as many as 56 of these improvised Lite-Brite devices (ILD's), but foolishly treated them as a prank and violation of zoning laws.

A Prank!!! What were the people of Philly thinking? How can any rational person look at a blinking LED light board giving them the finger and not immediately think "BOMB!"? Hell people--these little terrorist bastards spelled out their evil plan in an exclusive interview with The Daily Show's Jon Stewart., and posted a practice program for creating their evil devices on the web. And wise men with a direct link to God have been warning us for years that the end is nigh.

What do you people need in order to wake up--an animated mushroom cloud over Liberty Hall?

But, Philadelphia isn't the only place that these evil devices were all but ignored.

It seems that people in several cities across the country have been all but ignoring these devices for two to three weeks. A man in San Francisco actually left one of these bombs "softly blinking" above his art gallery for several days before a friend got a ladder and bravely disarmed it, and believe it or not the gallery owner plans on keeping the bomb. Keeping a bomb? What's next in this country--shamelessly profiting from a horrible disaster?

The police in Austin, TX didn't even know that the devices were in place until the good folks at Turner Broadcasting informed them of the threat.

I for one am glad that Boston authorities have decided to help Master Shake, Frylock(shown at right battling an evil Mooninite), and Meatwad in their struggle against these Moon based allies of Bin Laden.

There is no word yet as to whether the Bush administration will place the Mooninites on their terror watch list, or if they have plans to undercut funding for this fourth member of the axis of evil.

Who Will Tend the Flock

2007-02-01T05:54:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it turns out that there are as many gay sheep (per-capita) as there are gay humans (sheep must like Sinatra too.)

When I first discovered this, my faith was a little shaken. I asked myself how this many sheep could choose to be gay. Since we all know that being gay is a choice to affront the will of God, and not part of the natural scheme of things, because to accept that being gay is natural would mean we would have to treat gay people like human beings, which is something that no real Christian could do.

So, I did like all good Christians and just ignored the fact that studies like these (and common sense) show that being gay is part of nature, and not some kind of evil way of life. Yes, my brethren I ignored the facts and reality and turned instead to the Bible, to find out who should help these poor lost sheep.

First I discovered that sheep have their own prayer. It's in Psalms, and I had heard it before, but never saw the context. It goes like this:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

After seeing this I began to believe that God had a plan for these poor sheep.

Then I found the following:

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

John 10: 14-16

There was my proof. Jesus was sent down here to help the sheep--not just the sheep that followed him, but also the sheep who didn't know him.

So, to whom may the sheep turn for help in knowing Jesus in our modern world? Well I found many churches that go by the name "The Good Shepherd", but it seems that all of them minister solely to humans, which seems to be an affront to God's will concerning sheep. So, my search continues.

Maybe someday I will find the Reverend Bo Peep, who will look after the souls of these poor creatures, and apply some form of the bullshit (oops. It slipped) commonly known as "ex-gay" to these poor creatures.

(And don't try to tell me that Bo Peep is a fictional character, because I think we all know that she is as real as Jesus.)

Until I find Reverend Bo Peep, I guess I will just have to live in a World based on reality, and not hatred and stupidity, and just accept these sheep for who they are instead of making up excuses to hate them.

No Such Thing as Global Warming?

2007-01-31T09:54:00.000-05:00

It is 8 degrees fahrenheit here in Indy right now--8 degrees!

Mean while, it's 45 degrees in Hveragerdi, Iceland, and 37 degrees in Narsarsuaq, Greenland.

Now as you may all know, Hveragerdi is known for it's volcanic hot springs, so maybe I can understand this, but Narsarsuaq? Come on gimme a break, their average high for this time of year is only 27 degrees.

Who could deny that there is something just wrong with the weather patterns on this planet? Well, other than the Bush administration.

Get Raped--Go to Jail?

2007-01-31T07:22:00.000-05:00

Only in a radical Islamic nation could a woman get raped, and then be put in jail, and denied a legal morning after pill on religious grounds--right?

Well folks, it can also happen in Florida.

This case is disturbing at so many levels.

TAMPA, Florida (AP) -- A college student who told police she had been raped was jailed for two days after officers found an old warrant accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest.

While she was behind bars, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions, the college student's attorney said.

The 21-year-old woman was released Monday only after attorney Vic Moore reported her plight to the local media.

...Moore said the young woman was not allowed to take the second emergency contraceptive pill until Monday afternoon, a day late, after reporters called police and jail officials.

The police department in Tampa has said that has put in place a policy:

...that tells officers not to arrest a crime victim who has suffered injury or mental trauma whenever "reasonably possible."

And they have apologized to the woman who was raped--first by an unknown male, then by the police department.

So--the police department is sorry and really regrets what has happened to this young woman, and has put policies in place to assure this never happens again?

Actually, if you read the article, it seems that the police department is sorry and regrets the media finding out about the incident. Since nothing was done until "reporters" asked them what was going on.

Also notice in the article that:

...as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.

"They stopped the investigation right there" and put her in handcuffs...

So, not only did they jail the victim, but also lost precious time searching for the rapist. And I thought the police department here in Indianapolis had problems.

Slap Your Wife for God

2007-01-30T10:11:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago a Saudi high court upheld a forced divorce of a couple because they were of two differing social classes. The court used a school of Islamic law called Wahhabism for their decision.

I'm glad that I live in a country whose people are not subjected to such stupid religious rules, which tear apart families.

Hell folks, over here there are people that are so opposed to such stupid ideas that they wont even allow for divorce in cases where the husband beats his wife. To do so would show a lack of faith in God, and we can't have a lack of faith. No, it's much better to let children be raised in a home where Daddy beats the shit out of Mom, and the children, than to let children be in the care of two loving, caring men, or two loving and caring women.

I guess that God figures Hey you beat my son, so now beat your own. The sick twisted fuck.

Don't Bring a Knife to a Gunfight

2007-01-30T07:20:00.000-05:00

For anyone who doesn't believe in a sky fairy who commands and watches over us all; is not sure about the existence of this fairy; or in any way believes or thinks differently than Christians who think they have all the answers, there always comes a time when he or she has to defend his or her belief or lack thereof against an attack from some fundamentalist Christian wacko.

In most such debates the non-believer usually defers to logic, reason, science, or some other form of intelligent argument. The problem with such tactics is that fundamentalist Christians are far from being logical, reasonable, learned people, and instead use fairy tales, faith, and ancient literature to support their position.

So, how do you prove your point, or at least get them to back off--Simple: You fight fire with fire.

There is but one source for the Christian faith, and that source is the collection of morality tales, and fairy tales known as the Bible. Without the Bible Christianity disappears (as does Judaism, and Islam). Unfortunately, most atheists, agnostics, and other non-believers have little knowledge of the Bible, and are basically stepping into a gunfight holding only a knife.

Well, as it turns out, I can help with this. The main reason I became an atheist was my father's insistence that I learn the Bible as a child. This intense regimin of study not only taught me the Bible, but also showed me what a crock it is, so eventually led to my abandoning the faith.

The Bible is full of discrepancies, contradictions, and other wonderful pieces of ammo that, when used correctly, stops Christian bullshit dead in its tracks. I know where most of this stupidity is, and have successfully used the Bible against Christidiots many times. It is my intention to begin sharing this ammo with you.

As I see it for now, this will become a semi-regular topic covering one or two topics of debate at a time. Most of these topic discussions will only work against fundamentalist Christians, as they are the ones who believe that the Bible is the unerring word of God. Other sects, such as Catholics, have gone out of their way to develop arguments based on logic. Such arguments are relatively hard to counter, but fortunately these people are usually not the ones trying to get you to "repent" and see things there way only.

For my first installment, I will address one of my recurring themes (the fallacy of the Bible's containing divine truth), and one of my favorite stories (the death of Judas.)

HOW DID JUDAS DIE?

At the center of most fundamentalist Christians' arguments for their belief being the true belief is the line: "the Bible says;" "because it's in the Bible;" or some other form of reference to the Bible. According to their way of thinking, everything written in the Bible is from God, and therefore not only instructions and statements directly from him, but also the absolute truth. If this were in fact the case, then no statement in the Bible would directly contradict another, because there can be only one absolute truth.

The story of Judas' death in one wonderfully graphic example of two contradictory "truths."

For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he is the guy who betrayed Jesus to the authorities for thirty pieces of silver, and therefore, one of the big villains (something that could also be argued) in the story of Jesus.

As the accepted story goes, Judas felt guilty for his betrayal, and went back to the temple of the priests who paid him off:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Matthew 27:5-8 (I am using the King James version of the Bible since is the one that most Protestants use, but other versions say the same thing)

So, in effect, Judas threw the money back to the Priests then went and hanged himself. Then the priests bought a potters field to bury strangers in. Since the field was bought with "blood money," they named the field "the field of blood."

This is the story that is widely accepted as the true word of God on this subject.

But---According to the book of Acts Judas' actions, and demise were quite different.

Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Acts 1:16-19

Okay, a much different story supposedly being told soon after the events described. In this story, Judas DOES NOT RETURN the money. HE is the one who buys the field. And then, while in the field, Judas falls down, explodes, and his guts "burst forth," and everyone in Jerusalem knows what happened which is why they call the field "the field of blood."

To me, this is a much more entertaining story; like something out of a modern slasher film.

I have thrown this at many Bible thumpers, and most of the time it confused them so much they shut up and left me alone. But, there have been the occasional stubborn individuals who tried to argue that I was reading it wrong. Below are the arguments I've heard and my replies:

1) Judas was left hanging so long that he exploded. My reply: if he hanged himself then how did he get to the field? Answer: He hanged himself in the field. Reply: then how did he buy the field? Answer: He bought it before he hanged himself. Reply: But how did he buy it with "reward of iniquity' if he had given the reward back to the priests? Answer: You're going to Hell!

2) Judas was buried in the field then exploded. Reply: Nowhere does it say that Judas was buried, only that the field was for the burial of strangers. Besides if he was buried before he exploded then no one would know about it. But, there is still the problem of who bought the field. Answer: You're going to Hell!

Basically, no matter how someone twists the details of the story, there are two totally different versions of who bought the field with the "reward of iniquity."

Two absolute truths?

A common answer to this is that the Bible is the word of God, but was written and edited by men, so will contain the occasional mistake, because men make mistakes.

My reply? If there are mistakes, then how does anyone know what is mistake and what is correct? For all you know, everything you believe may be the mistakes. In fact the entire book may be the wrong story.

Their reply: Well I have faith in God.

My reply: How do you know there is a God.

Reply: The Bible.

My Reply: The above story.

Most people let go of the argument when confronted with a statement about faith, but if you point out that their faith is based entirely on a book that is rife with mistakes, and that they would be better off believing in a better written fairy tale, such as The Lord of the Rings, these nutbags tend to just curse you to Hell and go away to babble amongst themselves.

Praise Frodo.

In the next instalment, we will discuss the argument that God created everything.

Technorati Tags:

christianity atheism baptists jesus stupidity

Another Must Read

2007-01-29T13:53:00.000-05:00

I have read many condemnations, and discussions about religious intolerance, and down-right hatred of homosexuals, but never have I read as thoughtful essay on this subject than one I found today at a blog called the Atheist Ethicist.

So, I now label this essay as another of my "must reads."

Must Be Nice...

2007-01-29T08:17:00.000-05:00

It must be nice to live in a country where the government has the balls to stand up to Christidiots.

It seems that there are at least two of them out there.

Country One--Brazil:

Not only does Brazil host Carnival, which could easily be considered the hedonist's party of all parties, but they also consider the American tradition of conning money out of people in the name of God to be fraud, larceny, and money laundering.

Estevam Hernandes Filho (a.k.a. Apostle Estevam), and Sonia Haddad Moraes Hernandes (a.k.a. Bishop Sonia), founders of the Evangelical Reborn in Christ Church in Brazil were arrested in Miami on January, 8 for trying to smuggle undeclared money into the United States--they claimed to have $10,000 on them when they arrived, but in fact had over $56,000; $9,000 of which was hidden in Sonia'a Bible (which marks the first time I know of that this particular book was worth the paper it's printed on.)

What makes Brazil stand out in this case is that they want the apostle and bishop extradited from the US to them, on charges of, among other things, fraud, tax evasion, larceny, and money laundering. It seems that church leaders in Brazil can't get away with making millions of dollars in the name of God and then using that money to buy record labels, broadcast companies, and mansions in Florida.

If the Apostle and Bishop had been a little smarter, and done these things here in the United States they wouldn't be having these problems. Hell they could even be neighbors or business partners with other Evangelicals like Pat Robertson who evades taxes, owns broadcast companiesowns broadcast companies, launders money, makes energy shakes, calls for the assassination of foreign leaders, and engages in gold and diamond mining adventures with African Dictators. But, then again having a mansion in Florida could be dangerous, since Robertson has called for there to be earthquakes there.

Country Two--Britain:

Yes folks, Georgie's only substantial ally in his annexation of Iraq, the British Government, actually seems to have grown a spine, and is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6309495.stmstanding up to the Catholic Church over a proposed law that would bar discrimination against gay couples in the adoption process.

The Catholics, of course, want to discriminate as they see fit, and have threatened to close Catholic orphanages before they would give one of their orphans to a loving and caring gay couple. An unconfirmed (and possibly fictitious) source has hinted to me that the loss of unguarded young boys would put quite a damper on the priesthood's morale, and place nuns in a bad position.

As anyone who pays attention here in the US knows, damned near any Christian church can get away with discrimination against anyone for any reason. Hell, they can even blame them (gays) for everything from 9/11 to hurricane Katrina. It must be nice to live with such a deluded mind, or better yet to live in a country that stands up to Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc. bullshit.

Jesus is In Florida, Not Louisianna

2007-01-28T09:01:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems that my assumption that Jesus had returned as a female chimpanzee, and A Simple Girl's postulation that Jesus was a komodo dragon may have both been wrong.

By way of God is for Suckers I have learned that Jesus has been alive for some time and lives in Florida.

Jesus is a recovering heroin addict, who now preaches that all sin died with the first Christ. What this means is simply that sin is no longer a problem. So, now rape, murder, and being Paris Hilton are okay in the eyes of God. Hopefully, Indiana will now lift its silly restriction against selling beer on Sunday, because I don't always remember to stock up on Saturday, and quite often drink everything I have stockpiled on Friday and Saturday.

I have to say that Christ has gotten a lot better than the whiny ass he was the first time around. And judging by the photo below, his followers have gotten hotter than I ever imagined St. Paul to be.

Well I have to cut today's post a little short. It's Sunday, and I need to find the television remote, and get a beer from the fridge (I remembered this weekend), so I can get back to Sunday services.

A Must Read

2007-01-28T07:44:00.000-05:00

By way of God is for Suckers I found an essay written by an 11 year-old girl that does a better job of putting the whole Christmas thing in perspective than anything else I have ever read on the subject.

Then, to top it off, there are certain replies to this young lady's essay that do more to show the character of the average American Baptist than anything I could ever write.

This essay and its follow-up would easily classify as must reads, so for a worthwhile bit of reading check it out.

Bush to World: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

2007-01-27T12:35:00.000-05:00

Well folks, Georgie Boy is crying about Democrats being too partisan by not agreeing with his ideas.

This is same asshole who has spent the last six years shoving his agenda down the throats of not only Americans, but the rest of the World as well. Who invaded Iraq despite opposition from US allies, NATO, and the United Nations. Whose administration has consistently referred to Democrats, the French, and anyone else who disagreed with him as "anti-American," "pro-terrorist," "un-patriotic," "liars," "traitors," etc.

But, now that partisanship could potentially hurt him or his good ole' boys, it's a bad thing. What a whiner.

Sinatra's Gay Grannies Agenda

2007-01-27T08:54:00.000-05:00

Well folks, today I learned something horrible. According to Donnie Davies at Love God's Way, Frank Sinatra had a hidden gay agenda. Yes folks, The Chairman of the Board, The Voice, Ole' Blue Eyes had been using his music to turn the generation that fought the Second World War gay.

According to Mr. Davies:

One of the most dangerous ways homosexuality invades family life is through popular music. Parents should keep careful watch over their children's listening habits, especially in this Internet Age of MP3 piracy.

To protect families and children Mr. Davies has compiled a list of "Gay Bands" and Frankie is on this list right between K D Lang (gay), and Hinder (shitty).

While I normally don't worry about "hidden gay agendas", this one was scary because it could involve my grandmother, and quite frankly, visions of Granny and Rosie O'Donnel locked in lesbian sex is quite disturbing to me.

You see, my grandmother (who turned 89 last December) all but raised me from the time I was twelve until I went into the Army at 17. During these formative years my grandmother allowed me to listen to music I liked such as: Led Zepplin (not on the list), KISS (also not on the list),and The Eagles (Nope, not on the list), but she also took control of the music occasionally and listened to bands such as Glenn Miller, Count Basie, and Tommy Dorsey (for whom Frankie was a lead singer), as well as performers like Bing Crosby, Dean Martin, and, yes you guessed it, Frank Sinatra.

Granny used to talk a lot about how "gorgeous a man" Sinatra was and lamented modern society's lack of "real men" like Sinatra, Martin, and Bogart. So, obviously Sinatra had cast his "turn you gay" spell over my poor unsuspecting grandma.

When I first became aware of Sinatra's evil doings it seemed a bit far fetched. After all, this was the man about whom Humphrey Bogart once said:

"If he could stay away from the broads and devote his time to being an actor, he'd be one of the best in the business."

And whom the FBI even had record of being something of a ladies man, or as they labeled him: a seducer, and adulterer. This is the guy who won an academy award for his part in From Here to Eternity, and again for his part in The Manchurian Candidate. He was also in the original Ocean's Eleven, and one of my favorite movies: Von Ryan's Express.

But, then other little tidbits started dawning on me, such as one of Sinatra's signature songs I've Got You Under My Skin, which was written by Cole Porter (on the list), who was somewhat openly gay.

But the big give away was Granny herself. I remember her saying one time that she didn't care if Rock Hudson was gay because he was a wonderful actor and "very nice to look at." And then there was granny's comment on Boy George (on the list--duh).

Upon seeing Boy George on television, Granny laughed at first, but then turned to me and said:

Well he is kinda cute, and has a good voice.

In my mind I put this little comment together with Granny's teaching me that it was stupid to hate people because they are a different color or religion, or because of how they look, talk, or love, and that's when it hit me. Dear God!!! Frank Sinatra turned my gramma gay.

She will probably never admit her orientation, and I didn't see her at last summer's "Dyke March" in New York, but, for her generation, open sexuality is not the norm, so I don't see her as a hypocrite, and obviously still love her even though I will probably go to Hell for doing so.

I am so glad that Mr. Davies and his hate group helped me to see the light. Though it is going to be hard to give up some of my favorite music like: Nirvana, Queen, and The Doors all of whom made the gay list. The good news I guess is that Marilyn Manson, and Nine Inch Nails didn't make the list, so are still safe for me listen to*.

Other omissions include TATU (probably because they are only pretend lesbians, or Russian, or because they are cute, unlike KD Lang, and cute girls kissing on video is OK to Christians), and Britney Spears who should be on every list of music not to listen to.

A band that made the safe list confused me though. I would think that Flyleaf's song Cassie would be objectionable because of the lead singer's (atheist and recovering drug addict) reference to belief in God being like shooting one's self in the head. But, maybe I am reading into it too much.

Another bit of confusion from this group is their use of an Oscar Wilde quote to get their message across, and referring to him as a reformed homosexual. Maybe they are referring to Wilde's being accepted in the Catholic Church on his death bed even though most literary historians agree that there was no way Wilde could have known what was going on. After all this is the guy who said shortly before his death:

"My wallpaper and I are fighting a duel to the death. One or other of us has got to go."

It seems that the wallpaper won.

A bit of Ron trivia--I do actually like both of these bands.

Technorati Tags:

christianity gay agenda homophobia stupidity

Sexual Relations Day

2007-01-26T10:54:00.000-05:00

Well folks, it's Australia Day in Australia, and Republic Day in India, but here in the US it's what could be called Sexual Relations Day. Why? You may or may not ask. Well today is the 9th anniversary of the World's getting to hear the now famous line:

I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

Yes folks it's been almost a decade since the republicans here in the US were spending millions of dollars, and wasting everybodies time focusing on whether or not Bill Clinton got a hummer in his office.

In the years since that day republicans managed to assume control of the White House and the US Congress, during which time the have made it a point to severly ass-rape non-millionaire American citizens, and a huge chunk of the rest of the World. I just wonder if this violation would be considered "sexual relations."

More Christian Whining

2007-01-25T16:35:00.000-05:00

Well it seems that churches (at least the ones in the US) are crying about being the poor downtrodden masses again.

This time they are complaining about some bills going through the American Congress. It seems that were this bill to pass, churches involved in political lobbying:

...would be required to register with Congress and make certain initial and quarterly disclosures about their activities that would be made available to the public on an easily searchable government website.

The Lord knows we can't have churches being honest about their activities.

In my opinion (slightly biased as it may be) churches should be forced to stay out of politics, and stick to their time honored activity of brainwashing future morons. The Constitution has an entire clause about keeping churches out of politics which is based on Jefferson's fears about churches trying to influence policy and law thereby undermining democracy.

If these ministers want to play politics then they should drop their tax-exempt status, and become lobbyists. If they want to manipulate the body that levies taxes then they should have to pay taxes to do so.

Five Things About Me

2007-01-23T09:45:00.000-05:00

I have been officially tagged by Mojoey at Deep Thoughts with a meme. Being new to this I can only hope that I am getting this right by telling five things about me that readers may or may not know, and then tagging others with the same challenge.

As this blog is relatively new, supplying five unknown facts about myself is relatively easy so, here goes:

Fact One--I am a backslider:

Believe it or not, I was raised a hardcore fundamentalist Christian. My father was a fervent follower of the teachings of a man by the name of Garner Ted Armstrong and drummed the teaching of Garner Ted into me on a daily basis.

Among other things, I was taught that Pope Jon Paul II was the anti-Christ and that it is a sin to eat pork, celebrate Christmas, celebrate Easter, celebrate damned near anything for that matter. Pops also taught me that going to church on Sunday instead of Saturday is a sin, and that everything in the Bible (King James Version) is literal truth. I had to do a complete study course on the Bible under his direction.

I saw my first book burning when I was twelve when Dad burnt a Time Life book on the evolution of man that I had gotten from school. He also beat me senseless for having the book, and refused to pay for it because it shouldn't have been printed in the first place. Dad then arranged to have the demons in me expelled.

Fact Two--I am a widower.

In 1991 I married a wonderful woman whom I had been dating for four years and living in sin with for one. We produced two wonderful children before her death in 1994 due to an inoperable brain tumor.

I met her in college, told my room mate that she was the woman I would marry, and never looked back. My time with her was the most wonderful period of my life.

Fact Three--I'm a Vet.

I served in the U.S. Army for six years after high school. During that time I did nuclear missile security in Germany, and was stationed with the 82nd Airborne division at Fort Bragg, NC, as a team leader in C company 1st battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment.

Fact Four--I'm a music fanatic.

I am very passionate about music, and listen to music during the majority of my waking moments. I am particularly fond of 80's hair metal, punk, and 90's grunge.

Fact Five--I'm a good cook.

I have always enjoyed food, but since I could never find anyone to cook for me I had to learn to do so myself. I don't have a particular type of food that I like, so I dabble with all types of cooking. Lately I have been doing a lot of Mexican food. Not the Tex-Mex crap that is passed off so often as Mexican food, but true Mexican foods. A friend's wife has been supplying me with recipes that she got from her mother and grandmother. Her family is from some village in southern Mexico that I've never heard of.

Okay, that's five about me, so I'll tag Michelle at Mutant Cat since she's really the only person I know on here, and her answers would promise to be interesting.

State of the Union Day

2007-01-23T08:26:00.000-05:00

Well folks, tonight President Bush will deliver his State of the Union address to Congress. This annual event is one of the few times that the U.S. president is allowed to enter the congressional chambers, and is traditionally a time when he (possibly "she" in the near future) outlines the administration's accomplishments over the previous year, as well as the agenda for the coming year in upbeat and optimistic terms.

The premise for this speech is Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution which says:

"[The President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

The first such address was delivered by George Washington on January 8, 1790 in New York City. Thomas Jefferson thought the idea of the address being given in person was too monarchical, so he began the practice of delivering a letter to Congress for them to read, which lasted until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson delivered his address in person. Since then, with few exceptions (including Carter's written address in 1981), the address has been delivered in person in the form of a speech.

The term "State of the Union Address" came to popular use after Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 address. Before then is was called "the President's Annual Message to Congress."

The White House (as is customary) will not give details about the speech tonight other than to say that the President is preparing for the speech (shown here with study materials.)

But, it is generally agreed that he will come off looking something like the image at left, and won't mention that his approval rating has hit an all-time low, or that 2/3 of the American public oppose his new Iraqimization policy.

He also will most likely not mention the 27 American troops killed in Iraq over the weekend. Or the bombs that killed at least 88 Iraqis as the first part of "the surge" arrived in Iraq.

Though not sure of any of the details of Georgie's speech, I am relatively sure that it will embody the message that he has been giving Americans and the rest of the World for some time now. A message which is beautifully illustrated by the picture below.

Jesus Has Returned

2007-01-21T12:51:00.000-05:00

Okay, I am a big enough man to admit that I may have been wrong about Christianity.

One of the biggest tenets of their faith is that Jesus Christ would one day return to Earth and bring about the end of time, after which we would all be judged for our sins. It seems that he has arrived in Shreveport, LA.

As an obvious double-slap to Christian Fundamentalists, Jesus came back as a female chimpanzee.

According to the Shreveport Times, Jesus (now known as Tracy, and pictured at right with her mother and an aunt) was born to Teresa, an old female thought to be barren (a lot like Abraham's wife) who has not had contact with a male chimp capable of producing offspring (a lot like President Bush).

Since Jesus/Tracy has yet to begin preaching or judging we can't be sure what the future of humanity will be, but you can damned sure bet that Charlton Heston will be sorry for uttering the phrase "you damned dirty ape."

Obviously God could not be reached for comment on this little ironic twist of fate, but after many hours of prayer and a couple of bottles of rum, I have come to the conclusion that the second coming happening as it has in the form of a female chimp in the United States may have something to do with God's being quite the jokester, or Pierre Boulle's being the last true prophet of God.

Side note: Below is the promotional photo for the remake of the Scorsese classic The Last Temptation of Christ

Religious Affiliation?

2007-01-21T10:36:00.000-05:00

Just so readers are clear on this matter, I would like to say that I have no religious affiliation, and consider religious beliefs to be a waste of time, money, energy, paper, and brain cells.

As it turns out, there are many bloggers who share my beliefs on this subject, and many of them have joined together in a blogroll coincidentally titled The Atheists Blogroll. Being the type of person who enjoys being with like-minded people I joined said roll and have placed a link to it over there to the right of the page. Check some of it out---there's some good stuff there.

Now We Know Who to Blame!!!

2007-01-19T17:31:00.000-05:00

While aimlessly cruising around the web-o-sphere this evening I came across a site devoted to building up The President's Prayer Team.

According to this site, there are "millions" of Americans engaged in prayer to help the president, and his lackeys do the right thing. These millions are also praying to keep American soldiers safe (I guess the Brits, and others are on their own) despite God having failed to do so over 25,800 times so far. But then, this club is also praying to keep churches safe from attack even though God let two of his houses in North Carolina North Carolina be burned recently.

But, the thing that struck me the hardest was the following quote on the club's homepage:

Our liberty is a precious gift of God, bought at a great price. As we pray for our nation, let us first give God the thanks and honor He deserves for blessing us as He has.

So, according to this statement, the 1,224,423 or so Americans who have died in American wars were sacrifices to the Christian god for his "gift of freedom", which doesn't bode well for the future of American soldiers serving now.

This of course is just another example of just how blood thirsty the Christian god is. This is the same god that killed Egyptian children because their king didn't like Moses, wiped out nearly all life on the planet because some of his angels had gotten some women pregnant, and destroyed entire cities (men, women, and children), because he didn't like who some people were sleeping with.

Who in the hell would love a god like this? Probably the same people who would pray for a president whose illegal war has killed more Americans (not to mention Iraqis, Brits, Spaniards, Australians, Italians, etc.) than the terrorist attacks referred to as 9/11.

Politics

2007-01-17T12:36:00.000-05:00

Just in case readers are unsure about my feelings concerning the current president or his wars, I offer up the following little poster.

So you can have context for the poster (in case you don't already know) I offer the following excerpt from an interview with Georgie back in December.

“I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume,” he said.

He said he drinks a couple of cups of coffee in the morning and drinks a lot of water and, of course, no alcohol.

“I don't drink alcohol. I can remember when I used to drink, I had trouble sleeping at night,” the President said.

December 14, 2006

Sexy Beast

2007-01-17T11:09:00.000-05:00

Yesterday during a particularly strong bout of boredom I started hitting the "next blog" button at the top of the posts page.

During my travels down this route I noticed that there seemed to be a large number of blogs that had as their sole purpose the posting of pictures of women who are supposedly known by the postee. I also noticed a rather large number of sex-related sites.

While traveling through these sites I began to get bored again, and moved on to trying to find something else to amuse myself with, such as stupid religious sites, but the sheer mass of "my hot girlfriend" and "I am a sexpert" sites continued to bother me.

Don't get me wrong--I am a human, straight, male, so pictures of beautiful women, and intelligent talk (emphasis on "intelligent") about sex are both intriguing subjects to me, but when every other blog says "look at the pictures of my hot girlfriend (which I downloaded from someone else's site)," or "I know all about how to please a man/woman" it gets kind of old.

But---I also have this problem with wanting to belong, so I too will jump on the sex bandwagon, and, in the spirit of sharing, I offer you the video below. Note: this is not me, the girl is not my girlfriend, and I am in no way implying either of these statements.

Enjoy

Donations Being Accepted

2007-01-16T17:40:00.000-05:00

Well I did a little camera shopping as I mentioned I was going to do, and have found the camera for me (pictured here.)

Unfortunately this little beauty cost between 700 and 800 dollars depending on where you get it.

Once again I am suffering from a case of champagne tastes and beer budget, and have no where near enough money tucked away to afford this piece of modern photography equipment---so I will resort to begging.

If anyone out there has any compassion for my plight I will gladly help them feel better about themselves by giving them a postal address whereto they may send me the funds to buy the aforementioned camera. Just contact me here by way of a comment. I promise to use this camera for the good of all mankind by taking an endless amount of high quality photographs of such worthy subjects as me, people being arrested around the city, acts of stupidity, and snow just to name a few.

Thank you.

Note: In hindsight I guess I could have prayed for the camera, but I already spent my prayer money on a venti sized triple shot vanilla latte at Starbucks.

Prayer and Five Bucks Will Get You a Cup of Coffee...Or...

2007-01-16T15:14:00.000-05:00

Need healing? Need a way out of your life of sin? Need to know how to be truly and divinely stupid?

Well look no further. I have found a website, where you can obtain all of these things for just five bucks.

Or you could take the five bucks to the nearest Starbucks, and get something that's actually useful.

Your choice---remember Jesus Loves You (but then again he doesn't really know you.)

Hello Winter--Long Time No See

2007-01-16T11:15:00.000-05:00

Well, judging by the temperature and snow on the ground, winter seems to have finally arrived.

But, since I was a victim of burglary recently I don't have a digital camera to take pictures to show you guys.

I guess today would be a good day for camera shopping.

Color of Stupidity

2007-01-16T10:10:00.000-05:00

I got some interesting junk mail yesterday, and being the generous person I am, I felt the need to share it.

The waste of paper in question was a post card advertisement for Color of the Cross which, according to the post card, is:

A powerful, epic film which vividly depicts the last 48 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, Color of the Cross is also the first film to portray Jesus as a black man and to suggest that the Crucifixion could have been racially motivated.

This little post card bothers me for a couple of different reasons. First there is the fact that all of the energy and paper used to promote another version of this boring fairy tale could have been put to better use, such as toilet paper, or to keep me up to date about the life of Britney Spears.

But even worse is the plot of the movie itself. Do we really need another excuse for racism in the name of God?

Never mind that, according to the whole Jesus fairy tale, mister Christ's family was from what we now know as the Middle-East, and not sub-Saharan Africa: the whole reason this little wuss was born was to die for the sins of mankind, so whoever killed him, whether it was the Romans, Mel Gibson's Jewish conspiracy, whitey, or orcs who were searching for the ring of power, the killer was doing the work of the Lord which from what I've read is killing everyone who looks at you funny, turning women into slaves/breeding stock, and turning water into wine. Granted, that last one is a noble pursuit.

Admittedly, I will probably not watch this movie, but it is obviously nothing more than an attempt to give people another reason to hate me because my skin tone is similar to that of people long dead whom I never knew and would have, quite frankly, not associated with, and from what I have seen lately, people already have more than enough reasons to do this