Congress and the Whore of Babylon

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.

One Truth? Two Truths? No Truth.

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

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!!!

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

Scientific Creationists: Oxymorons and Just Plain Morons

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

Debate With Dan

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

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.

Rev Spitz--Terrorist Sympathizer/Ron Reader

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.