A PIECE written for Religiousintelligence.com – based on the results from a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life -Â says the finding reveal what social scientists have known for a long time:
Authors Phil Zuckerman and Dan Cady wrote:
Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.
Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.
Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one’s money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation’s poor — especially poor children.
They added:
They hate anything that smacks of ‘socialism’, even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do. In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the of the Prince of Peace.
They concluded:
Of course, conservative Americans have every right to support corporate greed, militarism, gun possession, and the death penalty, and to oppose welfare, food stamps, health care for those in need, etc. — it is just strange and contradictory when they claim these positions as somehow ‘Christian’. They aren’t.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
April 26th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Mars Attacks all over again – “we come in peace” and then start killing.
Its that mental schism they must have in dealing with everyday reality, and having their hallelulah jebus gods love and the holy spirit everlasting grace ay-men, nonsense that fills their heads, boiling over.
It’s clearly apparent to everyone else how un-christ-like they are – as they revel in grubby prejudice and greed, and despise everyone else. utterly without virtues!
April 26th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
They’re hypocrites, so what’s new?
April 26th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
The evangelical church opposite claims healings, speaking in tongues and prophecy etc., Derran Brown’s programme last night helped debunk some of the evangelical claims. The point I making is that people of faith must know they are manipulating truth. Jesus’ teaching can be interpreted in many ways hence different denominations, doctrines etc., but he too claimed miraculous miracles which again need to be questioned in the light of truth and honesty.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Do they also oppose gay rights while paying for gay sex?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Only one quibble: Right at the start you say “what social scientists have known for a long time.” Im pretty sure it should read: “what everyone else has known for a long time.”
BTW, I did a slightly tongue in cheek post on this subject, just the other day.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Evangelical teaching may appear to be at odds with Jesus’ teaching but it certainly tries to reflect Paul’s teaching. I’m not sure whether Jesus was the goodie two shoes many like to believe. For example, he said that his followers should hate their mother, brother, father and sister. To forget about burying the dead and follow him, violently overturned tables in the temple, called other religious teachers hypocrites and vipers. Pat Condell in his recent video speaks about admiring some of Jesus’ attributes, indeed paradoxically there could be hints of freethinking in Jesus’ teaching, although in reality I couldn’t see either of them getting on without one killing the other.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
@walter
I am with you, the ‘essential’ Jesus message is whatever you want it to be. The bible stories of his life (and they are stories, with no way to check anything) do seem to come down on the side of generalised goodness and kindness, but only if you ignore certain things. What about the unfortunate Gadarene swine? was it their fault they happened to be near when he was ‘casting out demons’? did he have to drive them over a cliff?
April 26th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
This is interesting…as a gun-owning, pro-death penalty, pro-choice, gay-rights supporting atheist, where I do I fit in?
April 26th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
It’s a shame things like this have to happen to tarnish the name of Jesus. Any rational man can admit that Jesus (At least, to the traditional understanding of him) was one of the nicest, wisest people of the time but organized religion has, in a sense ‘ruined’ him.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
@Jordan Bray
I do suggest that you read, or re-read, the Gospels. Granted these were written half a century after the events that they pretend to describe, but they do not portray Jesus as either nice or wise. Unless you consider it wise to cut off bits of your anatomy that have “offended” you, to give all of your money away, or to abandon your family, given that in those days it would have left them destitute. His alleged wisdom consisted of countless unsupported assertions backed up by insults fired at anyone who did not swallow them whole.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Walter/Lucy
I don’t think that Jesus did actually exist, if he did I’m confident that he was not the blond hair/blue eyed aryan type. However, if he did exist and were he to come back and see the evangelical tossers who pretend to follow his teachings, I think he would be, frankly, embarrassed.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
What Zuckerman and Cady said has some truth to it, but I think Margaret Knight summed up Jesus nicely:
He was, it is true, gentle and affectionate
towards his disciples and towards those who took him at his own valuation: and he was tolerant towards
self-confessed sinners. But he was a fanatic; and, like most fanatics, he could not tolerate disagreement
or criticism. Towards the Pharisees and others who were sceptical of his messianic pretensions, he was
often savagely vindictive. Any hint of criticism, any demand that he should produce evidence for his
claims, was liable to provoke a torrent of wrath and denunciation. Most of Chapter 23 of St. Matthew’s
Gospel, for example, is not, as we are encouraged to regard it, a lofty and dignified rebuke: it is what
on any other lips would be described as a stream of invective. “Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which, indeed, appear beautiful outward, but are
within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness . . . Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how
can ye escape the damnation of hell?” This can hardly be called loving one’s enemies.
Jesus, in fact, was typical of a certain kind of fanatical young idealist . . . at one moment holding forth,
with tears in his eyes, about the need for universal love; at the next, furiously denouncing the morons,
crooks and bigots who do not see eye to eye with him. It is very natural and very human behaviour. But
it is not superhuman. Many of the great men of history (for example, Socrates) have met criticism with
more dignity and restraint.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/u.....ccount.pdf
April 26th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Just the usual nasty, bigotted, utterly certain in their ignorance christians we have come to know and detest. They need a reason to be vicious and they will twist their “reason” into whatever suits them. Can you imagine the misery of living amognst them unless you were as far off the wall as they are?
April 26th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
It’s ok if you’re a Republican.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Thanks Walter, I was not away of this new Derren Brown show. Gonna go watch it.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
I wouldn’t go so far as to say all evangelicals are intentionally nasty and bigotted. Many go to church for friendship and the hope of enriching their lives. However, on analysis, it would appear from rational inquiry of the evidence, Jesus probably did not exist. The knock on effect being that religion is little short of a scam. Andrea Minichiello accused me of being nasty when I attempted to contact her. I wanted to know what made someone of her intelligence ignore critical thinking by biblical scholars and theologians. In my opinion religion reflects the nature of mankind. Exploitation, corruption, greed doesn’t stop at the doors of the church and we can all be accused of being nasty and bigotted at some point in our lives.
April 26th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
@ Robert Stovold Thanks for that quote from Margaret Knight. I hadn’t come across it before and for my money it’s an observation that is spot on.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Off topic a bit, but I received a lovely booklet in my letterbox today, entitled “Rhapsody of Realities”.
Anyone heard of this before? It seems to be mainly a bible study guide, but has plenty of ads for the church of Pastor Chris and Pastor Anita Oyakhilome.
Lovely big article in the middle on one of their recent big events in Lagos, Nigeria, where it seems lots of people were cured of all sorts of problems.
Lots of ads too for their web sites. Feel free to browse and have a laugh/cringe/sigh:
http://www.rhapsodyofrealities.org/en/
http://www.pastorchrisonline.org/
http://www.christembassy.org/
Pity I didn’t see them coming when they put it through my door, I would have loved a chat. Maybe I’ll catch them next time, as I’m a paraplegic and I have no doubt they’d offer to cure me too.
April 26th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
To follow on from my previous post:
Bloody hell!
http://www.pastorchrisonline.o.....8577aa0e59
I must get in touch with Pastor Chris after that convincing healing.
IT’S TIME FOR MY MIRACLE!
Is it just me, or was she just as deaf after he laid hands on her? In fact she seemed to have more trouble hearing him than she did before he touched her. “She’s just dazed.”
April 26th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
well i am an pro gun, pro DP and pro choice atheist as well. Gun ownership is a right in this nation. HAving said that I agree with the article especially about the “Socialist” part. Evangelicals definitely are an aggressive species, seeming to support our endless wars and defending the corporations. it’s a bizarre mix. But remember that some of jesus’s teachings didn’t seem all “love” – see luke 14:26
April 27th, 2011 at 12:20 am
The thing about Evangelical Christians is that while they blather about Jesus, they really know nothing about him. Sure, they claim to be Christians and they insist they love Jesus. But what Bible verses do they always toss around? Leviticus and the sexist, homophobic prattlings of Paul. The few times they decide to quote Jesus they select the angry things he said–the ones that go along with their Christian Warrior worldview of the world.
April 27th, 2011 at 1:04 am
Well, maybe I’m the only one who read the survey. But, I find myself wondering if BDuke and religiousintelligence.com are the ones spinning the truth this time. The survey is not focused on religion, it is focused on the Tea Party, in the US. And let me quote the qualifying text:
“The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party. But support for the Tea Party is not synonymous with support for the religious right.”
And:
“the August poll found greater familiarity with and support for the Tea Party movement (86% of registered voters had heard at least a little about it at the time and 27% expressed agreement with it) than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it).”
Wow! 27% of nematode voters, and 16 percent of fanatic right wingers express support. Seems like that’s an indictment of conservatives, not christians. While the Tea Party is a collection of low brow, pissed off amoebas, many of whom hate Obama because he’s black, it is far short of scientific procedure to lump their opinions with evangelicals. That’s just horrible science!
I hate that shit! (is there an echo in here?):-)
NeoWolfe
April 27th, 2011 at 1:35 am
Great article, sounds like you’ve got it all figured out! Also good job Phil and Dan!
Here I was thinking that socialism was stealing from your neighbor to help your other neighbor and salve your conscience, but actually food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training is essentially Jesus’ central message! needgod.com
April 27th, 2011 at 3:03 am
I am “Evangelical” and I feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Many of you who write are just as judgemental and hypocrtical as those you have judged. What are you so afraid of? That Jesus is True? That He lived and died and was resurrected just as He said? That His love and forgiveness and mercy awaits YOU – all He asks is that you come – in hummility – expectant that He grace is enough.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:40 am
NeoWolfe:
That’s the only pertinent statement needed, along with a notion of what the Tea Party stands for.
The other day Tony was ‘lying’, and now Barry Duke is ‘spinning the truth’. You should really seek help for that troll-complex of yours.
April 27th, 2011 at 4:58 am
I don’t know, this sounds a bit like the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I’d suggest that if most US Christians are conservative scumbags, then being a conservative scumbag is what being a Christian is all about, regardless of what some mythical character in the Bible was alleged to have advocated.
April 27th, 2011 at 5:20 am
Bubblecar
Arr, but being a conservative scumbag whilst spouting ‘Jesus is love’ would seem a tad hypocritical.
April 27th, 2011 at 8:01 am
Religion and politics have always been embedded within each other. It shouldn’t come as any surprise that certain religious beliefs are reflected in political movements and ideals. The Church of England “The tories at prayer” self serving in the House of Lords – and the conservative Daily Mail, this week, the so called champion of the Christian message. Then look at Palastine ripped apart by religious disagreement for centuries through political and religious conflict. However, if you want to get your political message spread, its useful to capitalise and have God on your side.
April 27th, 2011 at 10:28 am
@juli: I know I am wasting my time but here goes anyway. (1) You really believe that a god produces creatures who are evil and can only be saved when the god appears in human form and suffers prolonged torture?; The evil results from the first human listening to a talking snake and eating a piece of fruit? (2) There are thousands of different religions and cults and you have decided yours is the true one – why? (3) What happened to those who lived before Jesus – we must assume they are in hell. (4) Can you conceive that an eternity of torture being just for any crime? (5) God cannot be all loving and all powerful so which is he? (6) Why would a god have a need for endless applause and flattery from the specks of humanity on this speck of rock?; (7) Can you not understand that prayer is like asking an omniscient being to change its mind?; (8) Prayer is asking a self confessedly unworthy human asking a god to suspend the laws of nature in the human’s favour.
I could go on but I doubt if you are open to rational discuss. I wish you no ill. You have my sympathy.
April 27th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Juli, I’m afraid of you, who are convinced that Jews, atheists, Hindus, Jains, etc etc are going to hell. You subscribe to an ugly, discriminatory worldview, and are barely literate.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
‘I am “Evangelical†and I feed the hungry and clothe the poor.’
Juli, if you look at it a little closer I think you’ll find they’re feeding and clothing you.
The tragedy is, if it weren’t for governments handing over social services to acolytes of the Zombie Carpenter, we could all be feeding and clothing them properly anyway, and for less.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
What a load of crap. I go to evangelical church. I’ve never heard of this crap before.
April 27th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Alex
What exactly is it you’ve never heard of? Right wing politics? Right wing politicised religion? Your statement makes no sense.
April 27th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
First things first, I am a self-proclaimed atheist, not an evangelical Christian. However, I was raised by evangelicals and take personal offense on their behalf at this misguided post.
What the author fails to acknowledge are the underlying arguments that evangelical Christians use to support their policies. First and foremost is that of a profound faith in the individual and the belief that individual responsibility and accountability are absolutely necessary for individual freedoms. What distinguishes evangelical Christians from most other faiths is, likewise, their equally profound faith in the possibility of the individual sustaining a personal relationship with God. I do not profess these beliefs, but individualism goes hand in hand with capitalism and evangelical Christianity in equal measure.
I must come to the defense of well-meaning Christians like my parents when I read such terribly misguided comments as the following: “They hate anything that smacks of ‘socialism’, even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training — anything that might dare to help out those in need.†Jesus did not come to preach that the Roman officials ought to take on the burden of supporting the poor. It was the Roman Empire, among other things, against which he so radically campaigned. He was speaking to individuals and their private, moral obligation to serve the poor and downtrodden. I come to my parents’ defense here, because once again those ignorant of the practical, social application of evangelical Christianity perpetuate misguided stereotypes. The Socialism that Christians oppose is aligned with government-sanctioned social programs. What stands in for these subsidized programs, for my family, is their church. They give privately, to the organization of their choosing (their church), which in turn supports incredibly successful (though problematically ideological and religiously dogmatic) social programs that are ethically and ideologically aligned with their own personal convictions. They can directly influence how that money is spent to serve the poor. I take offense on behalf of my family at the slanted, prejudiced, poorly researched and non-critical look at the implications of the evangelical right.
We can discuss in further depth the positives and negatives of this approach, but it is motivated by such a profoundly different worldview, at its root, which is difficult for non-evangelicals to comprehend. Hopefully this may shed a little light on those well-meaning evangelicals in our presence, and perhaps in turn there might be an opportunity for mutual respect and understanding.
April 27th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
I get it… Christians suck… but why blame God??
April 27th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Stewart:
I’m an individualist, but not a capitalist.
‘Well-meaning’ means nothing. Those who would advocate torture ‘for the good of the many’ are well meaning. Doesn’t make ‘em right, though.
The job of a government is the welfare of its people. Oddly, the result of government staying out of social reform and anything else that might interfere with profit-making has historically led to filth and poverty, the virtual criminalisation the poor, and prolonged ‘debate’ via obfuscation over virtually every environmental problem for the past 80 years.
AleKnaui:
Who’s blaming God? No one wastes blame on mythical figures.
April 28th, 2011 at 12:56 am
Daz said:
“That’s the only pertinent statement needed, along with a notion of what the Tea Party stands for.”
I disagree. That quote supports the concept. But it is in contradiction with the other quote:
” than for the conservative Christian movement (64% had heard of it and 16% expressed support for it).â€
Let’s do the math, 16 is exactly a quarter of 64, so on the basis of one quarter of their base, we are making broad conclusions about all of them including those who do not support the Tea Party? Ludicrous.
Daz said:
“along with a notion of what the Tea Party stands for.”
What IS your notion of what the Tea Party stands for? Here’s what Wiki says:
“The Tea Party is an American populist[1][2][3] political movement, which is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5] and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009.[6][7][8] It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10] reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit,[9] and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]”
Any conservative group is going to be seeded with right wingers, but it has little to do with what these kindergarteners are trying to accomplish, regardless of the unconsidered consequences. And yes, to equate their opinions with that of evangelicals is bad journalism and bad science. AND I HATE THAT SHIT!!!! What the Tea Party represents is proof positive that mental midgets can change an election. Democracy, being a human institution, doesn’t work either. Technocracy might be an improvement, but, someone would figure a way to fuck that up, too.
John 8:32 says:
“and the truth will set you free.”
Well, that’s bullshit, you’ll still be a slave, but at least you’ll be trusted.
NeoWolfe
April 28th, 2011 at 2:52 am
The percentages you quote are of the general population, not of evangelicals, or any other subgroup.
BTW are you the same BeoWolfe who got banned from the comment-boards of ‘American Atheists’ ( http://atheists.org/blog/ ) for trolling, a while back? Just wondering, like.
April 28th, 2011 at 4:10 am
Wow, Daz, that’s some amazing bullshit, but I missed your bibliography.
Watch this:
“99 percent of atheists suffer from alzheimers”
Quid pro quo. And I never had a handle of BeoWolfe. And American Atheist, then, who knows now, was infested by bigots. But you wouldn’t know that if I hadn’t told you. So, as you seek attack points, I will counter. David Silverman, spokesman for American Atheists is on good terms with me. Krystaline Apostate was the one who started deleting my posts while Dave was at a convention in Atlanta. And it was not because I am a troll, he wanted me to apologize for accusing him of being Dave’s “right hand man”. LOL, of course he isn’t, he’s just sitting on the “reject button”.
So, there’s another pile of shit in your face. Can I offer you a napkin?
And the reject button exists here, too, Daz. All you have to do is prove that I’m irrelevent. Good luck with that.
Or I could piss off BDuke. That would probably work, too. I am not going to be cutting him any slack, either.
NeoWolfe
April 28th, 2011 at 4:58 am
This article is based on a panoply of false premises:
1) Jesus’ teachings against violence are equally applicable to governments and individuals
2) Jesus’ teachings against violence preclude the use of self-defense.
3) By advocating for giving to the poor, Jesus was preaching socialism.
As for the use of violence, Jesus did preach peace on an individual level, but when we see him standing before a government official about to execute Him He said “you would have no power over me except had it been given you from above.’ This teaching was further expounded by Paul, who affirmed the government’s right to bear the sword in Romans 13.
As for self-defense, Jesus said in Luke 22: “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?†They said, “Nothing.†He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Jesus wouldn’t be advocating buying a sword if He thought there was absolutely no situation in which individual violence was ok (e.g., self defense).
As for socialism, Jesus did not advocate simply giving things away for free. It is clear from His parables that He believed in an ethic of earning one’s living (“the laborer is worthy of his wages”).
Jesus would have also agreed with the old testament. Prov 16:26 – “A worker’s appetite works for him; his mouth urges him on.”
Paul also teaches similarly in 1 Thes 3: “Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.”
The Christian opposition to social programs in the US are primarily due to the fact that the programs do not ensure aid is only given to those who are working. Christians do not want to see people freeloading.
April 28th, 2011 at 8:18 am
NeoWolfe,
Strange that you should reach, so easily, for scripture – John 8:32.
I suppose that’s because you are a christian troll?
April 28th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Ryan
“Freeloading.” Right. In a world where we could all grow enough to keep ourselves and our families alive, with no rent/mortgage to pay, or utility bills etc, I could agree to an extent.
In a world with all these things — and hence a need for money to pay for the things we need — and in which no job is safe from being automated out of existence, or of ‘downsizing’ at almost no notice, what you describe as ‘freeloading’, I’d describe as (Christian?) charity. I’ve been on the dole, and I can tell you straight that it’s not the easy life that some would have you believe. The whole bloody point is to help out those with no income, as well as those with little.
NeoWolfe: My ‘amazing bullshit’ was a direct quote from the linked article. Kindly exercise brain before engaging sneer-mode.
April 28th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@Broga: It looks like Juli didn’t stick around to defend herself. So, I’ll try to give you a biblical perspective on your questions…
Before you read my responses, though, please check out this link:
http://www.simoleonsense.com/i.....iscussion/
If you reach the “Congratulations…” block of the flowchart, keep reading my response, otherwise there’s nothing that can be accomplished by further discussion…
(1a) You really believe that a god produces creatures who are evil and can only be saved when the god appears in human form and suffers prolonged torture?
Yes, God produced creatures (I assume you’re referring to humans, here) with the “capacity” for evil. And by “evil,” I am referring to acts or behaviors that harm others or go against the commandments of God.
Prior to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, humans either followed God’s law (Jews) or created their own fantasy religions (Greek mythology, etc.) to justify their behavior and to explain the world around them. By becoming human, enduring the hardships of human life, then demonstrating that death can be overcome, Jesus/God demonstrated His love and offered a simple (yet infinitely complex) way to connect to His creations (humans).
(1b) The evil results from the first human listening to a talking snake and eating a piece of fruit?
No, the event you’re describing is man’s first act of disobedience to God. I am not the type of christian that assumes everything in the bible is literal. There are plenty of parables that demonstrate that fact. So, it is not inconsistent with the teachings of the bible to allow for the possibility that the Genesis story is symbolic in nature.
(2) There are thousands of different religions and cults and you have decided yours is the true one – why?
http://www.reclaimingthemind.o.....-nutshell/
(3) What happened to those who lived before Jesus – we must assume they are in hell.
Jews prior to Jesus that followed God’s law (Old Testament) are in heaven. As for non-Jews, there are references (Romans 1:20, Psalm 19) that describe how people have an innate knowledge of God and their place in creation. I felt it before I ever entered a church (I’m a relatively new Christian). Either you accept or rebel.
I met a pastor a few years back that described “sin” as being “without God.” I think he was making a linguistic reference, since “sin” in some languages means “without.” Perhaps, upon death, you come to know what all your options were (heaven, hell, etc) and hell is realizing you could have had an eternity with God in his kingdom. More of a realization of your loss than a “punishment.” (I’ll probably have a few Primitive Baptists berating me for this comment.
(4) Can you conceive that an eternity of torture being just for any crime?
Not sure what you meant here… I’ll either refer you to my last answer or you can clarify.
(5) God cannot be all loving and all powerful so which is he?
I’m not sure from where you drew this assumption. You’ll have to back it up with some philosophical references.
(6) Why would a god have a need for endless applause and flattery from the specks of humanity on this speck of rock?
Why does a parent want their child to love them? Why does a pet’s owner want obedience? (Gonna get flack for that analogy!)
(7) Can you not understand that prayer is like asking an omniscient being to change its mind?
Prayer doesn’t change God. Prayer changes the person praying.
(8) Prayer is asking a self confessedly unworthy human asking a god to suspend the laws of nature in the human’s favour.
Self-serving prayer brings nothing to the person praying. Try praying something like “God, show me evidence of your love today” with actual, heartfelt conviction. I bet you’ll be surprised at the result.
I would love to exchange ideas on the topic further. I stumbled across this blog post in Google Reader’s Recommended Items section today.
Regards,
Russell
——–
[Most] people would share your opinions if they had the same information. If you spend your time arguing about the faultiness of other people’s opinions, you waste your time and theirs. The only thing that can be useful is examining the differences in your assumptions and adding to each other’s information. Sometimes that is enough to make viewpoints converge over time.
– “God’s Debris”
April 28th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Russell:
Broga will quite probably have his own reply and/or follow-up questions. If you don’t mind, though, I’ll take a stab at your list.
1: (a & b) You’re basing this argument on the assumed existence of a god. Nowhere have you justified this assumption. Please do so, before informing us what this god did or didn’t do. (And please, no arguments from incredulity, ie flagella/morals/whatever are complicated, so must have been designed. That’s not evidence, merely a conjecture based on lack of knowledge, and would only point to the existence of a creator anyway, not the Abrahamic god.)
2: You’re basing an argument on what appears to be a tongue-in-cheek cartoon? Still, I’ll bite. What contemporary evidence do you have for the myths of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection being real events? And by ‘contemporary’, I mean ‘at the time’, not several decades later.
3: You cannot quote the Bible to support a biblical argument. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. Circular reasoning.
4: I think what Broga is saying here is that an eternity (ie an infinitely long time—literally never-ending) of torture would seem unjust for any crime, yet Christians seem to toss out the you’ll burn in hell statement quite casually, whilst spouting off about ‘love’ and ‘compassion’. My own thought on this is that many simply don’t have any real concept of either torture or what ‘eternity’ really means.
5:
a: If god is all powerful, he can stop people from suffering, yet he doesn’t, and so cannot be all-loving.
b: If he’s all-loving, he will stop people from suffering, yet he doesn’t. The only reason an all-loving god wouldn’t do so would be if he didn’t have the power to, hence he can’t be all-powerful.
6: The god of the Bible does not want love, as we would normally use the word. He wants adulation and praise. No loving parent or child, to use your analogy, would put such qualifications on love. ‘Praise me or burn for eternity’ is infantile attention-seeking, not love. ‘Look at me! Look at me! If you don’t look at me right now, I’m gonna hurt you!’
7 & 8: No answer. You’re just spouting empty words. People pray for actual results; that their child will survive an illness, their team win this Saturday, they’ll get the job they’re desperate for. They’re asking for his intercession in actual events.
What form does this ‘love’ take, in response to these ‘unselfish’ prayers?
April 28th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
@Daz: My responses below…
1: (a & b) You’re basing this argument on the assumed existence of a god. Nowhere have you justified this assumption. Please do so, before informing us what this god did or didn’t do. (And please, no arguments from incredulity, ie flagella/morals/whatever are complicated, so must have been designed. That’s not evidence, merely a conjecture based on lack of knowledge, and would only point to the existence of a creator anyway, not the Abrahamic god.)
I cannot prove the existence of God (Abrahamic or otherwise). No one can. Furthermore, no one can prove the existence of Adam, Eve, Moses, David, Elijiah, Paul, Thomas, John the Baptist, Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, etc. Too much time has passed and too little exists in the form of “concrete evidence.”
I did not mean to offend you with my beliefs. I was merely attempting to answer Broga’s questions.
2: You’re basing an argument on what appears to be a tongue-in-cheek cartoon? Still, I’ll bite. What contemporary evidence do you have for the myths of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection being real events? And by ‘contemporary’, I mean ‘at the time’, not several decades later.
There is no “contemporary evidence” unless you count archaeological findings. I’m not an historian but as I understand it, the Christians living immediately after the resurrection of Christ believed He was returning immediately. Therefore, they didn’t bother collecting evidence to convince people 2000 years in the future. There are plenty of archaeological finds supporting the recorded events, such as the existence of Pontius Pilate as a governor.
As for the cartoon, I don’t see it as tongue-in-cheek. Christianity is the only religion I know of that has documents (mostly letters) describing a recent, public, miraculous event and that the documents can be verified to have existed within a few decades of the event. I also struggle with the fact that the letters were written several decades later. However, I don’t see it a ultimate proof that they are not accurate.
On the subject of contemporary proof, I have heard that the number of original and copied documents overwhelmingly outnumber the same type of documents for other non-religious, historical events. Yet, no one doubts the “historical” events, because belief in them does not challenge a person’s world view.
3: You cannot quote the Bible to support a biblical argument. What you are, in effect, saying is that the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true. Circular reasoning.
The question was “What happened to those who lived before Jesus – we must assume they are in hell.” We must agree to disagree on this one. I understand your perspective. Let me explain mine.
Suppose we disagree over the validity of court records from a trial in 1850; you say it is all forgeries and I say it is real. Assume the court subpoenaed all known written evidence and added it to the record. How do you verify the event is true or false? I show you a piece of evidence and you respond that it’s part of the forgery. In fact, if I found a new piece of evidence, you’d just say it was another forgery. I understand.
In other words, I am saying that the bible is one part of an historical record that convincingly demonstrates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred. Since it can’t be proven, you’re free to believe it didn’t. Let’s agree to disagree.
4: I think what Broga is saying here is that an eternity (ie an infinitely long time—literally never-ending) of torture would seem unjust for any crime, yet Christians seem to toss out the you’ll burn in hell statement quite casually, whilst spouting off about ‘love’ and ‘compassion’. My own thought on this is that many simply don’t have any real concept of either torture or what ‘eternity’ really means.
I agree (almost completely) with your statement. I don’t go around telling people their going to burn in hell. Why would you try to scare someone into religion? That’s just stupid.
From what my studies (reading the bible, researching the culture of the Jews and Jesus’ time, etc.) I’m come to understand that religion is not an act. It’s a relationship. (Warning: this gets touchy-feel-y sounding…) You study and learn more about why God does/did things. You realize it’s about love. Not about giving money, singing hymns, and blindly following a pastor/priest’s orders. You learn a little about why we were created, how we can live together and get along, and how (as one bible expert puts it) our beliefs are “actualized” in heaven.
To me, hell is dying and not being with God afterwards.
5:
a: If god is all powerful, he can stop people from suffering, yet he doesn’t, and so cannot be all-loving.
This is a classic question. The standard answer is “free will.” By giving people the choice to live how they like and to choose to accept or reject Him, God also gives people the power to do things that make people suffer.
If you’re referring to suffering, like from disease or injury… I say suffering is relative. Did you ever get dropped off at school and you didn’t want to go? So you suffered through it, because your parent told you too. Imagine it’s the same thing on a larger scale. Suffering here is relatively small compared to existing without God (see your responses to #4). An eternity with God is “heaven.”
b: If he’s all-loving, he will stop people from suffering, yet he doesn’t. The only reason an all-loving god wouldn’t do so would be if he didn’t have the power to, hence he can’t be all-powerful.
See my previous answer.
6: The god of the Bible does not want love, as we would normally use the word. He wants adulation and praise. No loving parent or child, to use your analogy, would put such qualifications on love. ‘Praise me or burn for eternity’ is infantile attention-seeking, not love. ‘Look at me! Look at me! If you don’t look at me right now, I’m gonna hurt you!’
I think your parent/child analogy is good, but I think your view of what God is asking is flawed, based on my reading of the bible (sorry, that’s the best reference I’ve got). Parent are strange creatures. We (hopefully) love I child to the point we would take a bullet for them. Yet, we demand obedience. But, later, we expect them to be independent and respect us (I know, respect is earned, not demanded). In the end, we hope they love us back, just enough, to take care of us when we need it.
I see God’s love in a similar light. He created us. He loves us. He saw how screwed up we were. He sent His Son to endure the same things we endure, then demonstrated to everyone that death is not the end of it (oops, I guess there might be some accountability after all). He asks us for love and obedience.
One of the reasons I sing in church — and trust me, you don’t want me to sing in public — is because I’m actually happy about the realities and possibilities of being in a personal relationship with God.
7 & 8: No answer. You’re just spouting empty words. People pray for actual results; that their child will survive an illness, their team win this Saturday, they’ll get the job they’re desperate for. They’re asking for his intercession in actual events.
What form does this ‘love’ take, in response to these ‘unselfish’ prayers?
I agree. People pray for things. It doesn’t mean that God will answer their prayers or that that the purpose of prayers. If it were, I wouldn’t have taken the time to post these messages; I would have just taken away your free by praying “God, turn all the people into true Christians.” But, I think you see the problem there.
Have you read the Lord’s prayer? If not, take a look. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray by (1) praising God, (2) asking for His will to come to fruition (in the life of the person praying), (3) to be obedient, (4) for the basics of life (food, etc.), (5) for forgiveness, and (6) for strength to avoid temptation.
This doesn’t sound the like the prayers you described above.
As for God’s love with respect to prayers… Prayer can help you understand and build love toward God. Not because you’re given a raise or your team wins a football game, but because you’re having a conversation. (I know, touchy feel-y again, sorry).
I didn’t post my first (and this) comment to try to prove anyone wrong or to proselytize. I just ran across this article and saw someone asking what I thought were valid questions that I might be able to answer. I haven’t even had a chance to talk about the original topic of this blog post, which has so many problems that I’m not sure where to start…
Regards,
Russell
April 28th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Russell,
The link you provided included the requirement that assertions should be backed up by evidence.
Yours aren’t.
Yes, God produced creatures…
Evidence, please.
Prior to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, humans either followed God’s law (Jews) or created their own fantasy religions
Evidence, please, that the former is not one of the latter.
Jews prior to Jesus that followed God’s law (Old Testament) are in heaven.
Evidence, please.
I am quite happy to accept the ‘rules’ in your juvenile flow chart, but it seems you can’t manage that for even a paragraph.
And don’t forget, you can’t argue that you don’t need evidence. So hard evidence as to who is or is not in heaven, please.
April 28th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Russell,
Here is a top tip – if you keep your points to less than 50000 words you might get read – that was long and tedious with no real argument.
Secondly your increadibly stupid comment about proof of the existance of ‘Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero’ is a classic. Stop reading your infantile bible and pick up a real history book featuring REAL PEOPLE and REAL EVENTS. You might actually learn something.
April 28th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Russell,
Are you seriously proposing that the evidence for the historical existence of the Emporers of Rome is equal to the evidence for the historical existence of Adam and Eve? if not, what useful point are you making?
as I understand it, the Christians living immediately after the resurrection of Christ believed He was returning immediately.
Yes, I agree. It turns out they were mistaken. We’re still dealing with the consequences of that mistake. Not which of least is the idea that we must bend our moral coda to fit an ideology based on a failed milleniarism.
I say suffering is relative. Did you ever get dropped off at school and you didn’t want to go? So you suffered through it, because your parent told you too. Imagine it’s the same thing on a larger scale.
Suffering is relative, is it? So, we should get some perspective, should we? Have you actually seen real suffering? The real down and dirty no-way-out rotting flesh starvation dead eyed nothing you can fucking do to help suffering? Have you seen that? How did it smell? Don’t ever say that is an illusion or it is justified by the reward to come or that it is like a child being dropped off at school. Just don’t.
If I needed to explain why I’d be wasting my time.
April 28th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
OK, slightly calmer now, but that argument that human suffering is just candyfloss in the great scheme of god tends to get my goat. It’s the same logic that had heretics tortured to death, because suffering in this world doesn’t matter. It matters.
Here’s a well known picture. The photographer chose not to help the child and later killed himself, possibly because of that decision.
http://www.dagorret.net/wp-con.....ulture.jpg
Russell, would you care to explain to that child that a god she has no conception of has decided that her suffering is a part of his plan? Actually, you can’t because she is dead. Really dead. That was it. That was all she got.
If you can provide evidence that she is now happy in heaven and everything is fine then please do so.
April 28th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
@Don:
“The link you provided included the requirement that assertions should be backed up by evidence. Yours aren’t.”
You assert that I have failed to provide any evidence, yet I direct you to eyewitness accounts. It’s not my fault that they were all gathered up and placed in the bible, a publication you adamantly believe is false. We are at an impasse. Let’s leave it at that.
“I am quite happy to accept the ‘rules’ in your juvenile flow chart, but it seems you can’t manage that for even a paragraph.”
Please do not resort to personal attacks. It does not further the discussion. I have very clearly stated that I see historical evidence supporting the events of the new testament. If a layman’s perspective is insufficient, I suggest you read a book such as “The Case for Christ.”
“And don’t forget, you can’t argue that you don’t need evidence. So hard evidence as to who is or is not in heaven, please.”
I didn’t argue that I didn’t need evidence. I merely stated that we disagree on what constitutes reliable evidence. Perhaps, with this too, we should agree to disagree.
“Are you seriously proposing that the evidence for the historical existence of the Emporers (sic) of Rome is equal to the evidence for the historical existence of Adam and Eve? if not, what useful point are you making?”
No. If you re-read my comments, you’ll see that I said the story of Genesis could be symbolic. What I tried to say about historical evidence is that the new testament has multiple copies of surviving document that date back 2000 years. There are precious few surviving documents from the same period that are not biblical (relatively speaking).
“Suffering is relative, is it? So, we should get some perspective, should we? Have you actually seen real suffering? The real down and dirty no-way-out rotting flesh starvation dead eyed nothing you can fucking do to help suffering? Have you seen that? How did it smell? Don’t ever say that is an illusion or it is justified by the reward to come or that it is like a child being dropped off at school. Just don’t. If I needed to explain why I’d be wasting my time.”
No. I can say that I’ve never experienced what you’re describing. I also have not said it was an illusion. I guess you didn’t like my analogy. Sorry. I can see that something about suffering hit close to home; You have my sympathy. I’m not sure a different analogy would help, if you disagree with my point from the first attempt.
“It’s the same logic that had heretics tortured to death…”
I would never advocate torturing heretics. However, someone twisting an argument to their own ends does not invalidate the argument. And I agree that suffering matters. I did not mean to imply that it didn’t.
Don’t be offended, but I’m not about to click on the link to your picture. I learned years ago that some things cannot be unseen and I already have enough of those in my head. Let’s just assume I take your meaning. Was the photographer a Christian? Because I propose that a real, deep-down, true-believing Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ would not take pictures of a girl suffering; he would toss aside the camera and try to help. That’s the kind of “religion” I follow.
As for where she is now… I have no idea.
April 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
@tony e:
“Here is a top tip – if you keep your points to less than 50000 words you might get read – that was long and tedious with no real argument.”
Sorry. I thought I would be thorough in my answers. Short quips are easily dismissed.
“Secondly your increadibly (sic) stupid comment about proof of the existance (sic) of ‘Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero’ is a classic. Stop reading your infantile bible and pick up a real history book featuring REAL PEOPLE and REAL EVENTS. You might actually learn something.”
Insults aside, your response goes back to my point. We disagree on the validity of the historical record. I ask two simple questions…
Is the authenticity of a letter written in the 1st century automatically suspect? If the age does not make it suspect, what exactly does?
I think it boils down to the fact that you don’t like the content. I can live with that…
Regards,
Russell
April 28th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Russell.
Last point first. I didn’t mean to give the impression that you’d offended me. (You’re fairly new at this game, I’m guessing.)
There is no corroborating evidence for some of the Biblical figures you mention, a little for some—though not much, as far as I know, that corroborates the Biblical stories about them; just the fact of their existence. There is much corroborating evidence, in many separate documents, from many separate sources, for both the existence and much of the content of the lives, of all the non-Biblical people. See the difference?
There are no archaeological findings pertinent to the crucifixion and resurrection. What we have is a set of documents which describe what was at first an aural tradition, changed by various interpretors over the years to reflect the current political situation of the times they lived in and the particular religious opinions of each interpretor. They do not constitute good documentary evidence.
Yes, we know that Pilate existed. We even know a little about him. He was a harsh man, given to a very much iron-fisted policy. Most definitely not the sort to act in the compassionate manner he is shown in the Bible as taking, toward a trouble-making rabbi. There’s some evidence to support the theory that the story of him letting the Jewish leaders decide Jesus’ fate was a later, anti-semite/pro-gentile fabrication, meant not to take the blame from him per se, but to put it onto the Jews. What we don’t have is any evidence that he presided over the trial of a wandering rabbi named Jeshua ben Joseph.
See above. There is no corroboration from non-Biblical sources, bar a footnote on Josephus that refers to the Christian belief, not that actual fact of, the crucifixion & resurrection, and the documents that make up the NT are unreliable.
I’d like to introduce you to the No True Scotsman fallacy. What you’re doing is projecting your own definition of ‘Christian’ onto all Christians. Your, evidently rather gentle, belief is not shared by all.
Sorry, but bull-guano. A ‘loving’ god who allows real suffering, not a mild fit of pique at having to go to school, but real, heart-breaking suffering, is not, by any reasonable definition, ‘loving’.
Here’s the first three of the ten commandments:
This is not a description of love. This is a plea for worship, adulation, kowtowing. The reward for this is heaven, the punishment for not doing so is hell, as described in other places in the book.
Here’s another one:
Not ‘He that doth good works’, or even ‘He that loveth me’. Just belief. By that NT standard, Hitler, if he’d made a deathbed confession, having been baptised a Catholic, would make it to Hell. Gandhi, who was exposed to Christianity but rejected it, would go to Hell. Tell me that’s justice…
See previous, re love. How does the alleged sacrifice of his son absolve me, or you, or any person of the responsibility for their own actions? If this god existed, I would spit in his face rather than acknowledge his ‘morals’ as equal to my own.
See ‘No true Scotsman, above.
I’m all for debate. It’s cheap, sometimes healthy, and sometimes fun. If it stops being fun, I’ll stop. You maybe need to develop a thicker skin where heated debate’s concerned. Heat is not necessarily anger.
If I catch you lying, I’ll stop.
If I catch you depicting yourself as less fundamentalist/Biblically literalist than you turn out to be, I’ll stop.
Other than that, lay on McDuff.
As to the original topic, you don’t seem to be describing yourself as either evangelical or right-wing, so … *shrug*
April 28th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Russell:
Posted a reply, but I went ‘n’ included more than one link, so it’s awaiting moderation.
And I didn’t take Tony’s advice… It’s bleedin’ huge. Sorry Tony
April 28th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
I direct you to eyewitness accounts. It’s not my fault that they were all gathered up and placed in the bible, a publication you adamantly believe is false. We are at an impasse. Let’s leave it at that.
We are not at an impasse and I am not inclined to leave it at that. You made evidence a pre-requisite for serious debate and I fully agree. If biblical accounts don’t stack up against the evidence, then deal with that seriously.
And I don’t need your sympathy for having seen how the world works. I should better offer you mine for not having seen it.
I’m not offended that you didn’t click on the link. You know very well what I am saying. But if every journalist casts down their camera or notebook to take up a child, where do we get our information from? How do people know where injustice is? I can’t recall the photographer’s religious beliefs and I won’t look them up. He killed himself. What does it matter?
As for where she is now… I have no idea.
She’s dead.
April 28th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Daz,
You should know it’s not about size its about quality……
Don,
That image is horrific but thanks for posting it, made me stop and pause.
Russell,
No real insult intended, but you are treading the party line that most evangelicals do. The ‘If it ain’t in the bible then it ain’t true’ approach is no way to broaden the mind. The historical figures I picked up on were recorded by the scholars of their time, waged wars, led empires, started dynasties and got themselves onto the coinage of the day. You are a breath away from claiming there was no Roman Empire.
Your point about does a letter written after the event make it any less valid. Hell yes.
Can you write about a meal you experienced in a resturant 6 months ago, can you recall all the dishes served and the individual flavours? So how can you expect someone to write about an event they were not even present at, knew nobody who was at the event, and which happened before they were even born?
Put down your bible and read the following:
Breaking the Spell – Daniel C Dennett
Cosmos – Carl Sagan
Any good history book on the Roman Empire
You will learn more than your bible will ever give you.
April 28th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Don:
That’s one of two pics I’ve never been able to get out of my head. The other was one of the holocaust I saw on The World At War, when I was a kid. Seriously heartbreaking stuff.
More books:
“Coming of age in the milky way”: Timothy Ferris.
Anything by Bart D. Ehrman, but especially his latest, “Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are”
April 28th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
What started out as an humble attempt to answer Broga’s questions for Juli has turned into a full-on debate about the truth of Christianity. I hate to wave a white flag and retreat, but I didn’t expect it to get this extensive or detailed.
You guys win. I don’t have the time or inclination to debate this; it will go on forever without either side reaching an agreement. Feel free to do a victory dance.
Some last comments before I go, though…
I read your response fully. The only problem I have with it is that many of your statements are based in the position “it doesn’t make sense for an all powerful God to…” Who are we to judge God? (That’s rhetorical…).
I watched the video. I think he makes good points, though not all are 100% valid.
I’m very conservative in my views, though definitely not a Republican. In my opinion, all politicians are bottom feeders and liars and I will not affiliate myself with an entire group of them. (Shudder)
As for being evangelical, I’m working on it. Give me time. I just don’t think anyone accepted Christ because another person beat them down in a debate. That sort of life change is way too personal.
Regards,
Russell
April 28th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Russell,
When it comes to religious debate the victory is often pyrric, well done for holding your own. If you have religious doubts don’t be afraid to question them, there are good folk on this site who have been there.
April 28th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
No victory dance. We only do that after you eat the babies.
April 28th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
I never eat babies! I merely sacrifice them on a bed of crackers at my altar to PZ Myers.
April 29th, 2011 at 2:33 am
wow, just wow, some of you please read the details on the poll before commenting. “The analysis shows that most people who agree with the religious right also support the Tea Party.” So we’re not only talking about having only a 64% correlation between religious right and the tea party, which is statistically not all that significant in a single poll, but the religious right is clearly only a subset AND NOT ALL Christians. How can you even make that leap? The Christian right (also known as the evangelical bloc) is a term used predominantly in the United States of America to describe right-wing Christian individuals and organizations characterized by their strong support of public polices of social conservatism. Wow, so the social conservatives are supportive of the social conservatives. Big freaking deal. This is NOT IN ANYWAY representative of the entire christian population as everyone seems to want to assume.
April 29th, 2011 at 7:28 am
As an evangelical Christian I simply disagree. Both evidenced in changes in my own life and a google search shows that followers of Jesus do change and follow His teachings. Not perfectly of course…that is the whole point behind the old testament law…and Christianity.
http://www.compassion.com/
http://www.christianvolunteering.org
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/OCC/
http://www.persecution.com/pub.....Jhcg%3d%3d
http://www.londonshelter.org/
April 29th, 2011 at 9:41 am
We don’t have a lot of use for sexist folk and anti-gay bigots here; sorry.
April 29th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
No it’s representative of right wing christians, a large proportion of whom would seem to be evangelical. As the teachings ascribed to Jesus would seem to be rather left/liberal-leaning; love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek, give unto Caesar, etc, there would seem to be a certain amount of hypocrisy involved.
This thread does seem to have attracted an unusual number of apologists.
April 30th, 2011 at 12:15 am
I have to wonder whether Christianity isn’t somewhat of a misnomer. One thing that has become increasingly clear to me is that what defines the evangelical movement hews more closely to A) hideous OT theocracy and B) Paul’s sterile harpings.
It might better be called Paulism. Throw in some Calvinism and you’ve got some basis for the irrationality demonstrated by the evangelicals.
May 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
I am an evangelical Christian and it is absolutly absurd to say that evangelical are more likly to shun the teachings of Christ. Flaky so called Christians yes but true converts no!
As for healings i have been a Christian for 6 years and can give personal testimony of healings when doctors and hospitals could do no more….God did!!!
I used to post on here last year but barrieduke got scared and kept deleting my posts,you claim to be the voice of atheism but get scared when asked simple questions which i find sad
As for the scam artists who claim to be faith healers you can rest assured that one day they will be dealt with “it is permitted once for a man to die and then face judgement”
Remember people that there are NO athiests in the afterlife!!!
if anyone wishes to ask my simple question then please feel free before this post gets deleted by the ones who cant give a simple answer
Here goes…….Q…Please give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and everything in it came into being WITHOUT using terms such as IF BUT MAYBE PERHAPS COULD MIGHT ect ect because after all who can be serious about there beliefs if is based on ifs buts and maybes?
When this post gets deleted and you feel you have the answers that im asking for then saerch Bill Boswell on facebook i look forward to your SCIENTIFIC proof as answers God bless
May 1st, 2011 at 9:40 am
For the benefit of others reading Mr Boswell’s bullshit, may I point out that he was not banished because I was “scared”. He was banned because he was a wearisome troll whose talent was only to pose questions but never to answer them.
May 1st, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Hello Barry long time no silence lol
The questions i ask are for athiests to answer Barry.How am i supposed to answer my question from an ethiestic viewpoint?
This is supposed to an athiest site that is full of “freethinking” people so why cant you answer my questions?
I acan give answers to back up my beliefs ansd will gladly do so.
So why cant you lot? Personaly Barry i think you are scared because if it were not so you would answer me and “make me look stupid” rather than delete my posts and palm me off with a load of nonsence and/or abuse!
Come on people surley one of you “freethinkers” can give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being?
After all once again you cant surley put your faithinto a belief that is based upon IFs BUTs and MAYBEs.That just wouldnt make sence would it?
You claim to be “freethinkers” people who live life baesd upon facts……so why not lay them on me….give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being
Once again God bless and hope to hear your SCIENTIFIC PROOF
Regards Bill Boswell
P.S keep up the silence Barry and just keep smiling lol
May 2nd, 2011 at 7:46 am
P.S Saying that evangelical Christians are the most likely to leave the teachings of Christ is like saying motorists are the least likely to buy fuel from a petrol station!
A Christian is somebody who lives TOTALY by the teachings of Christ,so your argument doesnt hold muchwater lol
Would you believe and publish a story that said “hungry people are themost likely not to eat?” or would you believe a doctor who said to an asthmatic “instead of using your pump you should use a cigarette or better still exhaust fumes?” you guys claim to be free thinkers so i suggest you start to think about what you start to believe!!
Now i still await an answer to my questions????
P.S this sort of stuff make you all look rather dim
because its proves that you will believe anything but the truth and cant answer questions on you beliefs, i will post links to your site on facebook so the world can see at atheism DOESNT have a voice!!
May 2nd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Wow. Just … wow!
Barry Duke, I can see what you mean. It’s like five normal fundies, all in one family-size package of bullshit.
Memo to self: Check back on articles that have disappeared off the front page more often. It’s quite entertaining!
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:35 am
@Daz what you said makes no sence at all,perhaps you would like to answer my long standing queation that NO aethiest in the history of man kind has been able to answer lol. Give us SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being WITHOUT using IFs BUTS and MAYBEs etc etc
This is quite beings you cant answer and it proves that you all have abelief based on IFs BUTs and MAYBEs lol
Call me what you wish but at least i have the bottle to stand up and give an account and proof for what i believe
All Barry Duke and the rest of you are capable of doing is ranting and talking tripe lol
But when someone challenges your beliefs you get scared or your brain goes into meltdown because you cannot answer,its sad lads
P.S i hope you realize that your rfanting and raving will NEVER achieve or change anything because when it comes to the crunch all you know how is rant and get angry rather than stage a sensible debate
Last year Barry Duke mocked me by claiming that Christians only come on this site to row rather than debate but once i responded to his challenge HE FLED lol
Anyway people i thank God for this site because when i see what is actualy behind your beliefs (ie NOTHING lol) it just strengthens mine
God bless all Cheer up Bazza
May 3rd, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Bill Boswell:
No no! I’d hate to interrupt your flow. You obviously find it cathartic or summat. Carry on old chap, I’m watching in admiration.
May 4th, 2011 at 6:43 am
All im asking you all to do is give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF (which you have claimed tohave in past posts lol) of how the UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS INIT CAME INTO BEING
Come on Daz dont be like Barry Bottler Duke give either give the answers or admit that your beliefs are based upon IFs BUTs and MAYBEs!
Remember my friend that “there is a way that SEEMS right to a man but in the end leads to death”
Once again athieism has no voice,poor effort lads ,i will leave you all to rant on about tripe because that is all you are capable of doing “but as for me and my house WE WILL SERVE THE LORD”
Regards Bill Boswell (an uneducated Romany Gypsy who left school aged 14) what a show up for you all lol
May 4th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Suggested reading.
May 4th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
how about the SCIENTIFIC PROOF Daz? either that or admit that your beliefs are based up IFs BUTs and MAYBEs
May 4th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Ah, there’s your problem, see. You think I have beliefs about these things. That I have some kind of faith.
Please go back to the long-winded rants about how an uneducated bastard like yourself is right, and all the people relying on silly things like ‘evidence’ are wrong. They were so much more entertaining.
Bored now.
May 4th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
lol once again more insults and WIDE WIDE BERTHS around my question which is once again give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being ?
Come on Daz i think your Barry Bottler Duke using a different name because you are avading the question in the same ignorant manner as Mr Bottler Duke!!!!
Come on atheists if there is no God who created the universe then please show me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the UNIVERSE AND ALL THAT IS IN IT CAME INTO BEING!!!
This dont look good on you freethinking clever folk lol
Come on iv asked a simple question just give a simple answer lol (sorry for the lolololololololols but i just cant help myself)
May 4th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
P.S Daz yes you do have a beliefe every one has a belief whether Christian,athiest or a jedi knight
If you choose to ignore the God of creation you then choose to BELIEF that the universe just came into being
That poses the BIG question Daz……How did something come from nothing and where did that something come from? All of these questions require a belief!! So yes whether you like it or not you do have a belief!!!
Now….back to my question which is ….once again all together now……drumroll please……………tension all around………….Please give me SCIENTIFIC PROOF of how the universe and all that is in it came into being???????????????????……??
God bless and really really really really with cherries on the top look forward to seeing your SCIENTIFIC PROOF
May 8th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
>supportive of the death penalty
I don’t think David decide to forgive Goliath, I think he killed him with a well placed stone. Compassionate does not mean suicidally altruistic.
>governmental use of torture
Like most sane people, many christians are willing to accept and adjust their beliefs according to the reality that terrorists won’t simply give up their plans for slaughtering innocents if asked nicely, and that coercion is necessary to prevent the loss of innocent human life. Besides, it’s not as if islamic terrorists have been slaughtering christians around the world for over a millenia.. Oh, wait.
>loving, peaceful and non-violent
People who support gun rights do so in the firm belief that everyone, not just the militant arms of the state, has the right to defend themselves. People who support gun rights don’t buy guns to shoot up schools. They buy them to protect their homes and families from people who don’t respect the law. I seem to remember the christian faith saying something about all men being equal before God, not, the state apparatchiks are more equal than the citizenry. It’s been proven many times that when conceal and carry or gun ownership is banned, homicides go up because this guarantees defenseless victims.
>Pursuit of wealth
Conservative christians are notably more charitable than their liberal counterparts – Conservative faithful give money to the poor, liberals lobby for more laws to force other people to hand other their money through coercion to support their pet welfare programmes.
>socialism
Ditto. Lobbying the state for other people to be thrown in jail if they don’t give up their wealth for your personal agenda is not “Charity.” it especially isn’t very christian. There’s something rather sick and twisted about people saying that a philosophy which centres around compassion and respect for ones fellow man actually supports a philosophy which states people need to be forced to give up their wealth, or suffer the consequences. Charity is not state provision.
>corporate greed
I guess it kind of eluded these retards that most american corporate elites are very much pro-liberal and pro-wealth redistribution to the 3rd world, and repeatedly show their humanitarian concerns by donating huge sums of profit to the less well off.
>militarism
Yup, disposing of genocidal tyrants is extremely unchristian.
First time on this blog, won’t be coming back. Glad I left atheism and returned to the church – As usual, every atheist viewpoint is infact a socialist mirror image of reality, blaming the evillllll right wing for every one of the worlds ills, and running to the idea of a benevolent, all powerful state to make things right. The irony that these buffoons traded in their belief in a supernatural or supermetaphorical entity for a supernatural state that doesn’t run according to youknow, human nature and selfishness, eludes these shameless hacks.
How about a hearty Fuckkkkkk Youuuuuu on behalf of all freedom loving, God-fearing, righteous Christians who stand alone in defending individual freedom from the utopian dreams of power-hungry left wingers.
May 9th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
I appreciate the effort and resources invested in this report. Even so, do we need even more evidence that “christian” and “hypocrite” are semantically equal?
It seems that the more rabid the christian appears, the more hypocritical they are.
Most of the problems of the world are, and always have been, caused by religion. For example, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, 9/11, and family planning clinic bombing in the USA. Then there were the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, and the dark ages. Get the idea?
Humanity will never truly be free until the black yoke of religion is lifted by the clear light of truth and rational thinking.
May 14th, 2011 at 11:40 am
Very annoyed at the assumption that gun ownership rights are somehow equivalent to supportive of violence. It’s already illegal to murder. How will making guns illegal make any difference? Annoyed at the assumption that valuing charity means supporting government programs. Annoyed that the study’s authors unscientifically interpret people’s views through their obvious left-wing bias without taking into account things like basic human psychology.
Annoyed that I, an atheist and socially liberal political moderate, has to point out this stuff. Annoyed that studies like these give fuel to loons like Noah Nationalist above, and are why people feel justified in questioning the science behind things like evolution and climate change.
May 14th, 2011 at 11:56 am
There’s no scientific proof of how the universe came into being, Bill Boswell. Now you tell me, so what? So God exists and made a covenant with the Jews and sent Jesus to save us? Sorry, that does not follow. (Maybe Zeus kicked off the big bang using a powerful lightning bolt. I demand scientific proof that God did it and not Zeus!) The only thing that does follow is this: we don’t know how the universe began exactly, yet, or that it necessarily even “began” at all. On the other hand, we have zero scientific evidence for God’s existence, let alone PROOF that he exists. At least with the universe we have some evidence to go on and can make educated guesses. So, again, I answered you directly, now you answer my question: so what? You tell us what it means that there’s no scientific proof regarding the beginning of the universe, and we’ll discuss your interpretation of things to see which one has more merit, okay?
May 17th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@Stutz
Thanks. I was wondering when someone was going to challenge this annoyingly ignorant troll.
@Bill Boswell. The problem is that you do not have the education or the intellect to understand a scientific answer about the origin of the universe even if it were provided. Worse, it is clear that you do not have the intellect to understand that your question is ludicrous and does nothing to advance your cause. We don’t know and neither do you. Scientists are working on it. On the other hand, Christians and adherents of other religions who believe that their god/s created the universe, are NOT working on it because they falsely believe (ALL of them) that they have the one and only truth and they have the supernatural power to infallibly interpret it. That’s the arrogance of ignorance and the certainty of fools.
It is people like you who give American Fundies such a bad reputation throughout the world.
May 22nd, 2011 at 4:58 pm
@dooflotchie
Is it important for you to “fit in”?
May 23rd, 2011 at 4:30 am
This post reminds me of Mohandas Gandhi’s quip: “I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
@BillBoswell: Before becoming an “athiest,” do you first have to pass through the stages of being “athy” and “athier”?