Tsunami
December 29, 2004 | 171 Comments
Which will cause more people to re-examine their spirituality: the asian tsunami or the 9/11 attacks?
December 29, 2004 | 171 Comments
Which will cause more people to re-examine their spirituality: the asian tsunami or the 9/11 attacks?
December 30th, 2004 @ 12:20 am
Probably an equal number, but I suspect it will be a small number.
During the time of the terrorist attacks, I was still devout. Unfortunately, I had at that time not yet applied my critical thinking skills toward religion. The result is that the attack had no effect on my belief. None. Zero. In fact, I found it upsetting and stupid that people were so willing to use the attack as an excuse to bash religion.
It is an entirely different way of thinking… for those of you who were never religious, I don’t know how to explain it. It never even occurred to me to question my beliefs after the attack.
Now, maybe this disaster could be a small part of a process for someone, but I don’t think it will shatter anyone’s beliefs. For me, deconversion was a long, gradual process.
December 30th, 2004 @ 5:40 am
overall, I’d bet the tsunami. It’s affecting far more people. But it will affect less American people, so we’ll hear less about it.
December 30th, 2004 @ 6:13 am
The tsunami because it was an act of god in the grand master plan and not the result of the evil of man. Since god is benign in christian belief, those hundreds of thousands who were drowned, mutilated by falling debris, lost their children, lost their livelihoods, and are now about to die from cholera, typhoid or simply starve to death in the aftermath, will be gladened to hear that it is all for the greater good.
Ironic d
December 30th, 2004 @ 8:19 am
I’d say 9-11, because Americans typically have a tendency to believe that life is good and that bad things happen to other people (and/or other peoples). American Christians in particular feel like God’s favorite babies; they expect their prayers to be answered, their enemies vanquished, their bank accounts and bellies filled to overflowing, and their noses and asses generally wiped. 9-11 was a direct shock to the smug belief system of many Americans because they (we) felt like “it couldn’t happen here! Not to us!”
Those Americans who are individualistic, who do and did rely on their own powers to “make good,” may have been confounded somewhat by the evidence that even the very most successful of us aren’t immune from unforeseen events and casual disasters.
This tsunami, however, happened to people who already feel somewhat dispensable and at the mercy of capricious gods little influenced by the preferences or convenience of humanity. They are used to seeing themselves as helpless and doomed. They are less likely to start disbelieving in gods than to start blaming themselves for being bad and angering them, or to ascribe the storm to some high-level froufrou in the gods’ abode.
December 30th, 2004 @ 11:12 am
I’d say the tsunami more than 9/11, because:
1. It affected multiple countries with different religions, cultures, political systems, etc., so there’s no “The US deserved it”-type of argument. No Pat Robertsons or Jerry Falwells blaming the ACLU, the fags, and secularism on having God turn away a protective shield over a particular country.
2. The victims were people of different religions (as in 9/11, but given the dispersed geography of the tsunami, I’d guess it affected more of a variety of religions than 9/11).
3. It was an act of Nature, rather than an act of Man, that can’t be blamed on a particular “evil” (i.e., wrong) religion.
4. Many of the tsunami victims were innocent children, much more so than in 9/11.
Here’s an interesting exercise – do a quick Google search on “tsunami and Jesus”. Unlike 9/11, no one is assigning blame for the occurence of the tsunami, other than the wondering if there could have been better technology for early warnings (interesting note – no one is saying “Gee, if only John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and the other psychic Super Friends could have accurately predicted this better.” Rather, when the shit really hits the fan, they appropriately think “How can science and technology make a real difference in the world”, not “Gee, if only we pray harder, maybe this won’t happen again”.). The only religious things I’ve seen come up in this type of simple on-line search is talking about how helping the victims demonstrates God’s compassion, yadda, yadda, yadda.
The religious have NO satisfactory answers to this one. There is NO way they can justify it with their religious worldview. The only thing they can say is that “God works in mysterious ways”, and because of the items I mentioned above, I think even that won’t wash for the devout this time.
December 30th, 2004 @ 11:39 am
“…I think even that won’t wash for the devout this time.”
It ALL washes for the devout bro. THAT is my biggest problem with religious folk. There is always an excuse for the inexcusable. All ya gots to do is accept HayZeus if’n yer a xtian. Accept some other BS for any other. It is sick and sad and far from over.
I think the tsunamis will have a greater impact on people’s faith outside the US. Inside the US, 9/11 just reinforced it for so many xtians.
December 30th, 2004 @ 12:37 pm
As a human, it is unfortunate that either event occured. 9/11 was carried out by humans and targeted humans in attempt to dominate other humans. The tsunami would have happened regardless of whether humans existed or not. Is there a spiritual component to that? Perhaps? Perhaps not?
Regardless, people will attach their backgrounds to the interpretation of such occurences, as it is in their general collective nature. It is an attempt to explain something they don’t understand in either case. I did not know that they were in competition with each other for a question of spirituality though.
December 30th, 2004 @ 1:04 pm
Jarod, you are trying to apply reason and logic to that which is unreasonable and illogical. Of course “it doesn’t wash”, but excuses will be made and reasoning will occur.
When I was devout, for instance, an occurrence such as the tidal wave was inconsequential; since I believed that everyone was going to heaven I figured it didn’t really matter when or where or how it happened that they died.
December 30th, 2004 @ 3:12 pm
People say that faith sustains them in times of trouble, but I always find my atheism serves me much better. Realistic scientific explanations make more sense at times like these than our religious leaders babbling that some incredibly powerful, completely invisible “God” planned the whole thing in detail but does not want us to understand. Scientists put events in perspective, give us a fighting chance to prevent or minimize future disasters, and thereby make them less painful.
The Asian Disaster should indeed influence people to abandon their faith in the supernatural. This event was clearly not planned by an intelligent, kind, just, or loving being. As such, it presents yet another huge contradiction to the faithful.
December 30th, 2004 @ 4:53 pm
Most American christians don’t even know what a tsunami is, let alone care since it is an event that did not occur in the U.S. or effect “moral” christians. This will quickly be forgotten by most. Besides, there’s no bumpersticker or ribbon room on their SUV’s for a “pray for the Asians” sign.
December 30th, 2004 @ 6:57 pm
God did not “plan” anything. We live in a fallen world. He did warn us of these times. I went to church last night and my Pastor taught on end times. This is just an example of what we read……. Luke21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
Luk 21:26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Luk 21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
December 30th, 2004 @ 11:16 pm
Do they have online access in crazy bag lady shelters? How is Joanie getting on here to make these posts?
December 30th, 2004 @ 11:17 pm
Joanie: Atheists think there is no God.
Quoting God to us is meaningless.
December 31st, 2004 @ 1:02 am
Joanie, I asked my Dog, and He said God hates Asians because there are so many atheists in Japan and the Japanese and Koreans screwed up the American car and electronic industries with better products that cost less money (and he should know, since Dog is God spelled backwards). My Dog also told me that 9/11 was punishment from God because of the way we treat animals.
December 31st, 2004 @ 5:02 am
That would depend on what “re-examining spirituality” entails. Certainly, the tsunami hasn’t caused any of my theist friends to wake up from the fairytale world and turn into militant atheists. But there sure is alot of pseudo-religious blathering going on about the need for “love” and “faith” in times of disaster.
December 31st, 2004 @ 5:53 am
Herm…there is something to be said about you talking to yer dog…..your comments are getting serious, wanta talk about it?
hehehehehehe
December 31st, 2004 @ 8:25 am
Herm,
You are very lucky to have such a relationship with your doG. My caT is just a pain in my ass.
;}
December 31st, 2004 @ 8:46 am
my dog wags her tail when i talk to her…..and i see her doing it, because she exists and is real…
but talking to an imaginary being? now, that is crazy…….
December 31st, 2004 @ 11:01 am
To add to my comment in post #5 above – Here’s an op-ed in the 12/28/2004 issue of the British newspaper “The Guardian” that basically challenges Religion to come up with an answer for the tsunami.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/story/0,15671,1380324,00.html
I’m generally impressed by the Guardian’s coverage of religion and op-ed writers on this topic, and this op-ed is no exception. Their coverage tends to point out the obvious flaws and hypocrisy of Religion. I don’t know how widespread the Guardian’s readership is in the UK, but I wish more major US media outlets covered Religion is as common-sense and reasonable a way as the Guardian does.
December 31st, 2004 @ 12:36 pm
To Andy in #8 above:
I found the below 12/28/2004 blog posting about the theology of Christianity and the tsunami:
http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2004/12/tsunamis_and_th.html
You were pretty accurate in your comment about what Christians will believe to reconcile their belief system with reality. I’m late to this particular blog posting, and have no desire to debate with Christians, so I don’t plan on adding my comments to this posting. But it is mind-blowingly staggering to see how people commented in this blog in order to fit reality into their brainwashed, contorted theology.
There were a few atheists who added their comments on this posting, and I thought they made excellent points that I would have made, so I’m glad the Christian posters got to hear the perspective of reality on this thread.
It was an interesting exercise for me to see how these people try to continue to self-delude themselves in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is truly scary.
December 31st, 2004 @ 2:29 pm
The human race is shit.
People are capabale of absolutely any evil in the right situation.
Your average Joe could just as well be a concentration camp guard in another life.
We should be grateful the creator has so far stopped us from blowing ourselves to hell with our nuclear weapons.
We shuld
December 31st, 2004 @ 5:04 pm
I’m sorry you feel that way about people, Anti Atheist, but I disagree. While people, hypothetically, could do all kinds of evil, in reality, they do not. Personally, I think that the human race is not shit, but instead is the shit.
December 31st, 2004 @ 5:20 pm
I believe that all people will re-examine their spirituality. Wiccans will wonder why Mother Earth is destroying itself and the humans that serve it; atheists will start wondering why they keep kidding themselves, etc…
The only thing is… I think the Tsunami and the fact that the Asians are now PRAYING again shows that more atheists are turning than most religious folk.
December 31st, 2004 @ 5:44 pm
Hmmmm, seems that Me thinks Asians don’t pray….
Misinformed, as usual.
December 31st, 2004 @ 7:44 pm
Happy New Year.
I boldly predict that a day of fasting and prayer around the world will prevent neither the next earthquake nor the next tsunami.
January 1st, 2005 @ 3:24 pm
What a bizarre world “the anti-atheist” lives in.
“The human race is shit etc.”— but your Creator God does not bear any responsibility for design flaws in mankind his Creation?
“Your average Joe could just as well be a concentration camp guard in another life.” —yeah, let’s talk about all the human rights abuses in places like Chile— most of these were performed by devout Christians who go to church every Sunday to take a break from their holy work of torturing and killing atheists and leftists to please to the Great Authority Figure In The Sky.
“We should be grateful the creator has so far stopped us from blowing ourselves to hell with our nuclear weapons.”
“The creator” has yet to stop anybody from doing anything, and most of the work done to abolish or stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons has been vigorously denounced by religious super-patriots.
And if nuclear weapons ever ARE used, anybody willing to bet that it won’t be religious fanatics who use them in God/Allah’s name?
January 1st, 2005 @ 5:37 pm
I think that anyone who tortures and murders for the sake of God will find themselves sore surprised when they die, and he is less than pleased. And, i agree that the next likely group to use nukes will be muslims. But I give them some leeway, In sort of a sick way. They are just living out the hateful rhetoric of their book. There is no difference between islam and radical terrorist islam. It stems from the teachings of a murderous pedophile who claimed divinity. But Christians, they have no excuse of any kind. Jesus was a sterling example on how to be. A christian who murders and tortures in his name is ignoring him completely. And they’ll get theirs. They’ll get it worse in the end than a muslim will, because Christians are supposed to know better. As for the original question, I did’t reexamine my spirituality over either disaster. Christians just tend to take things like that and look at them in the context of a Christian worldview. Nothing changes, we just look at it differently.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 8:59 am
“… the teachings of a murderous pedophile who claimed divinity.”
1 Abraham?
2 Moses?
3 Jesus?
4 Mohammed?
I don’t recall readin’ ’bout any “pedofilia” vis-a-vis any of these
1 baby-killer (nearly… was most likely drunk at the time though…),
2 drug addict (unquestionably, dude was huffin’ burnin’ bushes!)
3 paraphrenic, (demonstrably had a “god-complex” and supposedly thought his ma was a virgin! LOL! Funny guy that HayZeus)
4 hegemon. (Someone was going fill the void… why not him?)
No pedofilia though… You not sharin’ somethin’ with us omni?
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:59 am
I was talking about mohammed. He had a wife named aisha, married her at age 7. Enough of a gentleman to wait until she was 9 to deflower her. Sounds like a pedophile to me.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
OK on the Aisha thing. I’ll put aside my usual doubts as to the veracity of anything you post and accept your word on this for arguments sake. I’m sure someone else will correct us if her age was otherwise.
At any rate, I would NOT be so rash as to pick out any particular Religious adherents as pedofiles for such an action. Christians in medieval Europe routinely practiced the same thing. Some Mormons still do in the US. Hindu’s still do to this day in the poorer parts of the land. I’m not SURE, but I recall that some primitive African tribes also ascribe to the “old enough to bleed/old enough to breed” insanity. ALL of them ignore the FACT that it takes a child several years of living with Puberty in general, and Menstruation in particular, to get comfortable with it both physically AND socially.
I reitterate that it is People of Faith, regardless of the particular faith, that are whacked for preferring Faith in disproven abstracts over faith in demonstrable facts.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 1:59 pm
Yes, but european christians doing it weren’t really christians. They were catholics. There is a slight difference. Mormons aren’t christians either. True christians reject sexualizing kids. And as for our faith, the demonstrable facts supporting it make our relatively few necessary leaps of faith easy. I dont expect you to understand, as a nonbeleiver, but i’m just telling you the way we see it.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 7:05 pm
Actually, Catholics are Christians, and, in reality, are the only legitimate faith. If you are not a member of the Church, which Jesus himself started, you are going straight to hell.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
Well, they profess christianity, but theres too much “salvation by works” garbage, and they treat mary like shes the fourth member of the trinity. (I know, it wouldn’t be a trinity then). Deification of people is idolatry. God hates that. And Jesus started the church of christ, not catholic, methodist, etc. That all came later.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 7:43 pm
Jesus selected Peter as the first Pope. Any who do not abide by the Catholic doctrine are going directly against Jesus’ wishes. All the nonsense about reading the Bible and interpreting it for yourself. How vain that you would believe that you would be more blessed than the legacy that Jesus started!
January 2nd, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
I agree that most Americans will disregard the tsunami, since it didn’t happen here. As for re-examining spirituality…most people will just use both of these as confirmation of the second coming and wave them around as proof to those of us who know better.
ps There is no such thing as hell.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 8:37 pm
Jesus never intended for mary to be worshipped, or that works were a part of salvation. If he invented catholicism, the current incarnation, as well as those responsible for the inquisition, bear absoloutley no resemblance to the original idea and have ceased to be Jesus’s agent. I never saw a bible that had Jesus as saying, “worship my mother as you would me”. It’s nonsense.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
ahhhh, omni…….and your version is NOT nonsense…
i see…..
thanks for clearing that up!
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
But, omni, the Catholic Church does not condone Mary worship. The people who worship Mary are not true Catholics. And, how can you say that the current incarnation is not what it should be? The Pope is guided by God; He would never let the “One True Faith” become meaningless and wrong. No, its legacy has more legitamacy than one person re-interpreting the Bible on a whim.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
“I never saw a bible that had Jesus as saying, “worship my mother as you would me”. It’s nonsense.”
I never read a bible that had Jesus saying “worship me”. As a matter of fact, you entirely ignore the case that Jesus was a homosexual. Sure, he kind of side-stepped the issue by alluding to “something” his “father” said in the OT. But look closely man, he had tonnes of women friends with whom he supposedly didn’t have sex; he hung with a bunch of guys who “worshipped” him; he was thin, neat & unmarried in his 30s! (alright the last one is from Seinfeld…)
Now, I do DOUBT that Dude was gay. But you need to be honest here: there are more Facts in the gospels supporting THAT supposition then there are supporting his diety. IF he lived, which I believe he did, he was a coolish shyster who lied and misled people for Good reasons. I read him telling people to live as he does. That’s not very realistic but it is at least a believable proposition.
He was anything but God.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:36 pm
Living as the bible says is not a whim. No where in the bible does it say that catholicism is the one true route to heaven. If that were the case, i’d be a catholic. And if mary worship isn’t catholicism, I have yet to meet a true catholic. Besides, works are a symptom of salvation, not a means of it. I also have yet to meet a catholic that will confirm this. I have no regard for a denomination that breaks biblical rule, and has kept people in the dark for centuries during the dark ages by refusing to translate the bible out of latin into the common vernacular, thus forcing people to just take their word for it without any exposure to the actual scripture whatsoever. They abused their power for centuries by telling the populace their untrue interpretations, and killing or jailing those who questioned or attempted to read the bible and interpret for themselves. Align myself with that? never. I’ll never have that much blood and hellbound souls on my conscience by association with a sect like that.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:42 pm
Were he a shyster, there would have been witnesses stepping forward to tell of the illegitimacy of his miracles. There were none, power hungry pharisees aside. (Who werent even there at the time). The people saw, and the people believed, and wisely so. And you’re right. He wasn’t gay. The idea is preposterous. He was chaste.
January 2nd, 2005 @ 9:55 pm
omni, at that time, people just did not know how to read….that is why churches at the time had all those paintings, icons, sculptures, etc, so the people could understand what it was all about…..
all that visual imagery was for the benefit of the peasant followers….
however, omni….which biblical rule have you not broken lately? i bet there’s more than a few…..
January 2nd, 2005 @ 10:03 pm
It doesn’t say that Catholicism is the one route because it only came to be known as Catholicism afterwards.
You must have not yet met a true Catholic, then.
What Eva said.
Never align yourself with Jesus’ One True Faith? Because a couple of His followers messed up and killed a couple people? Really, how is that different than worshipping the God of the Bible who smites women and children?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 12:34 am
Once again, someone claiming to be god is using alphabet food products to spell out things for me to pass on:
1. On the tsunami thing,
January 3rd, 2005 @ 6:49 am
God kills because he created it all. I can throw away a drawing because I created it. So it is with God. And yes, I have transgressed against the bible. But, I try not to. For me, sinning is an aberration that I try to minimize. Its not policy.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 7:10 am
“…But, I try not to. For me, sinning is an aberration that I try to minimize. Its not policy.”
All I can say to that is “good for you amigo!” Regardless of what “transcript” you read from. Good Luck and Happy New Year.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 7:23 am
omni, you are against catholics because you said: “I have no regard for a denomination that breaks biblical rule”.
so, again….do you follow every biblical rule?
and if you can, tell which one(s) you do not, and why?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 7:27 am
Here ya go omni. Give it some honest effort and intellectually put aside your “Faith” for a second. It’ll still be there if you want it when you’re done reading this. The guy is Obviously not perfect. I think its cuz he’s Human or something… ;}
http://www.geocities.com/logic_faith/miracles.htm
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:34 am
Right, God can kill because he created all and it is fine and just. Just like the way the Catholic Church killed in the name of God, as they were obviously doing their Lord’s bidding. Why is it wrong for them to do what is obviously supported by their God?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:39 am
(haven’t read the other comments)
I’d say the tsunami, because with 9/11 at least you could blame other humans (and perhaps their religion), and not “nature” (which on a traditional Christian viewpoint is presumably either controlled or controllable by God).
Humans can err from the path of the Lord (free will and all), but not nature. So you can’t blame God for 9/11, but you *can* blame God for the tsunamis. And you need to have some pretty crazy logic to believe in an all-loving God who would kill (or all to die) something like 150,000 people (not sure what the number is know).
Of course, more people die of starvation/malnutrition all the time, but that can be blamed on humans.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
The Guardian continues the god and Tsunami debate today with “Where is God in all this? – the problem for religions”:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tsunami/story/0,15671,1382417,00.html Apparently religious leaders are having a hard time trying to make sense of why god allowed the tectonic plates under the Indian Ocean to shift. Not long ago they would have been shouting from the pulpit that it was god’s punishment for not having gone to church the previous sunday, or for lusting after the neighbour’s wife, or for listening to jazz, or some other depraved sin. Unfortunately it is no longer politically correct to argue that god is into mass punishment, which leaves the priests, imans and rabbis in a bit of a tight corner to justify the Tsunami. Thus the general view from these men of wisdom is that they haven’t got a clue why god is into killing hundreds of thousands of people, but don’t worry folks, as one particularly astute catholic bishop reminds us – “disaster intensifies love” . Hmmm…
January 3rd, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
Omni and Andy (mostly Andy, I think):
Well done so far, keep up the good work.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 5:33 pm
Simple. The people are permitted to deal in death on matters of transgression of the law, rape murder, etc. But the domain of punishing the nonbeleiver is strictly the job of god. The catholic church took those matters into their own hands, thus playing god. Killing in gods name, and god actually sanctioning it are two different things. As for eva and mcbains, the laws I transgress are varied. The point is that I recognize my failure to obey them at times as a problem, and I strengthen myself so that I may do it less, or not at all. God does not expect perfection. Were it attainable, Jesus needn’t have died. Its the pursuit of it that god expects, and in that respect a man is always evolving in character. The attainment will be in the afterlife, all god wants in life is the “good old college try”. Its the person in your heart that he sees.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Headline: “Asia’s Tsunami Death Toll Hits 150,000″
Theist: “That’s just god doin’ his god thing.”
You can’t see him, he gives you no proof of his existence, you can’t understand him, you aren’t clued into his motives, you can never measure up, you will always be a sinner, he kills on a whimsy, he subjects his followers to diabolical tests of “faith” that require them to prove they really really believe, you’re not supposed to ask why, it requires incredible feats of pretzel logic to try to counter any of the hundreds of arguments against his existence, the vast majority of the world’s population is going to hell (or wherever) because they aren’t worshipping the right one in exactly the right way… I just don’t get it. How is accepting all of this more fulfilling/better/more reasonable than believing in no god at all? It makes me want to cry out of frustration and pity to think how much better the world could be if people redirected their energies instead of trying to please an unexplainable entity who creates things in an unexplainable way, through unexplainable means, for unexplainable reasons (shoutout to Erik from http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/10/simpleminded.php).
January 3rd, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
Why do you believe that? In the Bible, God has given direct orders to His followers to slaughter non-believers. How can you say that the actions of the Catholic Church were not direct mandates from God?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
omni, you should consider the fact that if you were to do everything that your god in the bible tells you to do, you would be in jail…
right? see where i’m going with this?
so, being the case that you can’t do everything that your god in the bible tells you to do, how can you critizice the catholics because they “break biblical rule”?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
Anything that would land me in jail in the bible is old testament, which is law superceded by grace in the new testament. The new testament never saw god ordering a slaughter. Old testament, sure. But with the death and resurrection of Christ, the rules changed. The old testament is mostly history, a prelude to the new testament and a geneology. The word of god, sure, but no longer law. Again, eva, and for the last time, breaking biblical rule from time to time in error is not the issue. We all do that. The issue is the catholic church making unrepentant policy of it, and telling the masses that it’s truth. So, andy, the catholics were not following god’s mandate. They were, like every other cult, taking his word out of context and applying it in a manner which lent itself to the increase of their hold on the populace.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
trixie, you pity us? Funny……
January 3rd, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
Instead of all this pretzel logic, isn’t it simpler to acknowledge that we invented God to explain natural events we did not understand, like the beginning of life, the origin of species, volcanoes, tsunamis, diseases and death? Just for fun, replace “God” with “Mother Nature” in these arguments.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 8:15 pm
But, omni, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one in the same. Where does it say in the New Testament that God’s enemies should not be slaughtered? Why do you claim that the rules changed with the death and resurrection of Christ? How can it be “the word of god,…but no longer law”? It certainly seems that the Catholics are not the ones taking his word out of context.
Additionally, you are saying that because some Catholics did something you disagree with, all of them are wrong.
ocmpoma, thanks, I’m glad you appreciate my comments.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 8:35 pm
Andy, apparently Jesus came to pay for all sins, including God’s own big kakas like creating Lucifer, the snake, homosexuals, making Adam and Eve too horny, mongering war, and so on.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 9:12 pm
Andy, I am saying, without malice, that you need to do some more research before you continue this debate. Read the new testament. Then we’ll talk.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
i’ve heard that reasoning before, omni…….and like andy said, it’s the same god…..and i thought that your criticism of the catholics was that they broke biblical rule……so now you say that breaking it from time to time is mot the issue? come on, omni….it is as absurd for them to “break biblical rule” than for you to say that the catholics have, and, presumably, that your version of christianity does not…..(otherwise, you could be a catholic, wouldn’t you?)
January 3rd, 2005 @ 10:25 pm
omni, I am familiar with the Bible. However, you are making claims regarding what the Bible says; why not just provide the verses you think are pertinent?
And, doesn’t Eva have a point? Catholics break “biblical rule”s, and you do, too. Why then are you a “true Christian” while the Catholics are not?
Also, what about what June said? If you are going to write off the Old Testament, are you saying that Jesus had to die for the sins of the Father?
January 3rd, 2005 @ 10:37 pm
The old testament is mostly history, a prelude to the new testament and a geneology. The word of god, sure, but no longer law.
Let’s take homosexuality, for example: expressly forbidden in the Old Testament, but not mentioned in the New Testament.
So how come you thumpers make such a big deal out of it?
Jesus didn’t even think it was important enough to mention even one single time!
My own personal hypothesis is that a LOT of ‘thumpers are closet homosexuals.
Why do I say that?
Because thumpers get all in a lather about homosexuality, while completely ignoring other ‘non-normal’ behaviour— let’s say, for example bestiality or necrophilia!
Why is that, thumpers? Inquiring minds want to know!
January 3rd, 2005 @ 10:44 pm
I’d imagine that the other behaviors just don’t occur with the same frequency as homosexuality. Additionally, there is a lot less support for bestiality than there is for homosexuality. In other words, I have never heard of a “bestiality rights” parade.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
You are still the recipients of God’s Grace even though you donot believe. No one ends up in hell as a result of God’s doing. I noticed people always talk about “the future this and the future that,” how do you know you even have a future. I am speaking to any atheist on this forum. Can a scientist guarantee your future? Can you guarantee your future? It’s hard to go to hell. You gotta be stubborn and rebellous. God says in Ezekial that the death of the wicked, he does not take pleasure in. The bible is full of wisdom. As I have said before, tsunami, 911, these are not God’s doing. He did tell us that these things will happen. Well I’ll go back to my homeless shelter now.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:22 pm
Yes, Glen homosexuality is mentioned in the book of Romans.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:24 pm
Andy, if you were familiar with the bible, you wouldn’t be making comments about things that I have already clarified. Read the new testament, then come back. Please, your’e making a fool of yourself.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
Please, joanie, talk to these people for a bit. Their thickheadedness is baffling me.
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:36 pm
Omni you are on the wrong forum to discuss theology. I was going to say that it’s like talking to a bunch of rocks but you know what our Bible says about rocks? Remember, it says that if we don’t worship him that the very rocks would cry out. Confusion comes to mind when I read this whole thread and you know who the author of confusion is. I am just giving you some sisterly advice. You are debating issues that really needs to stay in the family for debate. You will get nowhere in this. I am praying for you. agape! joanie
January 3rd, 2005 @ 11:40 pm
Hey Omni—go to calvary chapel knoxville on google. Get refreshed!!!!!heres another one, csnradio.com Get refreshed! click on live webcast. joanie
January 4th, 2005 @ 12:25 am
Joanie, you still don’t get it.
It’s not that we don’t believe in God.
It’s that there is no God to believe in!
January 4th, 2005 @ 1:23 am
June what are your core beliefs as a human being on this planet? What is your belief system?Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt absolutely that their is no God?I need proof.
January 4th, 2005 @ 9:12 am
joanie, you are nuts.
January 4th, 2005 @ 9:42 am
Eva, I still love you. I apologize for the post to Debbie where I called her an idiot. Please forgive me Debbie. I just get frustrated at the hostility displayed toward God. I didnot mean to cut anyone’s ear off. I know God can take care of himself and He does not need me to do it.
January 4th, 2005 @ 9:44 am
Yes, Joanie, there is no God. I can say that honestly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, based on my education, my observations, my reflections, and my experiences with the world around me. If you want proof, start with the ‘Basic Assumptions’ post on this blog, then go on to study biology, psychology, cosmology, and philosophy.
I think God is one of those abstractions the brain creates like truth and justice, love and loyalty, honesty and patriotism. God is a magnificent model of what the ideal world should be like, but unfortunately it exists only in our heads.
The idea of God is a side effect of consciousness, a way the brain protects and comforts itself against the thought of its own death, just as hunger is the way the stomach protects itself, and pain protects us against hurting ourselves. The rest of the God story is then made up around this core thought.
January 4th, 2005 @ 11:36 am
Kudos June! for #77
I need a reminder sometimes as I do be gettin’ emotially entangled in my own thinking. Thanks for supplying the most rational kind.
January 4th, 2005 @ 11:38 am
joanie, that’s a good start….but when will you apologize for your preachiness? you have been insulting in so many other ways….me calling you nuts, is just a judgement call. i really think you have some mental health issues that should be addressed.
june, i agree with you 99%…….however, i never studied any of that, and still i can call myself an atheist. and a very strong one at that. if you tell joanie she has to study all that, you’ll scare her off…..
January 4th, 2005 @ 12:50 pm
Of course, Eva. Joanie, I have not formally studied those sciences either, beyond an occasional article in Scientific American or a good popular science book. I meant only that studying is how you find more and more proof.
January 4th, 2005 @ 1:12 pm
Joanie said: “Can you honestly say beyond a shadow of a doubt absolutely that their is no God?I need proof.”
You need proof that there is no god, but you don’t need proof that there is a god? See post# 75.
January 4th, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
I’m a bit disappointed that the conversation has drifted, ending with omni claiming that I am looking the fool. In reality, you look the fool, omni. Making unbacked claims, saying that I’m “making comments about things that (you) have already clarified” when you haven’t clarified anything, and, when I bring up items you cannot address, you tell me I have to read an entire book (again) instead of simply pointing to the area that would clarify your point (I think this is likely because you don’t know the bible as well as you claim.)
If you are willing to concede that the Catholic faith is the One True Faith, just say it already. No one will ridicule you for your conversion.
January 4th, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
Andy, I used to be just like you; catholic, and jumping on forums looking for people to convert and otherwise pushing my beliefs on others. I’ve wisened up. I’ve figured out that all religion is man-made and absurd. I can’t just believe in god, because I don’t deep down inside. god is a santa for adults, nothing more. All religionists use pusedo-science when trying to back god’s “existance”. The universe does not need a creator and science backs this one. As for your christianity, it’s all false. This is a great site I’d recommend for christians:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
January 4th, 2005 @ 8:16 pm
Hey, Don, I think I might surprise you by telling you I totally agree with everything you just wrote. I, too, am an ex-Catholic. My point is not that Catholocism is truely the “One True Faith” but that it is as valid as omni’s made up religion.
January 4th, 2005 @ 8:22 pm
Ok, sorry then
January 4th, 2005 @ 8:25 pm
Heh, it’s OK. If you scroll back and re-read my comments during the debate, you’ll see that it would be more obvious that I was not sincerely defending Catholicism. And, I’ve been there and that is a good site.
January 4th, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
As, I said, Andy – keep up the good work!
January 4th, 2005 @ 8:45 pm
See Omni’s posts #62 & #69.
I’m really suspicious of post that don’t do into any detail and merely give some really difficult task (read the entire [!] New Testament) as a rhetorical device to squash disagreement. That way, you don’t have to actually back up what you think.
Omni, just one or two specific ideas that you can write down yourself that address Andy’s post #60, rather than hiding behind the suggestion to read the New Testament, would allay my suspicions, but might start a difficult discussion.
January 5th, 2005 @ 12:23 am
You know what this site lacks? Any non-christian theists. I want a debate with a Hindu, for once. They can come on here, impatiently inform us about their beliefs, and then declare that if we don’t believe we will be eternally punished.
At least it won’t be the same repetitious garbage about the bible. Really, when is the last time we’ve had even a Muslim or Jewish theist on here?
January 5th, 2005 @ 5:47 am
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=GN&action=m&board=17916956&tid=allahisourcreator&sid=17916956&mid=1&type=date&first=1
Here ya go m’dear! Please come argue with Saeed and his nutterbuddies. Its FUN!
LOL!
January 5th, 2005 @ 10:12 am
1 John 2
Prior Book Prior Chapter Next Chapter Next Book
——————————————————————————–
1Jo 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
1Jo 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.
1Jo 2:3 By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1Jo 2:4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
1Jo 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1Jo 2:6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
1Jo 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.
1Jo 2:8 On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true Light is already shining.
1Jo 2:9 The one who says he is in the Light and {yet} hates his brother is in the darkness until now.
1Jo 2:10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.
1Jo 2:11 But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
1Jo 2:12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.
1Jo 2:13 I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I have written to you, children, because you know the Father.
1Jo 2:14 I have written to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
1Jo 2:17 The world is passing away, and {also} its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
1Jo 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not {really} of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but {they went out,} so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.
1Jo 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
1Jo 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jo 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.
1Jo 2:24 As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
1Jo 2:25 This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
1Jo 2:26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.
1Jo 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
1Jo 2:28 Now, little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming.
1Jo 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.
January 5th, 2005 @ 10:30 am
Here is something to examine and re-examine for atheist’s non-belief system from Zola Levitt (messianic jew)…..Forgiveness is a central theme of the Gospel. The only way we can approach the Living God is by having our sins covered and forgiven through the blood of the Messiah, Christ Jesus. Once we have been forgiven we are expected to forgive others. In His teaching, Jesus came down very hard on those who received God
January 5th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
Joanie, please, haven’t we asked you several times not to spam the board with long passages? Just provide a link, or verse numbers, but not the entire text. Heck, you even copied the copyright information telling you not to do what you just did.
January 5th, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
“We should pray for these enemies of the Lord, that they would repent and be saved. But if they persist in their evil and unrepentant attitude, we should also rejoice in their judgment.”
And there you have it, folks, there is the true face of “Christian Love”. All of us wondered on 9/11 what kind of human beings could rejoice when 3000 people die. Well, here is your answer: they are called “Zola Levitt Ministries”. They pose as loving believers, but behind their mask of love is the same faith-based barbarity we have seen for 5000 years, the same skull grinning from behind some grandiose religious or social or patriotic purpose.
Joanie, if you do indeed believe in a God, then RUN AWAY from these people. They are BAD. Listen to what they are telling you. Did you really rejoice on 9/11, or when 150,000 perished in the tsunami? Is that what your heart feels when you say “I love you all”? How can you survive in such a culture of death? Where is the difference between Christian and Terrorists?
January 5th, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Joanie, you wrote: “In His teaching, Jesus came down very hard on those who received God
January 5th, 2005 @ 2:16 pm
Damn.
I lost the five dollar bet I made above… remember David Holcberg, the selfish prick at the Ayn Rand Institute who wrote the article complaining about the US Govt. giving money towards tsunami victims— remember I bet five bucks that he was a Christian?
Well, he answered my e-mail and it turns out he IS an atheist.
Okay, I’ve just put an extra five bucks in the pot here at the school where I teach, in addition to the hundred bucks I already gave!
January 5th, 2005 @ 4:13 pm
I have to say that I agree with that comment. Why is it selfish?
January 5th, 2005 @ 4:22 pm
June, Joanie and Omni are both two peas in the same “Christian” pod. I have personally seen others just like them rejoicing at the deaths of Muslims in other natural disasters. Literally backslapping and laughing and talking about how great it is. Joanie isn’t going to run away from those people and neither is Omni –they are “those people.” Omni said in this thread that God can justifiably dispose of people like an artist throws away a drawing, and that God judges and disposes of non-believers.
Omni has gloated on here several times about the murder of the “evil” John Lennon. In this world, what kind of whack-job “thinks” a man like John Lennon is evil and deserving of murder? Both of these nutters are sick immoral lunatics. Unfortunately, these hateful crazies breed faster than sane and intelligent people, and this country seems to be producing them in record numbers. Get ready for the next holocaust –with someone else other than Jews this time.
January 5th, 2005 @ 4:47 pm
Andy, I’m a teacher and I’ve been a United Way representative now at various schools for about twenty years now.
The sad fact is that the vast majority of my fellow teachers, who are by and large a well-paid group, give little or nothing to the United Way. They make good salaries, but they somehow can’t even spare, say twenty bucks for the less fortunate in their own communities. It’s sickening.
I’m sure if it were up to many of these people, they’d give zero to charity and pay zero in taxes. They’ve also got the idea they could pay zero in union dues and still keep all the same salary and benefits that they presently enjoy!
Like it or not, government spending on the public’s health, education and welfare is absolutely essential if we want to keep from reverting to an 11th century “Dark Ages” sort of world… as my daddy taught me, we ALL do better when we all do better.
Besides, rude awakening time: tax money is, and always has been, the government’s to do whatever they damn well please with, ever since the beginning of time.
Our present government, for example started a stupid war in Iraq that will cost zillions, but I can’t do anything about that, unfortunately, so tough shit for me, that’s life in the big city.
Besides, you could even make a national security argument that spending government billions on a PR campaign to buy some goodwill in Indonesia, with its huge concentration of Moslems, is money better spent on the war or terror than throwing it down the Iraq shithole.
January 5th, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Glenstone –when money goes to something like diaster relief, and needs are immediate, it’s a little harder to put in a $50 million bid on a $50,000 project, like you can do in Iraq. In other words, for Halliburton and the other corporations feeding at the public trough, war brings much higher profit margins. However, if they ever figure out a way to do for disaster relief what they can do for projects in places like Iraq, then we’ll be forking out $100 billion for every calamity instead of just $350 million.
January 5th, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
I don’t have a really strong opinion either way; I can see David Holcberg’s point, and I can see yours, as well. The part I took exception with was the insult. Just because you disagree with his viewpoint doesn’t necessarily make him a “selfish prick”. Now, he very well may be a selfish prick, but that doesn’t make him wrong. I guess, in other words, ad hominem arguments should be avoided.
January 5th, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
I never gloated over lennon’s murder, nor said it was good. I said his murder was bad, even if he was the most evil person of the day. Like I said, just because his death caused me no tears, Doesn’t mean that I condone murder. Don’t put words into my mouth.
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:00 pm
Herm, for a person who claims to be educated and refined, you sure dont come across as any older than 15 or so. How old are you?
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:22 pm
1: Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2: And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
3: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4: Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
6: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9: As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10: For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
11: But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12: For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13: For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
14: And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
15: But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16: To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19: But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
20: Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
21: Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;
22: And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
23: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
24: And they glorified God in me.
1: Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.
2: And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
3: But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4: And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6: But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
7: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8: (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9: And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10: Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
13: And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
14: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
15: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17: But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18: For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19: For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21: I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Compare with Revised Standard Version: Gala.03
1: O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2: This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3: Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4: Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5: He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6: Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7: Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8: And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9: So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12: And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15: Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16: Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17: And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18: For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20: Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23: But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24: Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25: But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26: For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27: For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29: And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Compare with Revised Standard Version: Gala.04
1: Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2: But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3: Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5: To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7: Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
8: Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.
9: But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
10: Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
11: I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.
12: Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.
13: Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.
14: And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
15: Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.
16: Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
17: They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.
18: But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.
19: My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
20: I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.
21: Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22: For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23: But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24: Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25: For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26: But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27: For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28: Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29: But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30: Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31: So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.
1: Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
2: Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
3: For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5: For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
7: Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
8: This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
9: A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
10: I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
11: And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
12: I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
13: For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14: For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
15: But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
16: This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
17: For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18: But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19: Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20: Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21: Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23: Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24: And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26: Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
1: Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2: Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.
3: For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
4: But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
5: For every man shall bear his own burden.
6: Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8: For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9: And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
10: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
11: Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.
12: As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.
13: For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
14: But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16: And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
17: From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
18: Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:23 pm
Get all that?
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:34 pm
102- omni said: I never gloated over lennon’s murder, nor said it was good. I said his murder was bad, even if he was the most evil person of the day. Like I said, just because his death caused me no tears, Doesn’t mean that I condone murder. Don’t put words into my mouth.
**************************
Careful, Omni, your pants are on fire!
I went back and found your comment about Lennon, which I have cut and pasted below.
No, you did NOT say his murder was bad.
And as for the rest of your comment, it sure sounds like gloating to me!
******************
omni said:
Well, gotta say, lennon definitely went to hell. He is one of the most evil men i can think of. I wont even give him the courtesy of capitalizing his last name.
posted: December 26, 2004 6:30 PM
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:40 pm
Oh Omni, Omni, Omni.
Santa’s not going to bring you anything this year!
January 5th, 2005 @ 7:51 pm
June, I love the sense of humor! I’m sure he won’t. I’ve been oh so bad……..
January 5th, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
Wait, Lennon was “one of the most evil men (you) can think of”? He wasn’t Catholic, was he?
January 5th, 2005 @ 9:48 pm
No, he wasn’t catholic. Maybe raised that way, but not at the time of his death.
January 5th, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
Joanie, being a “humanist Jew” i.e. a Jew thats an atheist, I find fundamentalist messianic Jews even worse than fundamentalist Christians. I’d like to see Zola back up the words “History shows that when the Jews are attacked, evangelical Christians are not far behind as targets.” given that history seems to show that when the Jews are attacked its usually evangelist Christians beihind the attacks. i.e. the crusades, spanish inquisition, etc.
January 5th, 2005 @ 11:35 pm
Omni, how come all you Bible Beaters have such an aversion to the truth? How come, like our head Bible Beater, ole’ Dubya, you’re all a bunch of lying motherfuckers? Nice of Glenstone to go back and look at what you said because I didn’t feel like making the effort. Not only did you make the ridiculous claim that Lennon was one of the most evil men you can think of (which apparently is more of a testament to your limited ability to think than Lennon’s character), but you claimed to know the mind of God –since you know “definitely” that John Lennon is going to Hell. People that speak as you do are either fools or scumbags –take your pick. Personally, I think you’re a fool and a scumbag. And this isn’t ad hominem argument cause I don’t argue with fools — I’m just being insulting because you’re a festering piece of shit that deserves to be insulted.
And Omni please, there is no way I can put words in your mouth unless you stop blowing Jesus (homosexuals: this remark is intended to be offensive to Omni and his homosexual hating ilk, I fully support homosexuals and homosexuality, think it should be encouraged, and figure this Christian God must be a fucking idiot for not making more of them). You on the other hand will have to show me where I have claimed to be educated and refined. As to my age, I’m 8 years old, and go to a private Christian elementary school paid for by my rich Republican father, who was just named Clergyman of the Year for 2004 by a major church organization (obviously not Catholic).
January 6th, 2005 @ 2:26 am
Neither, if you were not directly affected by either disaster.Suck it in ,get that full nasal stench of death and misery,watch all around you crushed into oblivion . No god to ease our suffering, just a bunch of whinny,nit picking atheists to hold on to.looks pretty bleak.
January 6th, 2005 @ 4:06 am
Andy said:
I don’t have a really strong opinion either way; I can see David Holcberg’s point, and I can see yours, as well. The part I took exception with was the insult. Just because you disagree with his viewpoint doesn’t necessarily make him a “selfish prick”. Now, he very well may be a selfish prick, but that doesn’t make him wrong. I guess, in other words, ad hominem arguments should be avoided.
It’s one of the greatest natural disasters in modern history, and this guy Holcberg, whom I’m sure is well-off, his first reaction is not “How can I help the poor?”, but rather, “How dare the mean old government tax me and use my money to help the poor?
Sorry, Andy, if that ain’t a “selfish prick” then I don’t know what one looks like!
I wouldn’t call it an ‘ad hominem argument’ because I’m not having an argument with this Holcberg person. Call it a ‘value judgement’.
He makes all atheists look bad.
To me, atheism means giving up childish delusions of some imaginary future world and trying to make THIS world a better place.
True, the Dark Ages were a time of low taxation, but I wouldn’t want to return to them, because there’s more to life than low taxation.
January 6th, 2005 @ 6:48 am
8? Sounds about right. That whole 15 thing was me being polite. Don’t worry kid. You’ll grow up one of these days.
January 6th, 2005 @ 7:34 am
Besides, Andy, Holcberg and his fellow Randians embrace the word “selfish”. So I can’t imagine any of them being too surprised at being accused of being selfish pricks!
****************************************
FAQ: Ayn Rand “Virtue of Selfishness”
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?
Answer by J. Raibley
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one’s own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.
In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the “exact meaning” of selfishness is “concern with one’s own interests” (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one’s rational values
January 6th, 2005 @ 7:59 am
But getting back to CHRISTIAN wackjobs:
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2005/01/05/montana_top/a01010505_03.txt
*************************************
Anti-gay group to picket UM, local churches
By Martin J. Kidston – IR Staff Writer – 01/05/05
A Kansas church group that abhors homosexuals and claims “God’s hatred is one of His holy attributes” is planning a religious protest in Helena next month, targeting several area churches, the Montana Supreme Court, and the University of Montana.
The Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, Kan., gave notice in a fax Monday of its intention to picket Helena’s “pro-gay” churches, as well as the “(homosexual)-infested” University of Montana.
“We need to be sure the people of Helena call to mind that there is a God, a standard, and a day of judgment, and it’s not OK to be gay,” Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Church, said in a phone interview Tuesday.
(SNIP)
The fax distributed by the Westboro Church goes on to thank God for the Indian Ocean tsunamis “that swept 20,000 Swedes and other (homosexual) perverts into Hell.”
Phelps-Roper said the disaster was God’s intention to punish a “filthy, disobedient generation.”
“Who do you think sent that earthquake and tsunami that killed all those people,” she said. “If your message doesn’t line up with the scriptures, then it’s not God’s message.”
January 6th, 2005 @ 8:18 am
I’m sorry, glenstonecottage, but I simply cannot follow your point if you aren’t going to include several entire articles in one post.
As this is a cause that I feel strongly about, I have no complaint about the government giving money to help with tsunami relief. However, I feel that there is a point in noting that it really shouldn’t be the government’s decision as to which charities get taxpayer donations. For instance, I am not pleased by the Faith Based Initiatives, but my taxes fund them anyways. I’d prefer lower taxes, with individuals being given the decision to donate (or not) to any or all charities.
January 6th, 2005 @ 8:59 am
Screening down the comments, other than my own contributions I could only find one very intelligent point (77). What does John Lennon, homosexuality etc etc etc have to do with Question of the day???
January 6th, 2005 @ 10:02 am
Sorry duarte, I wasn’t aware of any rule that the conversation couldn’t wander a bit OT… besides, arguing with the thumpers about stuff like John Lennon/homosexuals going to hell is one of the main reasons I like to come to this site!
**************
For instance, I am not pleased by the Faith Based Initiatives, but my taxes fund them anyways.
Yeah, I’ll second that emotion.
I’d prefer lower taxes, with individuals being given the decision to donate (or not) to any or all charities.
Nice in principle, but I’ve found in real life that many folks (athiests and theists alike) can be pretty stingy when it comes to following the old golden rule and shelling out a few bucks for the less fortunate.
So why shouldn’t the government, which has the power to start stupid wars in our name, also have the power to donate money in our name?
I wish that I had personal veto power over both the wars and the charities that get chosen, but unfortunately the closest thing to that that I can do in a democratic system of government is to elect representatives whose philosophy is as close to mine as possible about such matters.
I for one would be in favor of eliminating tax breaks for church donations, since most of these are not truly charitable donations.
But alas, a politician who publicly advocated my point of view on this issue would probably get creamed at the polls!
That doesn’t make me happy, but in a democracy I gotta go with the majority whether I like it or not.
January 6th, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
Nice in principle, but I’ve found in real life that many folks (athiests and theists alike) can be pretty stingy when it comes to following the old golden rule and shelling out a few bucks for the less fortunate.
If people are stingy, though, isn’t that their right? While I would certainly want everyone to be generous, why is it my place to enforce it?
January 6th, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
Andy said: “If people are stingy, though, isn’t that their right? While I would certainly want everyone to be generous, why is it my place to enforce it?”
And it IS a good point. I think you have to look at the people’s “right” to hoard gasoline in a crisis. Or our “right” to have paved highways. This, as Glenstonecottage argues, is what politics is all about.
Personally, I really think Government should be entirely about Social Services (including Education, Hospitals, Homeless care, Mental Health and Geriatric care, maybe a few other areas… Adoption?) and Highways/Infrastructure and Defense. No Research outside of individual Federal Agencies. No Arts funding. No Moral constraints at all. I’ve said before that I believe its a parent’s responsibility to ensure their kids are going to handle hearing Howard Stearn on the radio or seeing porn on cable the way the parents would want them to handle it. If a parent isn’t educated enough to know how to raise their kids, why should the government support that ignorance? (note that I said porn on “cable” Even with this argument, I agree there are some compromises that can be made including not showing Deep Throat on local channels during the afterschool hours. Gerry Springer is QUITE bizarre enough! LOL!)
I’m not sold on the Rigidity. I just think there’s way to much extraneous activity being funded by the Feds….
January 6th, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
No love for John Lennon, huh? Why? Why him and not the other band members? None of them believed in god. Was it his quotes:
Jesus is a
January 6th, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
MBains: Ah… so I was defining government to cover what I thought it should, which may or may not coincide with what others think it should cover. And, I guess that is what we all do… I think I just had a revelation.
Something else I was thinking about is that politics is a good example of how people believe without evidence. For instance, my opinion that government should not give monies to charities is in direct opposition to glenstonecottage’s opinion, but on what is each of our opinions based? Reasoning, logic, emotion, personal experience, but what about evidence? How would it be possible to test to determine which is “correct”?
(apologies to duarte — sometimes conversations drift a little )
January 6th, 2005 @ 10:58 pm
Sorry to all of the folks that ARE christians, whatever your belief in God and whatever religion you practice….But I need to get rid of some “fleshy” comments that have been building up for a while now-
To all the folks on here who think that they just exist and only answer to themselves and can just live with themselves and even sleep at night———This is my prayer: Father, you know me,I am like your servant Paul, stubborn and clumsy with my words but I pray that your light shines so much in the faces on this site that do not know you! Even the ones who really do know who you are, but find it hip to agree with the majority here. You know who they are- Lord please make Eva aware of the people she hurts by calling them crazy and all the ones here that are lost- Your word says that You want all to come but it also says -they won’t. Father, help these see You- not the err of anybody’s ways- just You and let them FEEL Your love in this place. Keep out the do’s and the don’ts of religion. It’s not about that- it’s about the heart that You put in all of the children who love You!! I tried to talk and to listen to the ones here Lord- But the vulger stuff is too much for my heart to hear,especially when You give me the choice -I pray for Your people here that they find YOU.
In JESUS name -
AMEN
PEACE OUT!!!
January 6th, 2005 @ 11:26 pm
Don, the rest of them were not the greatest, to be sure. However, lennon seemed to be the one whose philosophy reached the most, and was therefore the most destructive. He and his ilk are the worst thing to happen to modern society since communism and feminism. Average Atheists, in their own deluded world, don’t disturb me as much as prolific ones who are so good at spreading a lie that well meaning but ignorant people are sucked in. Make no mistake, lennon was evil.
January 7th, 2005 @ 1:23 am
HMS, here is my prayer for you: GO IN PEACE!
Go with the certain knowledge that no atheist will ever tell you what to pray, what pledge to recite, what church to attend, what song to sing, what dogma to believe. No atheist will gas or burn or bomb you for what you believe.
And when your end comes, as it comes to all of us, I sincerely wish you what I wish for myself: A quick, painless death and eternal oblivion.
In the name of humanity. Amen
January 7th, 2005 @ 2:49 am
Don, why not any of the other band members –because none of them have been killed, so Omni has nothing to feel good about as far as they’re concerned.
Listen carefully to what Omnifascist has to say. John Lennon and his “ilk” were “evil.” He never tells us what philosophy he believes they espoused but he distinguishes it from two other great “evils” that he identifies as “communism” and “feminism.” And what distinguishes the evil of John Lennon from the average atheist? Merely the number of people he was able to reach by excercising his right to free speech. We must assume that any of us who could speak as freely would be just as “evil.” Essentially, anyone in fundamental disagreement with Omni is “evil” in proportion to the effectiveness they are able to command in support of their right to free speech.
Average atheists don’t “disturb” Omni as much as someone like Lennon because though we are “deluded” we can’t as effectively spread our delusion. What do you suppose will happen to all of us wrong headed and “deluded” people if theists like Omni ever get political power? You better fucking watch out if you’re a good speaker, or have an audience outside your immediate family. This is simple fasicst dogma, just keep your “delusions” to yourself and the Christian Gestapo (I guess that’s redundant since the majority of people in the Gestapo were Christians anyway) won’t come knock knock knocking on your front door.
And all you women out there, watch out, cause “feminism” is one of the worst things ever to happen to modern society: not nuclear weapons, not biological weapons, not the Holocaust (need I point out that Omni deplores the evils of communism but never decries the evils of fascism –no need to wonder why), not conscription, not drug abuse, not modern warfare, not racism, not religious fundamentalism, not internment, but more freedom for women. There is nothing a good Christian fears more than someone else’s freedom.
Have no doubt, these fucking psychopaths like Omni want to party like it’s 1599.
January 7th, 2005 @ 4:27 am
I’m off to fight it out on some christian web, much more fun than a site with only atheists – and Omni for those who haven’t figured it out is an atheist playing devil’s advocate, his views are so ridiculous that he’s obviously a bored atheist trying to be polemic on an atheist site.
January 7th, 2005 @ 6:48 am
June: Thank you! I will and I also feel that your are sincere.
Thanks
January 7th, 2005 @ 8:09 am
Andrea Yates was the Texas woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub. Her life sentence was overturned yesterday by a state appeals court which cited flawed testimony by an expert witness.
Why did Andrea Yates kill her five children?
If you guessed “To save them from the devil” you guessed correctly!
There should be one of those government-ordered disclaimers outside every church, like they have on cigarette packages:
“Caution! Religious delusions may be harmful to your sanity, and to the lives of your children.”
January 7th, 2005 @ 8:51 am
Hermy, do I really have to explain the idiocy involved in asserting that since I havent decried something, then I must support it? That’s about the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard. I hold you in the utmost intellectual contempt. Try thinking, not gushing.
January 7th, 2005 @ 9:57 am
omni, your opinions are stupid…….feminism was all about equality of the sexes, lennon was equal love for everyone, and communism about ecominic equality. (in general terms)
there’s something about “equality” that you just don’t like, is that right, onmi?
fine…….stay down there…..
January 7th, 2005 @ 10:09 am
Something else I was thinking about is that politics is a good example of how people believe without evidence. For instance, my opinion that government should not give monies to charities is in direct opposition to glenstonecottage’s opinion, but on what is each of our opinions based? Reasoning, logic, emotion, personal experience, but what about evidence? How would it be possible to test to determine which is “correct”?
Alas, Andy, most things in life don’t come with a simple mathematical or scientific test to find out what is “correct”, so we have to try and analyze things as best we can, often with incomplete information, or even information that has been falsified by people who are deliberately trying to mislead us.
I’m sure you know the old story about the five blind men in India who are arguing about what an elephant is like, you know, one guy is touching its tail and says it is like a rope, and another guy is touching its side and he says it is like a solid wall, etc.
We have to do our best to sort out reality, and there will always be unanswerable questions: is the glass half empty or half full? Which food tastes best? Which book is best? Who should I marry? What is beautiful? What makes a meaningful life? What is the best or the “right” thing to do in this situation?
These kind of questions ultimately have no answer, and occasion endless discussion.
But for me, the best way to figure out that something is NOT right for me is when it is deliberately kept away from honest discussion… like authority figures that are so wonderful that they can’t be questioned or criticized. Or books that are so sacred that they can’t be questioned or criticized.
That kind of thing just sets my “Bullshit!!!” alarm bells ringing!
January 7th, 2005 @ 10:12 am
Omni, I think most everyone else on here knows how to read (the atheists anyway) but I know you’re one dumb motherfucker so I’ll explain it to you. Supporting or not supporting something isn’t the point –you drooling slack-jawed Bible beating piece of human debris. The point is –try to pay attention now, this may be a little difficult for you to grasp– what you chose to decry (and therefore chose not to decry). That out of a list of all possible “evils” the three “evil” things you chose, the things which apparently disturb you the most, are: John Lennon, communism, and feminism. These things, you say, are the “worst” things to happen to modern society. You speak for yourself: John Lennon and feminism are worse than everything except communism. Which means –now pay attention again, this may be another difficult concept for you to grasp– that by your own words, John Lennon and feminism are worse than fascism, and every other evil in the world.
Now, referring to you as a fascist is based on the things you’ve said on this site –and not on just this thread either– with, admittedly, some assumptions about your political inclinations based on these remarks –most of which parrot the typical right-wing line. You’ve said very little that I haven’t seen repeated over and over again on sites like DrudgeReport, WorldNetDaily, and FreeRepublic (the internet home of trendy US style fascism). In fact, you’re like some kind of archive of received opinion.
January 7th, 2005 @ 10:18 am
Correction on post #128. I was wrong to say that Christians “fear” some one else’s freedom. What I should have said is this: there is nothing that infuriates a good Christian more than someone else’s freedom.
January 7th, 2005 @ 10:38 am
127 & 130
June and HMS, that was a great exchange. Honestly.
Maybe the God Squad should use THIS site as an example of religious tolerance in action!
January 7th, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
Hermy, for starters, your name calling and cursing is making you look ignorant. Knock it off. Secondly, just because I don’t precisely prioritize every single evil according to rank and mention it on a list just for you, doesn’t mean that I condone it. Third, my opinions are correct, and they’re all mine. Just because someone else is as right as I am doesn’t make me an archive of received opinion. Now, the fact that you’re a sarcatic, close minded, arrogant, intolerant , hateful person reveals something. Every person that I’ve ever met who was like you was also loved by absoloutely no one. If nobody loved you in your life, you can’t make the mistake of thinking that god feels the same way. He loves you. Always will. And until you realize that, and grow some, don’t reproduce. Hateful arrogant men make horrible fathers. Beleive me. I’m right on this one.
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
wow omni. nice presumptions.
you are starting to closely resemble a person who is losing an argument.
hey herm, if you’re feeling lonely and hated you can come over to my house for beer. we can talk about omni, shake our heads, and say “geesh” a lot.
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
No eva, deserved equality is fine. But feminism and communism are forced equality. You can’t force equality ethically. For example, Im smarter than hermy. That’s just the way it is. Stephen hawking is smarter than me. Get it? Forcing equality by wealth redistribution, gender norming, and the like is tyranny. Funny, feminists all complain about wanting equality with men, but push gender norming, which is the practice of setting lower standards for women than men. sounds like they want equality without the work involved. Your statement has more holes in it than a box of cheerios.
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:09 pm
Funny, stu. I do the same thing to you guys! No presumtions, just personal experience with his type.
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
And stu, a person who curses and engages in playground namecalling, like hermy, also closely resembles a person losing an argument. I’m not losing, just failing to get through his thick head and cloud of irrational anger.
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:13 pm
and now you’re trying to be a smart ass to try and cover the fact that you’re really a dick!
keep going omniscient one. that foot is must be starting to taste good now…
January 7th, 2005 @ 7:31 pm
Trying? No, it comes pretty naturally. And there’s no foot in my mouth. I am correct.
January 7th, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
Funny, feminists all complain about wanting equality with men, but push gender norming, which is the practice of setting lower standards for women than men. sounds like they want equality without the work involved.
Once again, we see the thumper/wingnut tendency to fall back on tired old stereotypes rather than actually getting up to look out the window and check on this strange thing called “reality”.
Omni, check your local university and see whether more men or women are now obtaining university degrees.
Check any professional program: law, medicine, education, science, even engineering and see that more female than male applicants are getting accepted due to their higher marks.
Hell, even check the local newspaper ads to count whether you see more male or female realtors!
Women are outperforming us all over the map, amigo, and soon it’ll be young men whining for “lower standards”.
The only place nowadays where men are really guaranteed superiority is the Catholic Church.
Sorry, Omni, but this IS the 21st century and you’re going to have to deal with it.
Bitching about feminists is so ’70′s!
January 8th, 2005 @ 7:16 am
Yeah? Try being in the military. Big gender norming happening there. Nothing has changed. Same with police, etc. You know, things that hold huge responsibility and have no room for doing favors to make someone feel good about themselves at the risk of others. That’s my main complaint. You wanna fight? Fight as well as a man, or not at all.
January 8th, 2005 @ 7:36 am
Omni, You do seem to be a pretty smart guy. Honestly. Its simply that you Limit your Premises. THAT is being close-minded and it causes your opinions to be ignorant.
Feminism has its problems AND it has already worked out many of them. It is still about Equality of the Genders. Men and women sure as water ain’t the same. But we DO have an Equal right to the same level of recompense for the same level of production. I know it doesn’t always happen that way. THAT is why the Feminist movement tries so hard to balance the situation. Men USED to ALWAYS get preferance. We Still do in Most cases. Alot of times its the other way around and that just means that WE need to keep trying to find the rational balance in PARTICULAR situations.
Don’t let ONE issue blind you to others. It limits EVERYONE who does such.
January 8th, 2005 @ 8:57 am
Hey, do you think this guy is an atheist or a theist?
************************************
Klansman arrested in 1964 civil rights murders
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PHILADELPHIA, Miss. – A stooped, frail-looking 79-year-old former Ku Klux Klan leader was brought into court today to answer for one of the most heinous crimes of the civil rights era, the killing of three voter-registration workers beaten and shot 40 years ago.
Edgar Ray Killen, his head slightly tilted, uttered a strong “not guilty” three times to three murder charges in a case that marks the latest effort by Mississippi to confront its bloodstained, racist past as one of the most fiercely segregationist U.S. states.
Killen, a part-time preacher who will turn 80 later this month, was arrested Thursday after being indicted by a grand jury….
January 8th, 2005 @ 9:36 am
Yeah? Try being in the military. Big gender norming happening there. Nothing has changed. Same with police, etc.
Funny, how for wingnuts everything is always centred around Male Authority.
Okay, Omni, and you don’t see too many women heavyweight boxers either.
So?
January 8th, 2005 @ 2:36 pm
Mcbains, I have No argument to what you just said. Good show.
January 8th, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
Mcbrains, I missed ya, been working alot of late. Oh by the way my back is healed.
January 8th, 2005 @ 10:28 pm
glen, no one dies if a female boxer isn’t strong enough to hack it. police, military, different story entirely.
January 9th, 2005 @ 1:33 am
Omni: “Hermy, for starters, your name calling and cursing is making you look ignorant. Knock it off.”
When a self-righteous arrogant shit-head like you invites himself to give me an insulting lecture, when I was minding my own business, I’m not about to sit there and listen to his bullshit, no matter how smug such a motherfucking idiot might be. So, fuck you, you right-wing knuckle-dragging hate spewing Bible tossing theist bigot.
Omni: “Hateful arrogant men make horrible fathers. Beleive me. I’m right on this one.”
Well, you ought to know. There’s no substitute for personal experience.
Omni: “Stephen hawking is smarter than me. Get it?”
Stephen Hawking: “…there would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time . . . The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE . . . What place, then, for a creator?”
We ge it, Omni. You apparently don’t.
Omni: “He and his ilk are the worst thing to happen to modern society since communism and feminism. Make no mistake, lennon was evil”
A fine sense of historical perspective.
And Omni, and closing: fuck you. Go get a picutre of Jesus and jack off.
January 9th, 2005 @ 1:38 am
Stu, thanks for the invite. I’m not lonely but I can always use more atheist company, so I’d love to come over and toss back a brew. I live in the land where Mencken said you couldn’t throw an egg out of a Pullman car without hitting a fundamentalist. I am surrounded by self-satisfied intellectual knuckle-draggers just like Omnifool –just as stupid and just as hateful, though few match his arrogance.
January 9th, 2005 @ 9:48 am
Wow, hermy. Breathe, buddy, breathe! I didn’t say hawking was wise, just smart. You get the idea. And, I’m a really good dad. I’m niether hateful nor arrogant. I just seem that way to you because you happen to be overemotional, and wrong to boot. Breathe, buddy.
January 9th, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
Wow Omni, you’re great and fantastic. We know ’cause you’ve told us so, so many many times. You’re not just smarter than me, you’re super smart –and more wise than Stephen Hawking– you’re rational, you’re right about everything, you’ve got a trophy wife, you’re a “really good dad,” you’ve got fantastic kids, you’re morally superior (at least to all of us atheists), you’re one of the “true” Christians –who it would seem from what you say are very few in number– and you know the mind of God (since you know for certain that some people went to Hell when they died). What a “man.”
I don’t often encounter anyone with your ample supply of self-satisfaction. Is that a trait of all the “true” Christians? It would seem, from the literature on the subject, that people who constantly need to tell others of their greatness are very insecure. Is that your gig, your daddy didn’t pay enough attention to you when you were little? So you’ve finally found a daddy to love you in Jesus, and a place where you can get attention. I should probably feel sorry for you, but with your contempt for everyone else in the world I just can’t muster any sympathy. Omni, your God knows you’re a fraud –and you’re not even fooling us godless heathens.
January 9th, 2005 @ 2:25 pm
I never said I was great. I just said that I was right. And why talk about “my God” If you dont believe in him? Really, man. And no, I’m neither self satisfied, or insecure. I derive satisfaction from God and his creation, and I’m more than secure in every respect that matters. Just because I like to remind people like you of the high horse you have placed yourself on, and that god believers are more than your equal, doesn’t make me insecure. Methinks thou dost protest too much. (And yes, I do protest sin because, in part, I am guilty of it, try as I might not to be, so don’t even think about turning this around on me).
January 9th, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
And hermy, let’s talk about something you said previously. You said you were minding your own business, and along came bad old me. Well, let me tell you something. I was busy reading my newspaper, minding my own business, when I come across an op-ed about how horrible god in the government is. It was put right in my face. And, of course, he included the address for this site in his letter for anyone to visit. That’s why i’m here. His rights allowed him to shove his hatred of my way of life right into my face one morning. Which is as it should be. However, I answered his call by coming here and exercising MY rights to put my opinion in. Got a problem now? You asked for it, whoever you are. Now i’m here. So there it is hermy. I know exactly what you mean. I don’t feel sorry for you in the slightest.
January 9th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
Omni, I know by responding I’m just giving you the attention you crave, but I’m in a good mood and I just can’t help myself. Ok, you’re not a “great” dad, you’re just a “really good” dad –”nearly great” perhaps?. Please feel free so substitute “really good” for “great.” It doesn’t change a thing I’ve said. Your words speak for themselves, no matter how much you might attempt to distance yourself from them once you’ve spoken. You’ve blown your own horn every since you appeared on this board. But please don’t stop now, life is a comedy for those of us who think, and I never get tired of hearing someone praise himself as tirelessly as you do.
January 9th, 2005 @ 3:00 pm
Lovely to see everyone is getting along well. I’m especially glad to know that I’m two out of the three worst things of the century, and appreciative of the third. Right-wing theistic nuts are always so polite, when discussing anything left of ancient Hebrew society.
Now, Omni, I can certainly understand your attitude toward Herm, but I really think you aught to tone it down. ‘Fight fire with fire’ might be an old saying, but it’s a pretty awful way to gain converts. Unless, of course, ol’ YHVH is happy to have people cowering before him. I don’t actually expect you to listen to me–after all, I’m completely evil–but at least now you’ve been warned.
January 9th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm
Comedy? Try reading your own stuff sometime, hermy. It sounds like a cross between an elementary school playground and an eddie murphy stand up show. I think, and therefore life is a comedy to me as well. Like I said, i’m not great. But I wont say that i’m wrong when i’m not. You’ll have to do better than that. I’m in a good mood too. Beer, anyone?
January 9th, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
Well, technically speaking YHVH does appreciate the gesture. He is God, after all. And really, I’m only this way to people who treat me like hermy does. Im pretty calm most of the time to others. And, I’m not trying for converts. Not my job. See? Viole is nice now, so omni’s nice now. Simple formula. Thanks viole.
January 22nd, 2005 @ 11:44 am
Disasters cause fear, but fear is only temporal. The bible says that even the devils fear and tremble, but fear never “caused” anyone to become saved. Terror and suffering does not result in salvation. Salvation is an act of God who has mercy on whom he will have mercy. Read Luke 13:1-4 and see what Jesus has to say about physical disaster. But there is good news! Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Read the bible and cry out for his mercy! There is a worse day coming!
January 23rd, 2005 @ 1:14 am
Oh I read the bible and cry out for mercy alright.
January 24th, 2005 @ 7:33 am
i am not an atheist. but i am a person who love people more than god. so this Tsunami is not created by god or devil. it just happend like the earth and this solar system was created..
but to connect it with God is little difficult. but i have found some interesting facts.
1. Indonesia was the hard hit country. its muslim populated
2. srilanka was next. but i have seen in Tv and all that lot of churches were affected
3. In India when it hit Tamil nadu, it destroyed lot of christian majority area.
like velankanni church was the worst hit church and thay have concealed the no of victims there.
but the same waves hit the ashtalakshmi temple. kanyakumari devi temple, vivekananda rock but interestingly no one was hurt…..
and in kerala. the worst hit area is kollam, were araound 167 poeple died, and there is an ashram run by a hindu religious leader , and when the Tsunami hit there were araound 15 thousand people gathered for prayers. even that ashram was very near t the sea shore and was hit by the tsunami as it hit the neigbouring parts. amazingly nothing happened. no body was hurt. but most of the people killed near that ashram were hindus.
but still the statistics shows this tsunami was aimed on some sort of people. i dont know may be these all are co incedent. but after this think that there is some force which is capable of governing something. and everything that happens is not just happening all are pre planned……..
please comment
January 25th, 2005 @ 1:14 pm
Hard to believe an omniscient, omnipresent & omnipotent god was unable/unwilling to be a bit more selective in his disaster (tsunami). Bolts of lightening are much more efficient & accurate. Big waves are so indescriminate in their killing. If we believe god did it, we have to wonder if any religion/philosophy has it right since there was probably a representative sampling of most in the death toll.
February 11th, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
somebody in this site wrote that theists should be free of fear from nonbelievers since the latter don’t kill believers for being so, or force believers to change their beliefs as usually occurs when religious zealots are at the helm.
Well, history doesn’t support this claim. Stalin, Mao and Castro, proven atheists, killed a lot of people for being religious believers.
My point is that fanatics, theist or atheist, are the same.
I’m atheist but it doesn’t mater to me if you want to believe in Christ or Allah, as far a your beliefs don’t interfere in my public and private life and I think we believers and nonbelievers can live togheter without problems as long as nobody cheat on the game.
Finally, I am resigned to the fact that believers always outnumber atheist. Atheism requires very much intellectual work.
sorry, my english is very weak.
February 14th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
Those with dogmatic ideologies such as those of Communism, Christianity, Islam etc. often feel it is in their best interests to wipe out opposing viewpoints. Don’t confuse Atheism with Communism. All Communists may be Atheists (I’m not sure this is necessarily true), and certainly, not all Atheists are Communists.
February 14th, 2005 @ 5:03 pm
the only thing that should a feccet your religion is if something happens in your religion
February 15th, 2005 @ 10:59 am
As DamnRight points out, the real enemy of humanity is dogma, whether it comes in clerical garb or wrapped in a flag. And really, Stalin, Castro, and Mao didn’t kill people for just believing in God. They killed people for opposing the State –in other words, those of opposing dogma– and they killed plenty of atheists who didn’t toe the party line.
February 17th, 2005 @ 3:45 am
I can’t recall Castro killing people for believing in god. In fact he had the pope round for lunch a few years back. Now for this we can criticise him.