“If religion isn’t the greatest threat to rationality and scientific progress, what is?” asks Daniel Dennett in a recent article in The Guardian.
Again, the irrational behaviour of 60 000 men, calling themselves mighty but being closer to stupid and naïve, to believe all the nonsense the potato farmer Angus Buchan tells them, shows how great this threat is.
Recently I heard that the Stellenbosch scientist and lecturer Dave Pepler, also well-known as the presenter of the excellent nature program Groen, left a class where he had just completed a lecture on the importance of evolutionary science, when he was accosted by a group of students from the Shofar sect. They spat at him and hurled abuse at him.
This is the influence pastor Fred May of Shofar has on people one would expect to be intelligent. This is the type of threat religion has in store every day against rational thinking and scientific discoveries and findings.
Dennett, director for the Centre of Cognitive Studies at Tufts University in Massachusetts, emphasises that perhaps television or addictive video games are more dangerous to science than religion. “But although each of these scourges – mixed blessings, in fact – has the power to overwhelm our best judgement and cloud our critical faculties, religion doesn’t just disable, it honours the disability.
“People are revered for their capacity to live in a dream world, to shield their minds from factual knowledge and to make the major decisions of their lives by consulting voices in their heads that they call forth by rituals designed to intoxicate them,” writes Dennett.
Religion is nothing less than intoxication with irrationality. As Dennett points out, “You don’t have to be religious to be crazy, but it helps. Indeed, if you are religious, you don’t have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense to do massively crazy things. And – this is the worst of it – religious faith can give people a sort of hyperbolic confidence (spat at a scientist who does not believe in your holy book), an utter unconcern about whether they might be making a mistake, that enables acts of inhumanity that would otherwise be unthinkable.”
Dennett writes that although other institutions or traditions (sports or art) may encourage a certain amount of irrationality, “only religion demands its as a sacred duty.”
Imagine those 60 000 men blindly following the chips farmer “transferring all that respect, loyalty and intense devotion from an imaginary being – God – to something real: the wonderful world of goodness we and our ancestors have made and of which we are now the stewards.”
Pepler recently referred me to that wonderful chapter/episode in Jacob Bronowski’s book and television series The Ascent of Man. In the chapter “Knowledge or Certainty” Bronowski writes about the greatest strength of science, that it never believes in certainty. At Auschwitz, he steps into a pond of water where the Nazis, so certain of their truths, scattered the ashes of Jews they killed in the concentration camp. He writes:
“This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave (my emphasis). This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.
“Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known, we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgement in science stands on the edge of error, and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken’ “.
Unfortunately, the Shofar students who spat at Pepler and threw abuse at him, did that because of religious arrogance. Because of religious dogma. But the most frightening, because of ignorance enhanced and strengthened by religion and its leaders.
“Indeed, if you are religious, you don’t have to be crazy in the medically certifiable sense to do massively crazy things.”
Yes, just go and see “There Will Be Blood”’ to see the crazy thing the religious nut in the film did for money.
Comment by Savage — May 15, 2008 @ 4:21 pm |
“Recently I heard that the Stellenbosch scientist and lecturer Dave Pepler, also well-known as the presenter of the excellent nature program Groen, left a class where he had just completed a lecture on the importance of evolutionary science, when he was accosted by a group of students from the Shofar sect. They spat at him and hurled abuse at him.”
Those students are a bunch of primitive cavemen and women, extremely delusional, and very dangerous. I wonder if they stop for 1 second and ask themselves: “What would jesus do?”
I wonder why they feel so threatened by a scientist, if they believe so blindly that they are right and the scientist is wrong?
It is that dumb mother fucker Shofar that is to blame here. Don’t think for 1 minute he didn’t put them up to this. Don’t think for 1 minute he didn’t tell them they will be soldiers for jesus fucking christ.
The real dumb mother fuckers are actually those who listen to him (Shofar) and follow his preachings. And who gives him their money. If Shofar was running any country, there will be blood everywhere. These guys love the power, and they love to see violence and blood, all for JFC.
Go and see the movie “September Dawn”. Based on a true story, it shows what happens when religious leaders feel threatened, and how much blood they are willing to spill to easy their own minds.
Once again, back to the same old shit. These arsehole never stop to ask themselves the simple question: “What would jesus do?”
But that would be very inconvenient for them. It would mean that they can’t act like a bunch of bullies. Like a bunch of primitive cavemen. Like a bunch of ignorant vigilantes.
Seriously, spitting at someone you don’t agree with? What the hell is that?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 4:44 pm |
“Fanaticism and fear is forever busy, and needs feeding! And so Your Honor, with banners flying, and with drums beating, we’ll be marching backward! Backward through the glorious ages of that 16th century, when bigots burned the man who dared bring enlightenment and intelligence to the human mind!” – Inherit the Wind
You can watch that scene on YouTube, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_DQUAuNUvw&eurl=http://tudorie.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/teaser-inherit-the-wind-soon-ceu/
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 4:47 pm |
Fred May is a seriously delusional and very dangerous man. He is also making a lot of money from the stupid.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:00 pm |
From Shofar’s own website:
“In 1989 the Lord led Pastor Fred May and his wife Lucille to settle in the Stellenbosch area. Both Fred and Lucille had been actively involved in ministry since their conversions and were enjoying a sabbatical at the time. During this break the Lord placed a burden to intercede for Stellenbosch on Ps. Fred’s heart, especially when he saw that occult practitioners had become bold enough to gather in public séances and do door-to-door visits.
By the middle of 1991 Ps. Fred had started to disciple a small group of converts who joined him in spiritual warfare and intercession. The Holy Spirit directed them through prophecy to focus their prayers on the University of Stellenbosch and to take to the streets in praise and worship. In March 1992 God opened a door for this fledgling ministry to register as a student society and start ministering to the students in all earnest.
God, in His wisdom, had chosen to reach the community of Stellenbosch, which was greatly influenced by dead religion and racism, through a life-giving church that was born out of Ps. Fred and Lucille’s cross-cultural marriage. Despite initial misgivings the community of Stellenbosch – which to a large extent is the cradle of traditional religion and apartheid in South Africa – has embraced Shofar Christian Church and its calling to reach all nations and generations.
Shofar reached thousands of students through disciple making and leadership development and in 1998 did its first church plant by multiplying itself to the university’s Tygerberg campus. Shofar Christian Church has since grown into a fully-fledged family church and has planted churches in Worcester, Pretoria, Windhoek and London, while ministries in Retreat, Franschhoek and Macassar have recognized Ps. Fred’s leadership and also joined the ever growing Shofar Family.
Shofar uses Foundations, Cell Groups and Bible Schools to fulfill its vision of taking the whole gospel to the whole world! “
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:01 pm |
“In March 1992 God opened a door for this fledgling ministry to register as a student society and start ministering to the students in all earnest.”
The University of Stellenbosch should ban these organisations from doing anything religious on campus. Shofar, and Fred May have no right to interfere with anything academic. If these student insist on The University of Stellenbosch to stop teaching science classes, they should be expelled. No student has the right to deny another student an education of his/her choice. These ignorant zealots will be a lot happier in some other dumb ass religious university.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:09 pm |
“During this break the Lord placed a burden to intercede for Stellenbosch on Ps. Fred’s heart, especially when he saw that occult practitioners had become bold enough to gather in public séances and do door-to-door visits.”
“…occult practitioners….” what an arrogant fucker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He and his organisation, Shofar, is nothing but a fucking CULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:13 pm |
“….occult practitioners had become bold enough to gather in public séances and do door-to-door visits”
What does he call what they do on the Campus of Stellenbosch? What does he call his cult members sitting in science classes and heckling the lectures, what does he call his cult members spitting at scientists in public?
Fred May, you are nothing but a CULT leader, a very ignorant and very stupid and very dangerous man. Go and preach your shit somewhere else, and leave academic institutions alone, it is no place for you and your cavemen.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm |
I am a student at stellenbosch and I cannot believe that anyone who wants to study a science would do such a thing. Would they not have a stronger belief in their chosen subject of study? I would probably not have been so surprised at this if it was a couple of theology students on a christian youth camp. This just reminds me of a conversation I had recently with a first year student who is converting from the Anglican church to Catholicism. First I was astounded at the fact that having grown up in one really restricting religious view, he was casting himself into an alcatraz of religious bull. My point is that his view on knowledge is that “Ignorance is bliss”. The hypocrisy behind that statement was so blatant. Here he is studying a BA degree in Humanities, at a world class university which is based on the study of science behind subjects. If you feel that learning scientific fact is against your ignorance, I mean, religious view point, you should not even think about going to school let alone university. Knowledge should not be wasted so. At least when the rapture comes we will have the freedom to teach and learn science with no limitations.
Comment by jacolene — May 15, 2008 @ 5:19 pm |
“…spiritual warfare and intercession.”
Sounds militant and fanatical to me.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:22 pm |
Jacolene wrote: “I am a student at stellenbosch and I cannot believe that anyone who wants to study a science would do such a thing”
Yes Jacolene, I agree, but the problem is when people who does not even study a science, start to interfere with science classes, teachers and campuses.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:25 pm |
http://prometheusongebonde.wordpress.com/2007/02/
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:29 pm |
http://prometheusongebonde.wordpress.com/category/shoko-asahara/
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:30 pm |
http://prometheusongebonde.wordpress.com/category/university-education/
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:31 pm |
Does anyone know what The University of Stellenboisch has to say about all this?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 5:37 pm |
McBrolloks # 13: Has anyone of Shofar’s cult members, or the main man himself, even attempted to answer any of the questions? No, of course not. That would require some rational thinking which is totally lacking there!
Comment by Savage — May 15, 2008 @ 5:56 pm |
Here is the website for Shofar:
http://www.shofaronline.org/index.html
They have that other dumb arsehole Angus Buchan as a reference there. These guys always look after each other.
Q&A:
” Are members compelled to make financial donations to the church?
No, not in the least. All giving is done on a completely voluntary basis. Contributions of individual members are not tracked either. Financial giving is regarded as a sacred act of worship and therefore this is an area onto which the leadership never trespasses. This ensures that every member has the freedom and the space to act only on the basis of personal conviction where there is an absolute absence of external constraint. ”
“Financial giving is regarded as a sacred act of worship…”
In other words, if you love god or jesus, you are committing a “sacred act of worship” when you give your money to this CULT.
” How does the church manage its finances?
Shofar operates as an Association Not For Gain and is registered as such with the Department of Social Development 031-463 NPO. Its constitution allows for religious non-profitable activities overseen by a financial committee. Shofar also enjoys tax exempt status at SARS. This exemption is reviewed annually and audited financial statements are submitted for scrutiny to the Tax Exemption Unit of SARS.
The financial affairs of the church are overseen by a financial committee, consisting of qualified and capable senior members of the church. The church members are updated on the state of affairs at an Annual General Meeting.
Income is solely derived from voluntary donations. The church teaches at its new members course that the church administration and community work depends on voluntary giving. All donations are received into the church’s bank account from where it is administered and accounted for. Full time pastors and employees receive approved salaries. The payroll system is administered by an employed Chartered Accountant and tax requirements are strictly complied with.”
“The church teaches at its new members course that the church administration and community work depends on voluntary giving.”
So, that sacred act of worship, namely giving your money to the cult, is taught in the mandatory class every wannabe new member has to attend. They also enjoy all their funds TAX FREE!!!!
“Does the church disregard / ignore science?
No, certainly not. We believe science to occupy an acutely significant place within a biblical Christian worldview. At the same time we reject the other extreme position – where science is deified (worshipped as a substitute for God). The Bible nevertheless provides a clear mandate for science. Here then lies the distinction – in how we relate to science. We accept all the facts of science but interpret these differently due to divergent presuppositions.
Secular humanism has its perspective framed by the dogmatic assumption that there is or can be no God, therefore no creator. We, on the other hand, assume the existence of God, as creator who grants mankind the sacred stewardship of creation. This mandate of stewardship is what historically has spawned the foundations of modern science in that many of the countries in which science has flourished are those with a traditionally Judeo-Christian worldview. As a result many of the celebrated pioneers of modern science were Christians who believed the Bible, honoured God as creator and embraced their sacred mandate as stewards of God’s creation. Some better known examples are: Sir Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, James Joule, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler etc. So too even today many of the world’s leading scientists prescribe to the same presuppositions and continue to make significant contributions to the development of science. This illustrates the fact clearly that, contrary to some claims, Biblical faith is by no means opposed nor detrimental to scientific research and advancement.
With regard to our position on the history of origins – of the universe, life and man (which is sometimes known as the creation versus evolution debate) we say the following: Both creation and evolution deal with interpreting history, not science, since neither party can observe or repeat the past to prove what they believe. Both sides have certain assumptions or convictions about the past. It is thus not an issue of faith versus science, but rather that of science practised within two opposing paradigms or more specifically two opposing belief systems – one which acknowledges God as creator and one which refuses to. Since the Bible was written as neither a history nor a science text book there are necessarily many facts it does not reveal. Man therefore, has been afforded the opportunity to explore and to discover the remainder through historical and scientific research within a creationist framework.”
Hogwash!!!!!!!!! There is no room for religion in science. There is no compatibility with the two. Shofar and that ignoramus Fred May can’t make up the rules as it suits them.
“It is thus not an issue of faith versus science, but rather that of science practised within two opposing paradigms or more specifically two opposing belief systems – one which acknowledges God as creator and one which refuses to.”
“It is thus not an issue of faith versus science.” – Then stay away from the science classrooms with your bunch of henchmen, you fucking arseholes!!! Stay away from science teachers. Stay in your church, and leave the other people on this planet in peace.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:18 pm |
Here is the IFCC (International Federation of Christian Churches) statement. This is what Shofar stands by:
” We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament in their original writing as fully inspired of God and accept them as the supreme and final authority for faith and life.
We believe in one God, eternally existing in three Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We believe that Jesus Christ was begotten of the Father, conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary and is true God and true man.
We believe that God created man in His own image; that man sinned and thereby incurred the penalty of sin which is death, physical and spiritual; that all human beings inherit a sinful nature which issues (in the case of those who reach the point of moral responsibility) in actual transgression involving personal guilt.
With regards to sexual behaviour, we believe in heterosexual relationships between a natural man and a natural woman within the confines of lawful matrimony. Adherence to this stated principle of sexual behaviour is an inherent requirement with International Federation of Christian churches IFCC.
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins a substitutionary sacrifice according to the Scriptures and that all who believe in Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood.
We believe in the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus, His ascension into heaven and His present life as our High Priest and Advocate.
We believe in the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe that all who repent of their sins and receive the Lord Jesus Christ by faith are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become children of God.
We believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, empowering and equipping believers for service, with the accompanying supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit and in fellowship with the Holy Spirit. We believe in the divinely ordained ministries of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor and Teacher.
With regards to submission to authority, we believe in the principle of being in authority because you are under authority. As such, it is understood that IFCC membership shall be subject to submission to authority in matters pertaining to church governance, doctrine and personal behaviour.
We believe in the resurrection of both the just and unjust, the eternal blessedness of the redeemed, and the eternal banishment of those who have rejected the offer of salvation.
We believe that the one true Church is the whole company of those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ and regenerated by the Holy Spirit; that the local church on earth should take its character from this conception of the Church Spiritual and therefore, that the new birth and personal confession of Christ are essential for Church membership.
We believe that the Lord Jesus appointed two ordinances, Baptism in water and the Lord’s Supper, to be observed as acts of obedience and as perpetual witnesses to the cardinal facts of the Christian faith; Baptism is the immersion of the believer in water as a confession of identification with Christ in burial And resurrection and the Lord’s supper is the partaking of the emblems symbolic of the Saviour’s broken body and shed blood, in remembrance of his Sacrificial death, till He comes.
We believe that divine healing was provided for in the Old Testament and is an integral part of the Gospel.
We believe the Bible teaches that without holiness no man can see the Lord. We believe in the doctrine of sanctification as a definite, yet progressive work of grace, commencing at the time of new birth and continuing until the consummation of salvation.
The church is open to any further truth, which the Holy Spirit may illuminate from the Scriptures.”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:19 pm |
From the IFCC (International Federation of Christian Churches) statement:
“With regards to sexual behaviour, we believe in heterosexual relationships between a natural man and a natural woman within the confines of lawful matrimony. Adherence to this stated principle of sexual behaviour is an inherent requirement with International Federation of Christian churches IFCC.”
So, if you are gay, you can not join this cult, sorry. Isn’t this statement a bit homophobic? Isn’t that the same as been a racist, but on the grounds of sexual orientation in stead of skin color?
So Fred May, is this your official stance on sexual orientation, or just an oversight?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:27 pm |
From the IFCC (International Federation of Christian Churches) statement:
“With regards to submission to authority, we believe in the principle of being in authority because you are under authority. As such, it is understood that IFCC membership shall be subject to submission to authority in matters pertaining to church governance, doctrine and personal behaviour.”
Here is that old control thing again. You have to think how we tell you, do what we tell you, fuck who we give you permission to, follow our orders, or go directly to hell, do not pass begin, do not collect R200.00.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:29 pm |
From the IFCC (International Federation of Christian Churches) statement:
“The church is open to any further truth, which the Holy Spirit may illuminate from the Scriptures.”
So this is where science gets kicked in the nutts. It can’t be true if god didn’t reveal it in the scriptures.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:31 pm |
From the IFCC (International Federation of Christian Churches) statement:
“We believe in the personal return of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Good for you. But if he comes back, do you really believe that he will condone what you are doing Fred May? If he comes back, you are well and truly fucked Fred May. He will kick your arse!!!!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 15, 2008 @ 6:34 pm |
George, ek is nou nogal intrigued – het hulle regtig op Pepler gespoeg? Ernstig nou?
Comment by Johan Swarts — May 15, 2008 @ 11:31 pm |
Johan Swarts,
“George, ek is nou nogal intrigued – het hulle regtig op Pepler gespoeg?”
You are intrigued? tsk tsk….i have much stronger emotions… yuo should “let the ghosts go. Let them cover their socketless eyes with their fleshless hands and forever fade from the memory of man.” Ingersoll (quote from memory).
Comment by Objective — May 16, 2008 @ 5:22 am |
I study at Stellenbosch, have done so for the past 2 1/2 years. I have been to Dave Pepler’s lectures twice so far, everytime he presented his information in a very rationaly, logical way. He even did his best to keep it objective, which is difficult seeing that his presentation was about evolution. But nonetheless although there was a slight bias towards Darwin and his compatriots there was nothing in his speech that I would have deemed insulting or incitive. But then again, my tolerance for these thing is very large. Seeing as I pretty much despise religions and their institutions. Anyways, back to the story. After the first year (2006) he did recieve some flak from one or two of the more active “cults” in stellenbosch. He then delivered an even more placating speech in 2007. After which he was approached by two male students each carrying a bible. These then proceded to spit at his feet and insult him. To my knowledge there weren’t any incidents like that this year. There was also an incident last year where a group of religious fanatics, or as I like to call them assholes, boycotted a lecture on evolution. The story was in the university newspaper “Die Matie”. The funny thing is that, atheists go around leaving everyone alone and keeping their thoughts to themselves. I used to be like that, then I just got sick and tired of being stopped in the middle of the street by these wankers wearing that sickening smile and having that glazed over look in their eyes, wanting me to join God, explain myself as to why I don’t open my heart to the lord and all that bullcrap. So lately I’ve become very vocal, I don’t keep my thoughts to myself in hushed whispers, I don’t euthanise the potency of my statements by watering them down, and I sure as hell do not take religious people into consideration. If I have to deny the core of my being, my philosiphies, my ideas, just so that I can make life comfortable for some idiot who does not show me the same respect. Then I renege all prior allegiances I have with that person and I go all out. The scourge of religion has blighted this world for far too long. Only once we can transcend that inate need to belive in a greater power(s) especially when it’s manifested in the form of an almighty god, only then will be as a species be able to move in one direction towards a greater good. Another thing that pisses me off, christians always bitch and moan about how they are being persecuted. No shit you twits, what you have been doing to various other minorties, cultures and even entire civilisations, has simply become too much for certain people. The game has been reversed. Why must Germany pay reparations for WW2? Why must companies who made their business in Apartheid South Africa pay compensation? Why don’t we turn the tables and make the catholic church pay? Pay for the crusades? Pay for the systematic ethnic cleansings? Pay for the burning of so-called witches? Pay for the loss and corruption of dozens of cultures? The church was never meant to become such a powerful and rich state. Priests were meant to be paupers, living on a minimal wage and the kindness of the people, NOT driving Roll’s Royces and having a summer castle in the Alps.
To any christians who dare read this.
I have been atheist for the better part of 10 years.
I did recently find this god person.
I was going through a severe depression and it seemed like a good idea at the time.
He did not help me, he is NOT loving.
I have since seen many people call to god for help, some of them very devout christians
Each and every time, nothing happened.
The only thing that keeps these people going is their near fanatical belief that “God has a plan for us, and this was meant to happen”
Some people are too stupid to realise that the only person who can make anything happen is you. You and You alone.
I have since many times uttered the words “F*** you god” and other much more blasphemous phrases. I am still alive, and healthier than ever, if anything, getting rid of this god thing completely has invigorated me. I am a better person for it.
But I waffle on.
A little bit of knowledge is not nearly as dangerous as a lot of ignorance.
Comment by Tiamat — May 16, 2008 @ 9:39 am |
Thanks for your imput, Tiamat.
Comment by Renier — May 16, 2008 @ 11:07 am |
input. tsk!
Comment by Renier — May 16, 2008 @ 11:08 am |
Ag ja. Dit laat my dink aan diegene wat steeds bly verkondig dat Islam ‘n vreedsame en vredeliewende galoof is en dan dreig om enig iemand wat dit betwyfel as godslasterlike kaffers (in die oorspronklike sin van die woord) van die gras af te maak …
Comment by Karel de Pauw — May 16, 2008 @ 11:11 am |
Karel, ek onthou nog ‘n plakaat wat een van die Moslem protestors gemaak het oor die Deense spotprente: “Kill those who say Islam is a violent religion”.
Comment by Renier — May 16, 2008 @ 12:17 pm |
Russian doomsday cult siege ends
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7404318.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 16, 2008 @ 2:21 pm |
Hi Tiamat. Welcome to the blog. Many here feel the way you do. These religious fuckers have been getting away with all this crap for way too long. The days where somebody who is a “man of god” gets treated with the utmost respect just because he is a “man of god” is over in my book. And these glazed eyed fucken wankers who want to tell us all about the good news gets quite a tongue lashing from me when they knock on my door, or stop me in the streets. I studied at Stellenbosch for 4 years, during the 1990’s, and was hoping that this crap would be a thing of the past in the new millenium, but looks like it is worse that ever. Academic institutions should ban all sects, cults and religions from their campuses. Leave the schools for learning, and use the churches and caves for worshipping in.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 16, 2008 @ 3:14 pm |
Good point Savage:
“McBrolloks # 13: Has anyone of Shofar’s cult members, or the main man himself, even attempted to answer any of the questions? No, of course not. That would require some rational thinking which is totally lacking there!
Comment by Savage — May 15, 2008 @ 5:56 pm “
Comment by McBrolloks — May 16, 2008 @ 3:21 pm |
Tiamat, your outpouring is indeed touching, coming from a young person as it does. I hope it will offer you some solace to know that many of us who post on this blog (and many who don’t) have gone through the same soul-searching, even mental and verbal torment, in our younger days. Hold your head high and stick to your guns, brother (or is it sister?) — sooner or later you will start mellowing in your vehement attitude against these self-appointed disciples of god. Hopefully you will then be grateful that you can lay down your head at night and be honestly grateful that you had never hurt another living being in defending your convictions (like I have, regrettably). Bertrand Russell may be a good reference in this regard.
BTW: Why does Ti-amat so much resemble the Latin for “I love you”?,
Comment by Oom Stoffel — May 16, 2008 @ 8:23 pm |
“Sho far” we have have been too intoxicated to say anything intellagant (ish that shpelt correctly? I can’t shee sho nishe.)
Comment by Bill Fleetwood — May 17, 2008 @ 6:03 am |
“In 1989 the Lord led Pastor Fred May and his wife Lucille to settle in the Stellenbosch area. Both Fred and Lucille had been actively involved in ministry since their conversions and were enjoying a sabbatical at the time. During this break the Lord placed a burden to intercede for Stellenbosch on Ps. Fred’s heart, especially when he saw that occult practitioners had become bold enough to gather in public séances and do door-to-door visits”.
These people seem even too dumn to figure out where to go, where to settle and what to do next without the Lord personally leading them and giving them step by step instructions. Poor old Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan and Bill Gates and other geniuses such as they have to do without any personal attention from the Lord, but these nitwits get step by step “leadings” and instructions from the Ruler of the Universe himself. Sometimes it is hard to figure out what is bigger in these people: their lust for power over other people; their love for upper-middle-class kitsch, or their damn egos. And then they proudly tell you that not only did the Lord himself push them onto hard-working, honest, thinking people’s turf and into their faces, but uncle Angus Buchan endorses all that.
Did they really spit at the lecturer, or is this just a story? Really snotty bunch, hey? Perhaps the other students should pour buckets of thoroughbred bulldog drool all over them during lecture time, just because they dared to enter a university, with no brain.
Comment by Bill Fleetwood — May 17, 2008 @ 6:22 am |
I bet if Fred May really does start hearing voices, he would not believe it as being the voice of god anyway. These fuckers know they have never heard any voice of god ever. They just believe they did, in some other mysterious way, heard god talk to them by giving them a sign or something. God can’t spell anything out, these nuts have to guys what he is telling them. But they are quick to justify all their actions by saying: “god told me to do this, and that.”
Looney tunes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 17, 2008 @ 2:17 pm |
Oom Stoffel wrote:
BTW: Why does Ti-amat so much resemble the Latin for “I love you”?,
Nah, Tiamat is the Babylonian god(dess) of the sea and primordial chaos.
Thanks for the input guys, really appreciate it that I found some like minded individuals here. I have gone too long without a proper, constructive way in which to express my (out)rage at the bullshit that religion keeps perpetuating in this world. But it all basically came to a crux when I heard the story about how certain schools/PTAs are pushing that creation “science” (a laughable concept in itself) be taught at school. That’s where I reached the point of enough is enough. I’m restricted in my options as to how I can proceed in protest against this. Mainly because all the sects and cults in Stellenbosch would descend upon me with all their self-righteous wrath. My wit isn’t sharp enough to cut through thick skulls just yet. Which is why I have done this, I created a facebook group “keep god OUT of schools”. I am proud to say that since then 2 of my friends have stopped speaking to me. Did I stop speaking to them when they joined their little christiany groups? No. So all this bullcrap about being tolerant and accepting is once again. FALSE. I’ll give them that the bible has one or two good life lessons in it, maybe a good bed time story or two. Even it’s fair share of action and horror. But beyond that there is nothing divine about it. Especially since a bunch of Roman senators got to vote as to what shall be put in and left out. The ten commandments, pfft, what a joke. Those are pretty much common sense. In fact they even restrict some of human nature. I am completely atheistic, but a while back I did some reading into satanism, and I must say. The Satanic commandments are way more appealing than the christian, jewish or islamic ones are. Read up on it, trust me it’s worth it.
I would just like to thank everyone for the feedback, up until now I have been banned from a few sites for being rather verbal on the subject matter. But I feel at home here.
On a last note, I love how every christian I have met up until now, assumes this stance of superiority just because they have the “lord” on their side. But when you assume the same superiority, because everything you are and have, you worked for yourself, you sweated blood and tears to get there, they immediately try and shoot you down about pride being sinful and some such bullshit.
I apologise for not being as verbose or coherent as I was yesterday, the day has been long and the night will prove to be even longer. I promise to return soon enough with a proper statement.
Comment by Tiamat — May 17, 2008 @ 5:42 pm |
# 36 “These *&%$ know they have never heard any voice of god ever. They just believe they did, in some other mysterious way”.
Yeah, they possibly do. But then, maybe they are just simply lying through their teeth? I mean, many people lie, so why not these guys? Lying is not very “spiritual”, though, don’t they know? I posted a story elsewhere about how one of these “god-showed-me-this-and-that” yokels put his foot in it for all to see, but I’ll post it here too:
The other night on the Total Bullshit Network (TBN) I saw a “Dr.” Richard Roberts (son of Oral Roberts, I believe) doing some really amazing miracles. He was sittting with a guy with a really wacky hairdo, getting all kinds of “revelations” from the Lord about sick people who were getting healed as he prayed for them through the T.V.. One case was particularly impressive: “The Lord is showing me someone who has had one lung removed on account of lung cancer, and” (NOW GET THIS!)”he is about to go in to have the other lung removed”, he said. Really! I’m not kidding! Do you guys think “Dr.” (definitely not an M.D., I’m sure) Roberts’ Lord really doesn’t know that people can’t live with no lungs? If this kind of thing does not make your bullshit detector beep itself out of batteries, you ain’t got a bullshit detector.
P.S. Would you believe that the guy with the wacky hairdo had a laptop and knew how to operate it with more than one finger!!? I say again: Pretty impressive stuff on the Total Bullshit Network.
Comment by Bill Fleetwood — May 18, 2008 @ 3:56 pm |
Hehe, yeah I laugh at these sorry people
I was once privy to such a seminar thing. I unwittingly signed up to the wrong camp. At first I as weirded out, but then it got alot more interesting as more and more signs of severe psychosis’ started showing, the drooling, the loss of motor functions, the loss of speech, well, actually they didn’t lose it, it just degenerated into a form of mad raving about the lord and the holy spirit etc. I once read somewhere (don’t ask me where) that people who were having religious vision had the same areas in their brains active as those who were tripping on LSD. . . ’nuff said.
Comment by Tiamat — May 18, 2008 @ 6:24 pm |
“Cape Town – The death of two Comrades runners last year could be a message from God that he was displeased with running the race on a Sunday, a Christian runner has suggested.

Hansie Louw, who was the leader of the African Christian Democratic Party in the Western Cape until last month, said in a statement at the weekend that he was asking all Christians to withdraw from the race to give a message to organisers.”
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2324533,00.html
:0
Just when one thinks there is no higher level of nutiness that can be attained.
Comment by Hendrik — May 19, 2008 @ 6:01 am |
When I was a young boy, a five year old boy drownded one Sunday (between church services) when he fell into the swimming pool at their home. I remember it like yesterday. It really got me figuring. I’m still figuring. Perhaps Hansie Louw could enlighten us all about what pissed god off about this little chappie or his parents that day? Hey Hansie? How about it? Please, we pray, do tell.
Comment by Bill Fleetwood — May 19, 2008 @ 8:18 am |
I don’t really have time for these blogs at the moment, but thought I’d give my 2 cents worth.
Firstly I want to say that if that report is true, I’m truly sorry that people who claim to be Christians would resort to that kind of tactic. People who spit at others have not received that kind of teaching out of the Bible. I accept taking strong stands against propaganda in the classroom, but taking a stand and abusing someone for holding a different view is unacceptable and inappropriate.
On the contrary, Jesus standard is the standard of love. Loving your neighbour, loving your enemy and even praying for your enemy and feeding your enemy – now that is appropriate.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 19, 2008 @ 10:22 am |
Irrationality? Not really. FWIW I hate the term religion, however there is a lot of that around.
Think of it. There are probably only a handful of atheists in the world – around 1% I believe, but some figures I’ve seen claim up to 10%. Whatever the actual number is – it’s minor.
That means that 90% of the people in the world – by your standards – are cuckoo. What if – maybe – perhaps – those 90% in the world are correct that there is a God. What if that 90% of the people in the entire world are correct? What if they are all searching for something out there? What if they all see there fallen state before God? What if they are all trying to appease God in their own ways?
I think that says something about you really. That places you in the ignorant boat. That places you into the realm of irrational. Bible says that “The fool in his heart says there is no God”. You see that? He only SAYS this in his heart. It doesn’t say that you actually BELIEVE there is no God.
Back to the irrational. I think it is irrational that a God that hates sin – that all He can do about it is judge it – would even give us a second chance or even give people a chance to carry on living. Yet the fact that he has not only speaks volumes of His love for us. I think that is irrational. I also think that the fact that God gave His only Son to die on the Cross to take the punishment for our sins is also irrational. Then to even let me into Heaven one day is also irrational. It is just as irrational for me to help build houses for poor people in my spare time. It’s irrational for many people to volunteer time to give to many charitable organizations (not only Christians, although Christians motives are different). I think a lot of things in the world just don’t make sense. Like why Mugabe holds on to power or why people hate God so much to even deny His existence. So yes religion is irrational.
Thankfully though, I’m not religious. I also hate religion, because in the name of religion, people kill, they spit at others, they do all sorts of horrible things. What I do have though, is a relationship with the Living God. And no, it is not voices in my head. It is a true living relationship. God by His power has reawakened my spirit and I’m able to cry our “Abba Father”.
A pity that you keep confusing Christianity with religion.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 19, 2008 @ 10:57 am |
Brendon wrote: “Firstly I want to say that if that report is true, I’m truly sorry that people who claim to be Christians would resort to that kind of tactic.”
I know they are Christians, but it is really shit behaviour for any human being.
Brendon wrote: “People who spit at others have not received that kind of teaching out of the Bible.”
Funny, I would take a bet that they would justify their behaviour on scripture, contempt for the evil professor that hates god and steals souls with the devil’s lie of evolution etc etc. Don’t excuse you holy book Brendon, as we discussed before, good can be taken from it yes, but so can the bad.
Brendon wrote: “I accept taking strong stands against propaganda in the classroom, but taking a stand and abusing someone for holding a different view is unacceptable and inappropriate.”
Propaganda in the classroom? Evolution is now propaganda in biology classrooms? Project much? Evolution is part of the friggen course! If the religious have an issue with evolution thay can go the science route and disprove it, with experiments, tests etc. Whining about their holy book is not going to influence the knowledge we obtained (thru science) about evolution. Spitting at the evil oposition is also not going to disprove evolution.
Brendon wrote: “On the contrary, Jesus standard is the standard of love. Loving your neighbour, loving your enemy and even praying for your enemy and feeding your enemy – now that is appropriate.”
What are you talking about? Love and feeding an enemy and such. Your Bible contradicts you:
2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (1:11) For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
and
“2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (6:15) And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Now Brendon, I could tell you that there are clues why 2 John 1:7 and 2 John 1:10 are in the Bible and why scholars think the darn Catholics inserted it MUCH later that 70AD. See this verse:
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
You see, there were 2 factions. The one faction said Jesus rose/came in the spirit and the catholics said no, he rose/came in the flesh. These verses about “in the flesh” is very interesting. Why would the other faction (Was it the Aryans?) not believe the “in the flesh” if it is clearly in the holy writings? Or was it perhaps *not* in the writings at that time? But please, you won’t believe a word I say anyway (and that’s good!). But it might be an adventure to go and research the, uhm big word… in.. inter.. interpolations, yeah, go and reasearch them a bit. Anyway, because of these interpolations I am able to knock your “loving” attitude towards infidels as unbiblical and therefore in contradiction with God’s command, as seen in 2 Corinthians 6:14. Or, of course, you can just ignore the contraditions and claim it is out of context. The catholics would NEVER dare to add a few pieces to the Bible, would they? Would it still be “god” inpired after all?
Comment by Renier — May 19, 2008 @ 11:17 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#43 or thereabouts):
Deluded, not necessarily cuckoo.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#43 or thereabouts):
Even if they are, it doesn’t absolve them of having to provide evidence for their beliefs. That’s what you religious nuts don’t get, probably because the concept is so alien to your addled brains: if you believe any one thing without evidence, you can believe anything, no matter how absurd, without evidence, and that makes you a menace to a modern society – possibly a latent or passive menace, but a menace nonetheless.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#43 or thereabouts):
Then they are wasting their time and effort on a stupid delusion.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#43 or thereabouts):
Huh? On the contrary: to believe something, not because there’s any evidence for it, but simply because it’s nice is the height of ignorance and irrationality. And your bible is not evidence.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#43 or thereabouts):
And it’s an even greater pity that people like you keep confusing religion, christianity and fairytales of the same ilk with facts. Your god isn’t great; s/he isn’t even good; s/he’s a figment of your deeply schizoid sense of self-worth that on the one hand tells you you’re forever a miserable sinner (a station you can never escape), and on the other affords you the warm-and-fuzzy consolation that you’re one of your god’s special creatures.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 19, 2008 @ 11:36 am |
Brendon wrote: “FWIW I hate the term religion, however there is a lot of that around.”
Oh yeah, the classic “My PC is not! a computer” delusion. It’s just that you think your religion is special and the only one true ™ religion amongst thousends. You therefore prefer to call it something else like “a personal relationship with my best friend Jesus, best friends forever”. It’s still religion. But hey, grab a dictionary and check it out. At least be honest with yourself.
Brendon wrote: “Think of it. There are probably only a handful of atheists in the world – around 1% I believe, but some figures I’ve seen claim up to 10%. Whatever the actual number is – it’s minor.”
I think I know where your figures comes from. 10% of the Amrican population is atheistic, but only 1% atheists in the prison population. Funny, perhaps all the atheists have really good satan inspired advocates.
Satan: Hallo. Satan and associates. How may I help you?
Atheist: Good afternoon oh grand master. I am in need of assistence. I just murdered 7 cats and I think the police are on to me.
Satan: Not a problem. We will make it all just “go away”.
Atheist: Thank you master goats-head-in-a-pentagram. Do you have an estimate on cost?
Satan: Three souls.
Atheist: Three souls???
Satan: Three Christian souls
Atheist: Damn. So how do I get you a Christian soul?
Satan: Find a good, honest Christian and corrupt him!
Atheist: Where can I find a good honest Christian?
Satan: You have a point. Let’s make the price a sixpack of beer and a virgin.
Atheist: Why the virgin?
Satan: I am am role-playing “god” tonight.
Brendon wrote: “What if that 90% of the people in the entire world are correct?”
If 90% of the world believed in fairies, would that make it true. If the whole world believed in ghosts, would that make it true? In the roman era, if 90% of the soldiers followed the Mithras cult, would that make it true? Is the truth determined by a democratic vote? No, so there goes your argument. Wave it good bye, it was so cute.
Brendon wrote:”Bible says that “The fool in his heart says there is no God”.
The Bible says all kinds of weird things, such like donkeys can talk if god posesses them. And of course the Bible is going to HAVE to deal with the issue of unbelief. It’s a friggen book about religion and belief in the first place.
Brendon wrote: “Back to the irrational. I think it is irrational that a God that hates sin – that all He can do about it is judge it – would even give us a second chance or even give people a chance to carry on living.”
What is irrational is an all-mighty god that messed up from the beginning and had to keep on trying. Too human if you ask me.Tower of Babylon, Noah’s Flood, Jesus etc.
Brendon wrote: “So yes religion is irrational.”
I must admit you just shocked the crap out of me. But if you are sincere in what you say, then why the fk do you still wonder at people rejecting all the irrational stuff? It’s hard to believe irrational stuff. Oh, wait…. 90% you said? So 90% of humanity believes in irrational stuff, and you thing they might be right? Of course, science will never explain why 90% of people believe in irrational stuff. But wait a moment. Denette did investigate this and came up with possible answers (still to be tested, like all science). So Brendon, if there was an evolutionary reason wht 90% of the people are really gullable and open to certain memes, would you give it a second thought? But if I may. A child (in stone age times) who did not obey the command from a parent, such as “Don’t swim in that river, it full of crocks”. What would happen to such a child? Would he live long enough to reproduce? Brendon, if 90% of the kids believed in Santa, then they must be right? Right? This is after all your own reasoning.
Brendon wrote: ” It’s irrational for many people to volunteer time to give to many charitable organizations (not only Christians, although Christians motives are different).”
Yes, Christians always wants to right to indoctri… eh, preach. It comes with the “love offering”, Bibles and blankets.
Brendon wrote: “Thankfully though, I’m not religious. I also hate religion, because in the name of religion, people kill, they spit at others, they do all sorts of horrible things.”
And here I still recall your defence of Shofar as being “another word based church”. But no, now that they were caught at being naughty (if it is true) they are no longer True Christians(tm), just common heathens. But Brendon here does not spit at evolution profs, no, a true Christian would never dream of doing such a thing. A true Christian takes no suger either. Brendon, trying to define your religion as “not” a religion is, uhm, not really working. Perhaps I may make a suggestion. What are people called who are convinced their make-believe friends are real?
Brendon wrote: “What I do have though, is a relationship with the Living God. And no, it is not voices in my head.”
We just call it “voices in your head” to be clear about what we think it is. I know the Christian version of “voices in the head” is much more sophisticated. Og ja, ze soft still voice of ze Holy Spirit zat screams at you and such. For all the other people who might be confused, in normal everyday terms it is called “gut feel”. There is no difference. If Christians get’s a gut feel about something, then it’s god speaking. If the gut feel was wrong, the Christian heard wrong. If the gut feel was right, HOSANNA, proof of Jesus. I had a gut feel my car would stop riding today. Sure it was god urging me to put some juice in. Anyway, sorry Brendon, the whole “God’s Voice” secret has just been exposed to the heathens. You may now call it by it’s more common names like, gut feel, emotion etc. I still remember church… “I ‘feel’ that god is saying…” tsk tsk, and I fell for it.
Brendon wrote: “A pity that you keep confusing Christianity with religion.”
A pity you think we are accepting you fundie made jargon. Christianity *is* a religion, even your flavour of Christianity. Sorry if you don’t like it and prefer to use other words to describe your religion.
Comment by Renier — May 19, 2008 @ 12:13 pm |
Brendon wrote: “I also think that the fact that God gave His only Son to die on the Cross to take the punishment for our sins is also irrational.”
When you think about it, why would god have only 1 son? Why not a couple, and some daughters too? Why not a wife?
Maybe he is a discriminating sexist? Maybe he was invented by discriminating sexists? Not to mention delusional and ignorant.
Brendon wrote: “Thankfully though, I’m not religious. I also hate religion, because in the name of religion, people kill, they spit at others, they do all sorts of horrible things. What I do have though, is a relationship with the Living God. And no, it is not voices in my head. It is a true living relationship. God by His power has reawakened my spirit and I’m able to cry our “Abba Father”.”
Brendon, you are as fucking crazy as they come. Delusional too, but truly fucking crazy. You see, in the beginning of your post, you rant about how 90% of the worlds population can’t be wrong, because they are all religious, now you write them all of as being horrible wrong. And just as every religion always points out: you are right, everyone else is wrong, and god will punish and destroy those ignorant non believers, as well as those believers who believe a little differently than we do. Your relationship with your “living god” is nothing but a delusion. You are whore-shipping a ghost.
Brendon wrote: “I accept taking strong stands against propaganda in the classroom, but taking a stand and abusing someone for holding a different view is unacceptable and inappropriate.”
What the fuck is the difference you moron? Stay the FUCK away from our schools and universities. There is no place for dickheads like you and that fucking CULT arseholes there. You guys have your churches and your caves to do your ghost whore-shipping in. Atheists and scientist does not go and heckle ministers and cult leaders in their churches and their caves, when they are doing their whore-shipping and preaching and teaching propaganda. So it is only fair if you fuckers stay the fuck away from classrooms.
Brendon wrote: “I think a lot of things in the world just don’t make sense. Like why Mugabe holds on to power or why people hate God so much to even deny His existence. So yes religion is irrational.”
I am glad you show some signs of intelligent live there somewhere Brendon. Are you starting to think? Are you starting to question things? Good for you if you are. Anyway, people who question god’s existence don’t hate him. People who deny his existence can’t have him, because he does not exist to them. And as for arseholes like Mugabe who holds power, god has nothing to do with that, he does not exist. Wake up and smell the shit around you Brendon, you live in a godless world.
Comment by Mack Brolloks — May 19, 2008 @ 12:18 pm |
Type-O
“People who deny his existence can’t have him, because he does not exist to them.”
Hate, not have,
People who deny his existence can’t hate him, because he does not exist to them.
Comment by Mack Brolloks — May 19, 2008 @ 12:19 pm |
Brendon wrote: “Thankfully though, I’m not religious. I also hate religion, because in the name of religion, people kill, they spit at others, they do all sorts of horrible things.”
Wow, just wow. Since you say you hate religion, would you be willing to sign a petition to ban ALL religion from schools? After all, you mention some of the bad things that comes out of religion above and I am sure you would not want to expose your chidlren (or other people’s children) to such nonsense, such as religion? Right?
Comment by Renier — May 19, 2008 @ 12:24 pm |
“A letter from Einstein to philosopher Eric Gutkind in 1954 should put an end to the whole “Einstein believed in God” blabber you hear from time to time. The letter, which is being auctioned off this week contains Einstein’s scathing words about God, religious belief, and Judaism.
Here are some excerpts:
‘The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.’
‘For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.’
Not that any of it will really make a huge difference since we usually look to authority figures/idols for corroboration of our own ideas and doublethink any discrepancies that occur. But maybe it’ll stop Einstein’s words from being dragged through the mud each and every time these dumb science v. religion debates arise.”
From the CSW Blog.
But the fundies will take no notice of this. Einstein was religious if they want him to be religious for their arguments. Like Darwin repented on his death bed. All BS.
Comment by Savage — May 19, 2008 @ 1:12 pm |
Savage wrote: “Like Darwin repented on his death bed. All BS.”
Noooo!!! You mean some Christians started a lie and some are still repeating the same lie? Nooo! Never, I could never believe that god’s chosen people would lie to make their god look good. God is allmighty, he does no need lies to cover for him.
Sarcasm aside. Darwin did not “repent” on his death bed. But the fools fail to ask themselves: What if he did? Would it make ANY difference to his theory? They can’t kill evolution from a science view because everytime we test it, it comes out tops. So, they tried to kill it by lies, that the man who’s observations lead him to evolution had to “repent”? Repent for what? Repent for having an idea and for observation? But oooh nooh, Darwin had to “repent”, ask forgiveness from the Christian god because of his observations. Freaky reasoning eh?
But fear not. Brendon will tell you that the lady who made up the story, who lied about Darwin “repenting” on his death bed is not a true(tm) Christian, because a true(tm) Christian would never lie in such a deliberate way. Now I wonder… if Brendon was to ask some of his fundie friends, how many would think that Darwin *did* repent on his death bed? And I wonder if Brendon would speak to his friends and rectify the lie, tell them the truth? I hope so. It would be a start in shedding light on all the lies, taking over the responsibility for truth that those nasty atheists are complaining about on the blogs. On the other hand, a person who believes the lie that T.Rex ate coconuts in the Garden of Eden might just “believe” that Darwin did “repent” on his death bed.
But now I am really curious. Be honest Brendon, did you hear and believe the story that Darwin repented on his death bed? I know I did when I was a fundie. And to my friggen shame I retold the lie to many people. After all, Christians would not lie to one another, would they? God would not allow his church to be built on lies, would he?
Comment by Renier — May 19, 2008 @ 2:00 pm |
If the fundies were genuinely interested in giving “equal time” to evolution and creationism in schools as they so often claim, then the christian thing for them to do would be to start by giving such “equal time” to evolution in their own churches.
Does anyone see that happening?
Ever?
Comment by Con-Tester — May 19, 2008 @ 2:37 pm |
Brendon (#43): “Thankfully though, I’m not religious. I also hate religion…”
Good to have you back, and even better to witness how you are maturing as a Christian. Feeling the need to disassociate yourself from organised religion is a sure indicator of a move towards sanity. Keep up the good work. But, on a more serious note, surely you are aware that religion is a system of belief based on faith, or one that involves the worship of some deity, and that Christianity is a religion? Even if you call the object of your codified faith “Abba”?
Comment by Oubaas — May 19, 2008 @ 3:48 pm |
Hehe, wow *snigger* I am truely impressed at how thorough and well worded the bashing of this Brendon person was. I enjoyed reading the replies of Renier, Con-Tester and Savage. You guys are amazing, I aspire to one day have the knowledge you have, seeing as I am rather content with my rhetoric as it is. Alas, my varsity work and all such is keeping me from reading what I should be. Anyhows, the whole statement about Darwin repenting and refuting on his deathbed is a lie, I mean, not that there is any historical evidence of such an occurence, but think about it logically; This guys spent most of his life concocting, testing and writing his theory of evolution, he defended it against all odds, we sailed halfway around the fekking world with it. It was his life. I doubt that if anybody invested even half as much time into their work that they would go around bad-mouthing it. Also, a common misconception amongs the religious types is that theory means “without proof” this too is utter bullshit. A theory stems from a hypothesis, which is basically an idea, but through tests, counter-tests, counter-hypothesis’ and so forth, a very solid, factual base is formed, this is what the theory rests upon. So my dear christian friends, saying that evolution is “just a theory” with that condescending tone in your voice makes me want to smack you, because, whilst “just a theory” is valid, the condescending tone is not. We recently had an Australian doctor at the varsity who came to give a “seminar” on evolution vs. creation “science” *snigger*. The thing is that, this “seminar” was hosted by shofar, I guess you can all see where this is going. Not only was his speech HEAVILY biased towards creation “science” he twisted facts so that they served his purpose, he abused and mismatched snippets of speeches from other scientists, he perpetuated the LIE that Darwin repented, he insulted our education system, saying that we weren’t allowed to ask questions or the lecturer will tell us to shut up, he incited some form of self-righteous fury in the shofarians present, when an elderly gentleman stood up to just ask him a question about something that did not make sense, he was casually waved aside and asked to sit, ofcourse this was AFTER a shofar operative wrenched the microphone from his frail old hand. And it was after ALL this shit that we discovered this wanker to have his Ph.D in agriculture. Do you know how much evolution they cover in an agricultural Ph.D? About 2 months worth of “introductory” course. The rest is all on animal breeding and such. So by what right does a farmer think he can lecture us on evolution? I mean, I don’t go around telling him how to plant his fucking mielies. The sad part was that, those who didn’t have the scientific know-how or couldn’t think for themselves (as was the case with 90% of those present) were mightily impressed with this strange doctor who single-handedly broke evolution. Obviously I was rather vocal on my disgust at this man’s blatant lies, which drew a few concerned stares from other people. Heh, I even dressed up nicely, a shirt with a BIG pentagram on it.
As for what Brendan said “Thankfully I’m not religious etc”
You sound like one of those youth pastors, the one’s who get tatoo’s and play in a rock band. Because y’know, they’re cool like that and they want to show even the toughest of rebels that “god is cool, and he understands you”. Those people make me sick to my stomach. I mean ok, you want to indoctrinate everyone, you want to push those people who “haven’t made up their mind yet” towards the “light” fine. Well not really but whatever. But those people who purposefull move away from the “mainstream” for exactly those reasons, who want their quiet and who basically want to be left alone. Can’t you give them some fucking peace?
I personally view christians as weak. Ok that’s being unfair, I view religious people as weak, but specifically christians. Seeing as they feel the need to whine and bitch about everything. I mean, why pray for good fortune when you yourself can take the wheels of fortune and spin them to suit you? Why pray for good weather when it’s busy raining anyways? Why pray to a god who does not listen or care?
I can tell you why. Here I shall unveil my theory as to why so many people feel the need for a god. It is because people fear uncertainty. Uncertainty is that hesitation you feel before you enter a dark room, the cold sweat on your neck when you first meet the girl of your dreams. Uncertainty lives within all of us, yet some people, some brave souls see beyond uncertainty and there they see opportunity. Those who don’t see opportunity are doomed to become religious. Because they NEED god to explain all those things that they, or science (yet) can’t. When they walk into the dark room, they NEED god there to “tell” them that they are being protected. When they meet that girl, the NEED god there to “tell” them that it’s going to be a great date. It’s simple really. It’s like when you were a kid and you first learned to swim, your mom, or dad was at your side continuously saying “Don’t worry I’m here” that’s pretty much the effect that christians crave. I think I am done for now, my head hurts now. NO IT IS NOT A SIGN FROM GOD YOU FUCKTARTS!!!
One last thing, Brendan, quoting the bible on what atheistic people think, could you think of ANYthing more stupid to do? Honestly man, right then and there you should have realised that switching the computer off and going to bed would have been the best course of action.
Comment by Tiamat — May 19, 2008 @ 7:52 pm |
Custody battle in Texas sect case
Custody hearings have begun in a case involving parents of 463 children taken from a polygamist sect in western Texas following allegations of sexual abuse.
The hearings will allow parents seeking to regain custody to make their case.
In April, officials raided a compound of the sect saying young girls were being forced into marriage and sex. The children were placed into foster care.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has denied abuse and says it is being persecuted.
So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers of the children have been identified – reflecting the polygamist practices of the sect – the Associated Press news agency reports.
More than 100 children have still not been matched with mothers
The hearings, in the town of San Angelo, are expected to take several weeks.
Differing details
AP says the case, which began with a raid on 3 April, has been marked by confusion.
Officials from the Texas children’s agency have said some women and children have given different names and lied about ages.
As many as two dozen of the girls held in custody – including some mothers – may be adults, AP reports.
Initially the authorities said that more than half of the underage girls removed from the ranch are either mothers or are pregnant.
The legal age of sexual consent in Texas is 17 and polygamy is illegal in the US.
The children were removed from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado after someone called a domestic abuse hotline claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old abused by a much older husband.
The girl has never been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
Earlier this month, investigators said they had found signs of physical injuries among the children, but added it was unclear whether these were due to abuse.
Members live in large extended families, making it hard to determine exact parenthood, and the state is using DNA tests in its investigation.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is an offshoot of the Mormon Church, from the mainstream Mormons more than a century ago.
FLDS members are taught that a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven.
The church denies forcing young girls into polygamy.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7409006.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 19, 2008 @ 9:14 pm |
“The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has denied abuse and says it is being persecuted.”
Always persecuted!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of the 16 year old girls was pregnant with her 4th child.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 19, 2008 @ 9:16 pm |
Texas sect girls ‘mostly mothers’
More than half of the teenage girls removed from a polygamist sect in Eldorado, Texas, are either mothers or currently pregnant, US officials say.
All 463 children on the Yearning For Zion Ranch were taken into care after allegations of sexual abuse prompted police to raid the ranch this month.
Officials from the sect deny that any children were abused at the ranch.
Authorities believe that of the 53 girls aged between 14 and 17, 29 are already mothers and two are pregnant.
“It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive,” said Darrell Azar, a spokesman for the Texas Child Protective Services.
‘Largest case’
Detectives raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hotline saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband.
As a result of the raid, all children on the ranch aged between six months and 17 years of age were placed in emergency state custody.
Texas law states that if sexual abuse is happening in a home and a parent does not put a stop to it, then the parent can lose custody of the child.
The Yearning for Zion ranch belongs to a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).
Three wives
The sect is led by polygamist Warren Jeffs, who is currently in jail as an accomplice to rape after he forced a 14-year-old girl to marry her cousin.
The self-proclaimed prophet is currently awaiting trial in Arizona on charges of being an accomplice to four counts of incest and sexual conduct with a minor stemming from two arranged marriages.
The 10,000-strong sect, which dominates the towns of Colorado City in Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, split from the mainstream Mormon church more than a century ago.
Members believe a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven.
Women are meanwhile taught that their path to heaven depends on being subservient to their husband.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7372485.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm |
Renier wrote, “I know they are Christians”
Going to church and saying you’re a Christian doesn’t make a person a Christian.
Renier wrote, “Don’t excuse you holy book Brendon, as we discussed before, good can be taken from it yes, but so can the bad.”
Love your enemy is bad then? But then your favorite sport appears to be taking something out the of the context it was written in.
Renier wrote, “thay can go the science route and disprove it”
A work in progress… Funding anyone??
Renier wrote, “Your Bible contradicts you:” and quote some bible verses.
No it doesn’t read Matthew 5:38-44. Then read the contexts of the verses quoted. 2 John is in the context of false preachers of the Gospel. Many Christians take this verse and refuse JW’s into their homes, but I don’t believe that’s right. The instruction is having fellowship with the person. Quote from Wesley is instructive “Receive him not into your house – As either a teacher or a brother – Neither bid him God speed – Give him no encouragement therein.” Note the ‘as a teacher or brother…’
2 Corinthians is clearly talking about marriage. I doubt you’ll marry your enemy. I also believe it has reference to other areas, but seriously, would you go into business with an enemy? It’s clearly talking about enemies, the talk is of believers and unbelievers. Last I checked, unbelievers were not my enemy. Last I checked, I don’t think I have any enemies.
Renier wrote, “The catholics would NEVER dare to add a few pieces to the Bible, would they? ”
Actually they did.
Like ummmm what …. the apocrypha perhaps??? No they would never do such a thing
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 11:33 am |
Con-tester wrote, “Even if they are, it doesn’t absolve them of having to provide evidence for their beliefs.”
Trouble is, no proof would be good enough for you.
Con-tester wrote, “And your bible is not evidence.”
Point is made. If you reject the Bible as evidence, then there is nothing more you will accept as evidence.
Con-tester wrote, “you’re forever a miserable sinner”
Forever??? Ummm… not true. One day I will be perfect. And I’ll be perfect for all eternity.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 11:39 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#59 or thereabouts):
Not true. The evidence contained in these pages is good enough to convince me that believers will do just about anything to nurture their infantile religious delusions.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#59 or thereabouts):
Brendon Schafer, that’s just plain idiotic, even for a committed believer. The bible says nothing about, say, gravitational waves, yet they’ve been measured.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#59 or thereabouts):
… or, so you would hope. Maybe your god’s going to send you to that hot place because you chose to tell us lies about it.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 20, 2008 @ 11:57 am |
Renier wrote, “Oh yeah, the classic “My PC is not! a computer” delusion.”
Religion is not the same thing as relationship. Check the difference in the same dictionary.
Renier wrote, “if 90% of the kids believed in Santa, then they must be right? Right? This is after all your own reasoning.”
Not what I was trying to say. I’m pointing out that people are inherently religious. There is something in our psyche that makes us religious – whatever that religion is – your religion is a religion of self and or nature.
Renier wrote, “I must admit you just shocked the crap out of me.”
I’m hoping to shock the hell out of you really
Renier wrote, “then why the do you still wonder at people rejecting all the irrational stuff? It’s hard to believe irrational stuff. ”
Why? Because God has done a work in me that I cannot explain in other way. It’s called new life. It’s called being born again. It’s a spiritual thing that usually displays to the world by the fruit of what I do.
Renier wrote, “But no, now that they were caught at being naughty (if it is true) they are no longer True Christians(tm)”
Ummm…. Individuals who claim to be Christians and who apparently attend a particular congregation and do stuff they shouldn’t doesn’t make the preacher or the congregation false teachers. It places a question on the individuals. “You shall know them by their fruit. If the fruit is bad etc…”
Renier wrote, “We just call it “voices in your head” to be clear about what we think it is.”
That’s the point. You only think you know what it is, but you have no idea. You stay in ignorance as long as you reject the Bible and Jesus Christ as Saviour.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 12:08 pm |
Brendon wrote: “Like ummmm what …. the apocrypha perhaps???”
No Brendon, go check up even on the , what are thay called,… Afrikaans: “Kanonieke boeke”
Consider as well that for many years the Catholics were “keeprs” of the New Testament books in your Bible, nobody else. You think they did not tamper with it? Classic example outside of the Bible is the Josephus story. Catholic version very very different from the one that the Arabs kept. So why would they not change other “bible” books?
Brendon: “Going to church and saying you’re a Christian doesn’t make a person a Christian.”
You think this is the case with the Shofar thugs who spat at the professor? You think they don’t also claim to have a “relationship” with your dear friend Jesus?
Brendon wrote: “A work in progress… Funding anyone??”
What work? What science are they doing? Funding? Why, sorry I missed it, the Churches here on earth all so poor, so very very poor, please send Jesus more money. But wait, they build multi-million doller “creation science” museums and yet offer no science. They had 6000 years to come up with some concrete proof and now all of a sudden they complain they have no funding. Benny Hinn has his own private jet, but there is no funding. Religion is a multi-billion doller industry, tax exempt, and they have no funding. What, is God broke or something? Has God run out of ideas to help his children debate the nasty atheists and therefore cannot think of any idea that would provide proof that he did something. Anything, in fact. Funding. What a lame excuse.
Brendon wrote: “Love your enemy is bad then? But then your favorite sport appears to be taking something out the of the context it was written in.”
Who said love your enemy is bad? Context? The Isrealites loved their enemies (even boy babies) so much that they brutally slaughtered them and took all the virgins for their own pleasure. All this on God’s command according to the Bible. Love your enemies? Your god needs to start practicing what he preaches. Oh, and if that is “love” then please don’t love me…
Brendon wrote: “Then read the contexts of the verses quoted. 2 John is in the context of false preachers of the Gospel.”
Cool, so them nasty atheists are excused and this verse only applies to fellow Christians, or then, people who interpret the Bible in a different way than you do? Perhaps I was out of context. Let’s have a look.
Brendon wrote: “Quote from Wesley is instructive”
Does this Wesley have a stamped certificate indicating he is god’s chosen spokesman on earth? If not, why should I pay any attention to his *interpretation* of the Bible? And as I said many times, why should I believe *your* interpretation of the Bible Brendon? You got a stamped certificate perhaps?
Brendon wrote: “Many Christians take this verse and refuse JW’s into their homes, but I don’t believe that’s right.”
Well, the JW are “false teachers” in your view, are they not? So why do you get a free pass to disobey the word of god? Or is it the “context” trick again?
Brendon wrote: “2 Corinthians is clearly talking about marriage. I doubt you’ll marry your enemy. I also believe it has reference to other areas, but seriously, would you go into business with an enemy? It’s clearly talking about enemies, the talk is of believers and unbelievers. Last I checked, unbelievers were not my enemy. Last I checked, I don’t think I have any enemies.”
Don’t marry an enemy. Oh my, what glorious revelation in the Bible! Praise Jeebus, I never FKN guessed it! Either you are smoking something or I am loosing my mind trying to make sense of this. 2 Corinthians is talking about marriage, ok. So it’s about not marrying your enemy. What does the verse say about the enemy? “And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” Infidel? Don’t marry an infidel! So Brendon, if this verse is about not marrying the enemy, and it gives the example of infidel (unbeliever), then by your logic you should have enemies, the infidels, yet you deny the meaning of the verse and claim you have no enemies. You are a friggen master of selective interpretation! Keep it up and you will be a moderate soon, then I’ll leave you alone when the 6000 year old universe lunacy no longer taints your “interpretation”.
Just to rub it in and make sure you understand what I am trying to say. Look at what you wrote and then look at what you wrote shortly after.
Brendon wrote: ” It’s clearly talking about enemies, the talk is of believers and unbelievers.”
and then
Brendon wrote; “Last I checked, unbelievers were not my enemy. Last I checked, I don’t think I have any enemies.”
You contradict yourself. Not too bad though. The Bible is much worse and therefore your confusion migh be excused.
If the talk is about enemies and giving unbelievers as an example then how can you claim unbelievers are *not* your enemy? Do you just ignore the verses (or re-interpret them) when it does not suit your world view?
But since you accused me of “out of context” with this: “But then your favorite sport appears to be taking something out the of the context it was written in.”
Let’s see. Christians are to be assholes (neither bid them godspeed or you will share in their evil blah blah blah) to other Christians that has a different doctrine, but they can be friendly to unbelievers. But unbelievers are enemies! Infidels! Not just enemies, they are evil, according to the Bible: “Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.” Evil heart…
Here is the verse again: “2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (1:11) For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”
The words, “and bring not this doctrine” is fairly simple to me. A different doctrine. What about a view that the doctrine is false? That is a different “doctrine” after all. Would anti-doctrine be better and therefore this verse would not apply to atheists? Somehow I really think this verse applies to people with an anti-doctrine too, don’t you think?
Apart from the verse that says this: “1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
Anyone (like me) who denies that Jesus is the Christ/god/son of god is an antichrist, according to this verse. But your “context” means “and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, ” is not valid for antichrists, like me, since it is “just” dealing with ,uhm, false prophets with a different doctrine than yours, right? Sorry dude, I think the “context” stands.
Comment by Renier — May 20, 2008 @ 12:36 pm |
Mack Blollocks wrote, “Maybe he is a discriminating sexist? Maybe he was invented by discriminating sexists? Not to mention delusional and ignorant.”
Or maybe He created humans in His image and made them Male and Female. Ever consider that he isn’t human, but Spirit. Ever consider He isn’t sexual, but created two sexes to more fully display His attributes? I know. You immediately think of sex, when I’m not talking physical attributes. eg. Mother’s are nurturers, father disciplinarians and many other differences.
Mack Brollocks wrote “beep, beep, beep”
Sorry. Not gonna read that drivel, but I’m glad your conscience is still alive. Do something about that God-given conscience before its too late.
Mack Brollocks wrote, “Wake up and smell the shit around you Brendon, you live in a godless world.”
So. Mack, what you are saying is that there is no justice. People live in fear of their lives by a tyrant they get to the end of their lives and well… nothing? You are cursing people by your godless society. I’m truly glad that what happens is Zim somehow has meaning and that Bob will give an account one day for what he is doing in that country and justice will one day be seen to be done. I’m also glad that every single rapist, murderer and thief will be found out one day even if not in this lifetime. Your life is meaningless and incredibly sad.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 12:39 pm |
Renier wrote, “Since you say you hate religion, would you be willing to sign a petition to ban ALL religion from schools?”
Never. Why do you, who has the freedom to dis religion, not want people to have the freedom to practice religion. Your double standards are clear – not to mention vial.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 12:43 pm |
Renier wrote, “But now I am really curious. Be honest Brendon, did you hear and believe the story that Darwin repented on his death bed? ”
Actually I believe it’s a lie. I think the lady was his wife, if memory serves correctly. I also think she was a devout Christian who may have wanted CD to have a Christian burial. But we really wont know the truth, will we? Well until judgement day at least.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 12:48 pm |
Brandon wrote
Renier wrote, “We just call it “voices in your head” to be clear about what we think it is.”
That’s the point. You only think you know what it is, but you have no idea. You stay in ignorance as long as you reject the Bible and Jesus Christ as Saviour.
But in the same instance, how the hell do you know that it’s god or that jesus thing speaking to you? Most schizophrenics aren’t aware that the voices in their head are imaginary.
About the whole, “I hate religion, it’s more of a relationship” bullshit. Your “relationship”
with this ’so-called’ god phenomena is based on faith, and what is religion based on? Faith, exactly, therefore your relationship IS your religion. Don’t come with this BS about being different and open-minded just because you do not adhere to this “religion” thing.
Brendan wrote
Renier wrote, “I must admit you just shocked the crap out of me.”
I’m hoping to shock the hell out of you really
C’mon, that was just infantile.
Brendan wrote
I’m pointing out that people are inherently religious. There is something in our psyche that makes us religious – whatever that religion is – your religion is a religion of self and or nature.
Bullshit, you ought to replace religious with superstitious. But people are definately NOT inherently religious. Your first thought as a new born would sure as hell not have been “YAY GOD”. It is only as you grow and and go to school, church and all that stuff that you are gradually exposed to religion and either choose to believe or not. People will always have a modicum of inherent superstition, but to say that you are born with (which is what inherent basically denotes) religious feelings is false.
Brendan wrote something about being perfect. Honestly man. Why would you want to be perfect? As far as I know the bible taught something about only god being perfect, does that mean you aspire to be god? That’s blasphemous that is young man.
Brendan wrote
Renier wrote, “thay can go the science route and disprove it”
A work in progress… Funding anyone??
Just ask the fucking church man. Or ANY other religious institution. They are coining it year in and year out. Religious institutions are TAX EXEMPT. The Vatican city alone is sitting on over 50 BILLION Dollar’s worth of cash. They have a deal with Toyota which gets them free cars. Ofcourse, asking the church for money for SCIENTIFIC research would only make sense if they were interested in such. A few years ago, Bill Gates sponsored over 160 million dollars for AIDS research and relief in South Africa. To my knowledge the church has done fuckall to prevent AIDS, oh yeah, apart from their laughable ABC strategy, ABSTAIN, BE faithful and that C? do you think it stands for CONDOMISE? Hell no, it stands for. . . *cue drumroll* CHRISTIANISE!! Hell the catholic church even expressely FORBIDS the use of condoms. And seeing as most of the new world (Africa, South America, Asia) was colonised by catholics, most of those people are catholics. See where this is going? I’ll admit that some blame lies with outdated tribal traditions and such though.
Comment by Tiamat — May 20, 2008 @ 12:52 pm |
Brendan wrote
Renier wrote, “Since you say you hate religion, would you be willing to sign a petition to ban ALL religion from schools?”
Never. Why do you, who has the freedom to dis religion, not want people to have the freedom to practice religion. Your double standards are clear – not to mention vial.
Practising religion is good and all, it’s even protected by the constitution. BUT, when it comes to only ONE religion being taught at a school, and all the children being made to sit through that retarded drivel, that’s where the issue lies. So, no double standards from Renier there young man. Also, it’s spelled VILE not vial and THIS not dis. You’re not Jaimaican.
Comment by Tiamat — May 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm |
Con-tester wrote, “If the fundies were genuinely interested in giving “equal time” to evolution and creationism in schools as they so often claim”
Actually I understand that many Christian home schooling curricula do give equal time to both. Or at least present both views.
Con-tester wrote, “then the christian thing for them to do would be to start by giving such “equal time” to evolution in their own churches.”
Now why on earth would we do that? The plain teaching of the Bible is that man is a sinner condemned by God, but God reaching down to save otherwise condemned sinners. It has very little to say about science (in proportion). But thanks. You finally admit that creationism is a science then?
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 1:00 pm |
Tiamat wrote, “One last thing, Brendan, quoting the bible on what atheistic people think, could you think of ANYthing more stupid to do? ”
I agree with your sentiments on youth pastors with tattoos. They’re about as annoying as youth pastors with ear rings.
Quoting the Bible? Actually, I couldn’t think of anything more appropriate. Especially in the light of Hebrews 4:12.
Here’s another “Fool says in his heart there is no God” Psalm 14:1. And another “If anyone says he is without sin he is a liar, but if we confess our sin God is faithful and just to forgive us our sin…” paraphrased from 1 John 1:8-9.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 1:10 pm |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
You understand wrong. At best, such curricula present a caricature of evolution: “Ever seen a lizard turn into a bird? No? There you go, see how silly evolutionists are!”
Brendon Schafer wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
As a show of good christian principles that you are serious about giving “equal time” to the alternatives. Your church no doubt raises humanity’s supposedly divinely ordained origins more than occasionally. Why should parishioners be deprived of considering alternative explanations? After all, your god gave them free will (and the promise of a sound roasting should they demur) to decide for themselves.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
So why would you want to supplant legitimate science with it?
Brendon Schafer wrote (#68 or thereabouts):
Not at all. I was merely drawing attention to the deep-seated hypocrisy inherent in the way “equal time” is invariably punted.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 20, 2008 @ 1:33 pm |
Renier wrote, “Does this Wesley have a stamped certificate indicating he is god’s chosen spokesman on earth? If not, why should I pay any attention to his *interpretation* of the Bible? And as I said many times, why should I believe *your* interpretation of the Bible Brendon? You got a stamped certificate perhaps?”
Try John Wesley. Founder of the Methodist Church. Actually the good thing about interpreting the Bible, is that you can check back on how others throughout the centuries have interpreted it. I think I’m in good company.
Renier wrote, “Just to rub it in and make sure you understand what I am trying to say. Look at what you wrote and then look at what you wrote shortly after.
Brendon wrote: ” It’s clearly talking about enemies, the talk is of believers and unbelievers.”
and then
Brendon wrote; “Last I checked, unbelievers were not my enemy. Last I checked, I don’t think I have any enemies.””
Sorry. I’m fallible. Trying to type to quickly or whatever and not checking. The text is not talking about personal enemies. It is talking of relationships with unbelievers (God’s enemies).
Renier wrote, “Anyone (like me) who denies that Jesus is the Christ/god/son of god is an antichrist, according to this verse. But your “context” means “and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, ” is not valid for antichrists, like me, since it is “just” dealing with ,uhm, false prophets with a different doctrine than yours, right? Sorry dude, I think the “context” stands.”
Context? Try the context in which 2 John was written. There were preachers walking around at the time preaching a false gospel swindling money out of well meaning persons. These people would typically stay at someone’s house for a period of time and wouldn’t contribute to the food they would eat etc. In short, they were parasites. Given in that context these people were preaching doctrines contrary to what the apostles (and later disciples) were teaching. I think that what John wrote in that context, namely of not having fellowship these people or inviting them into your home stands. It doesn’t instruct me today to ignore JW’s and others that may knock on my door. However, if a person claims to be a brother, then distorts the message of the gospel (especially one of the primarily important doctrines) then I would need to do as instructed by that letter.
BTW. I don’t consider you an anti-christ. Just an atheist who must bow his knee to King Jesus one day. It’s one thing to claim to be a Christian – then preach a false gospel (an anti-christ). It’s another to be a complete pagan (or an atheist) who needs to hear the gospel.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 20, 2008 @ 2:31 pm |
Brendon wrote: “BTW. I don’t consider you an anti-christ. Just an atheist who must bow his knee to King Jesus one day.”
Well, if king jesus is all the bible tells us, this is how Henry Louis Mencken reasons: “If I have been wrong in my agnosticism, when I die I’ll walk up to God in a manly way and say, “Sir, I made an honest mistake.”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 4:01 pm |
Now Henry Louis Mencken might be forgiven, but those others, like the catholics, are all going to hell, hey Brendon?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 4:04 pm |
Brendon wrote: “I’m truly glad that what happens is Zim somehow has meaning and that Bob will give an account one day for what he is doing in that country and justice will one day be seen to be done. I’m also glad that every single rapist, murderer and thief will be found out one day even if not in this lifetime. Your life is meaningless and incredibly sad.”
“…what happens is Zim somehow has meaning..” It has meaning for Mugabe and his henchmen, but the poor civilians who suffer, the only meaning is suffering. Here is that religious cliche again: “It is god’s will.” “Suffering is good because it is god’s will.” etc etc etc
“I’m also glad that every single rapist, murderer and thief will be found out one day even if not in this lifetime.” Brendon, I wish it was true, but you are mad.
Brendon wrote: “Or maybe He created humans in His image and made them Male and Female. Ever consider that he isn’t human, but Spirit. Ever consider He isn’t sexual, but created two sexes to more fully display His attributes? I know. You immediately think of sex, when I’m not talking physical attributes. eg. Mother’s are nurturers, father disciplinarians and many other differences.”
You guys keep saying god made man and women in his image. Well, Brendon, if the bible is correct, then you are right, and then god did make man in his image. The only problem is, you are not right, you are wrong. Man made god in his (man’s) own image. Why else is he (god) such a sick bastard. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” So says Richard Dawkins. Now this sounds like a pretty fair summary of your god.
Brendon wrote: “Do something about that God-given conscience before its too late.”
God did not give me my conscience. Lucky for me he didn’t. My conscience comes from a very long period of evolution. If god made it, I’d be feeling guilty of just about everything I do everyday. Instead, I can go about my life and enjoy it, without that crutch you guys love so much.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 4:30 pm |
Looks like the Shofar people and more specifically, Fred May, is very silent on all this.
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 9:17 pm |
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 9:41 pm |
.
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 20, 2008 @ 11:18 pm |
Sorry Con-Tester. I don’t want to streal your rare replies from Brendon, but would like to comment on this bit of idio… eh interesting statement.
Brendon wrote to Con-Tester: “Point is made. If you reject the Bible as evidence, then there is nothing more you will accept as evidence.”
Con-Tester. Will you accept a tested, verified, peer-reviewed (science) proof of amputees being healed in God’s name, right on stage? I would. So Brendon, your whining about us asking for proof is silly. Let god come down, appear to millions of people and in his all-mighty capacity and wisdom do something to make people accept the Bible as god’s word. Or is the all-mighty god out of ideas on how to provide proof? Tsk tsk. Silly little god, cant even prove he exists. No wonder his religion bloomed in a time when every assumed there must be a god.
Brendon wrote: “Forever??? Ummm… not true. One day I will be perfect. And I’ll be perfect for all eternity.”
Yeah, very proud that you are paying for a fancy happy car (accepting Jesus blah blah) that you (nor anyone else) has ever seen. Personally I won’t recommend paying for anything you or anyone else has never even seen. Not in this life nor in the next. Come on Brendon, pay me for a 1.2332^2054 wheel merc with 3.323421^45056 KW power output. Fish on the back is optional. You have to wait untill you die though. It will be delivered to you in heaven.
Brendon wrote: “Religion is not the same thing as relationship. Check the difference in the same dictionary.”
So your religion did not match up with the definition of religion in the dictionary and you can now claim “relationship” instead? Oh what the hell, let’s get the dictionary out and see:
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Main Entry:
re·li·gion Listen to the pronunciation of religion
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈli-jən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date:
13th century
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Oh yeah Brendon, I can see now, you have no religion!! NOT! You just try to distantiate yourself from the word religion. Oh, in my fundie days we used to say that religion is just tradition and we don’t have tradition but a *real* relationship with Jesus. Just a drop of honesty with yourself and you will abandon this futile propaganda campaign to set fundies apart from religion. It won’t work cause it’s a lie.
Brendon wrote: “Not what I was trying to say. I’m pointing out that people are inherently religious. There is something in our psyche that makes us religious – whatever that religion is – your religion is a religion of self and or nature.”
I agree with the first part. However, not having a religion is not the same as having a religion. But I do agree that there is something in humans that tend to make them religious. I did mention Denette, did I not? How about reading “Breaking the Spell”? Heck, ask me and I will even give and post you my copy. But Humans being religious is no proof that a certain religion is true. Do you understand this?
Brendon wrote: ” I’m hoping to shock the hell out of you really
”
Oh, fear not. I got rid of the fear of hell since I realised that the creator of hell is just a complex made up story. Besides, why shock the hell out of me when your god makes satan look like a friendly old man?
Brendon wrote: “Why? Because God has done a work in me that I cannot explain in other way. It’s called new life. It’s called being born again. It’s a spiritual thing that usually displays to the world by the fruit of what I do.”
Oh yeah, I know what you are talking about. I went through the same. If I may offer some advice. It helps to consider that people from other faiths claim the same, just like I did and you do now. Is it possible that feelings and emotians (very powerful, I know) is enhanced by total acceptance of the Bible and the idea that a “good” god is looking after you? Good feelings = Holy spirit, even though you would disagree and claim your good feelings of “annointing” is in actual fact the work of some, eh, god spirit out there somewhere, or in you but not detectable.
Brendon wrote: “Ummm…. Individuals who claim to be Christians and who apparently attend a particular congregation and do stuff they shouldn’t doesn’t make the preacher or the congregation false teachers. It places a question on the individuals. “You shall know them by their fruit. If the fruit is bad etc…”
BS. You want claim Fred May condemned their actions? Why the hell are you making excuses for this fucked up corrupt fundie cult church? ‘Cause they are brothers and not infidels?
Brendon wrote: “Renier wrote, “We just call it “voices in your head” to be clear about what we think it is.”
That’s the point. You only think you know what it is, but you have no idea. You stay in ignorance as long as you reject the Bible and Jesus Christ as Saviour.”
No Brendon. You will stay in ignorance as long as you believe your gut-feel is the voice of a god. Belief keeps people ignorant where doubt sets them free.
But Brendon, just to say, thanks for taking the time to comment. It is very very rare that a Christian will actually try and explain their views when people are critical about it. Most Christians usually run after the first little hiding, in my opinion and observation.
Comment by Renier — May 21, 2008 @ 5:47 am |
Brendon wrote: “Renier wrote, “Since you say you hate religion, would you be willing to sign a petition to ban ALL religion from schools?”
Never. Why do you, who has the freedom to dis religion, not want people to have the freedom to practice religion. Your double standards are clear – not to mention vial.”
You said you hated religion, did you not? The freedom of religion is something I too support but that freedom does not give you the right to indoctrinate kids (other people’s kids too) in a public school. It’s that simple. Why do you not understand this? Indoctrinate your own kids at home if you have to but leave other people’s kids in peace.
Brendon wrote: “Actually I believe it’s a lie. I think the lady was his wife, if memory serves correctly. I also think she was a devout Christian who may have wanted CD to have a Christian burial. But we really wont know the truth, will we? Well until judgement day at least.”
Good, good, there is hope for you yet. It was not his wife however. Now I ask you. When one of your fellow brother fundies repeats this lie, do you stand up for the truth and tell him/her that it is false and Darwin died convinced of his theory?
Brendon wrote: “That’s the point. You only think you know what it is, but you have no idea. You stay in ignorance as long as you reject the Bible and Jesus Christ as Saviour.”
Ok, so enlighten me oh Holy one. What is the difference between gut-feel and the voice of the Holy Spoo, eh, Ghost? And please, ignorance does not result in rejecting the Bible and the Jesus myth, knowledge does. Ignorance and faith are best friends like you and your own personal Jesus. Hmm, what was that band called with the song Personal Jesus? Depeche Mode? Never liked them.
Brendon wrote: “Actually I understand that many Christian home schooling curricula do give equal time to both. Or at least present both views.”
Yeah, and I am fine with that. They can teach their own kids all the lies they want to. I just want to prevent them from preach… eh, “teaching” their lies in public schools (my kids), on my FKN tax and school money!
Brendon wrote: “Now why on earth would we do that? The plain teaching of the Bible is that man is a sinner condemned by God, but God reaching down to save otherwise condemned sinners..”
The god of the Bible is a bigger sinner by his own “standards” than any other human being ever was or will be. The simple commandment of “love” is the one he has serious problems with. Perhaps you can explain love to him, he somehow thinks eternal torturing people in hell is a natural result of a just loving god. Tell him we disagree and thinks he needs some counceling for such pshycotic ideas. The Bible is also clear that very few people will enter heaven. Sounds like god’s salvation plan is a bit of a failure. He fails, not even 50%! Tell him his plan sux.
Brendon wrote: “I agree with your sentiments on youth pastors with tattoos. They’re about as annoying as youth pastors with ear rings.”
Oh, it’s not as bad as “Christian Rock” though. Brendon, you listen to them Christian rock/heavy metal bands? The dude from Petra has a good voice though (not metal).
Brendon wrote: “Quoting the Bible? Actually, I couldn’t think of anything more appropriate. Especially in the light of Hebrews 4:12.”
Here is something from your Bible that is always appropriate, since it is god’s word after all: Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! Psalm 144:15″
Such a loving god, sniff, makes my weep, such style, such elegance, such rightous justice by the judger of all. Even the poor kids are haunted by this spectre of human insanity.
Brendon wrote: “Try John Wesley. Founder of the Methodist Church. ”
Answer my question dude, don’t avoid it. Why should I take Wesley’s interpretation as the true(tm) divine inspired one? Has he got a special stamp of approval from god to interpret the scriptures? It’s all just opinions and interpretations Brendon. I’ll keep repeating it to remind you of the fact that neither you nor Wesley is god’s chosen(tm) spokeman on earth, even thou you might think you are.
I read this about Wesley. I think he was a good honest man, not with divine interpretations, but a good human: “Despite his achievements, he never quite overcame profound self-doubt. At the age of 63, he wrote to his brother, “I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen…And yet, to be so employed of God!”[14]”
Brendon wrote: “Sorry. I’m fallible. Trying to type to quickly or whatever and not checking. The text is not talking about personal enemies. It is talking of relationships with unbelievers (God’s enemies).”
Okay. Sorry for hammering the point like that then. But you still make no sense. God’s enemies. Are they not your enemies too? And then, the text still stands as it is. Infidel = Enemy. God commands Christians to shun them. It makes no difference now that you excluded personal enemies. I don’t think anyone “interpreted” it as personal enemies in the first place.
Brendon wrote: “Context? Try the context in which 2 John was written. There were preachers walking around at the time preaching a false gospel swindling money out of well meaning persons.”
Hmm. People like Benny Hinn, Reinhard Bonke, Fred May, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, Ray Mcauly etc etc. Oh, and let’s not forget the “Prophet” Joshua from Nigeria. In truth Brendon, I interpret the verse in a different way. A doctrine that is not the same as your doctrine is what is meant here.
Brendon wrote: ” It doesn’t instruct me today to ignore JW’s and others that may knock on my door. However, if a person claims to be a brother, then distorts the message of the gospel (especially one of the primarily important doctrines) then I would need to do as instructed by that letter.”
Okay then. Lets go by *your* divine interpretation. The JW people does not even acknowledge that you bff (Best Friends Forever) Jesus is part of the god head (Jesus was just a man) and that the holy spirit is more like an impersonal power than a person. Is this not “core”(primarily important) doctrine being distorted? So why does your interpretation of the verse not apply to them?
Brendon wrote: “BTW. I don’t consider you an anti-christ.”
By the way, then you do not consider your Bible. Read it again. Here, allow me: “1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.”
Let’s see: “denieth that Jesus is the Christ”. Yup, thats me. Any other criteria there? “that denieth the Father and the Son” Yup, that’s me. I don’t even assume they exist like all good Christians are supposed to! I abhor the concept of god that the Bible teaches and oppose it.
Brendon wrote: “I’m truly glad that what happens is Zim somehow has meaning and that Bob will give an account one day”
Leave it up to god? If god cared about the poor people in Zim he could have done something. What’s the use frying Mugabe in heel while his people are suffering *now*? Is your god always too late? But no, it’s ALWAYS, without exception left up to us poor human sinners to make something happen. God will of course get the glory like he always does and never deserves. If science finds a cure for cancer tomorrow, I assure you the pulpits will praise Jesus for it. Nevermind the fact that Jesus had 6000 years to sort it out and didn’t. It’s always us poor Humans who has to do the work that god is either too lazy for, not interested in or not capable of.
Mac wrote: “Looks like the Shofar people and more specifically, Fred May, is very silent on all this.”
Parasites are often cowards.
Comment by Renier — May 21, 2008 @ 7:33 am |
Renier wrote: “Parasites are often cowards.”
How true. An cowards are often parasites.
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 1:22 pm |
BBC NEWS
Kenyans burn alive 11 ‘witches’
Eleven women accused of being witches have been burned to death by a mob in the west of Kenya, police say.
A security operation has been launched to hunt down villagers suspected of killing the women in Kisii District.
The area has witnessed similar attacks in the past when people suspected of engaging in witchcraft have been killed or ostracised.
But correspondents say that this is a surprisingly large number of people to be attacked at the same time.
Local official Mwangi Ngunyi condemned the murders.
“People must not take the law into their own hands simply because they suspect someone,” he told AFP news agency.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:06 pm |
Kenyans burn alive 11 ‘witches’
Eleven women accused of being witches have been burned to death by a mob in the west of Kenya, police say.
A security operation has been launched to hunt down villagers suspected of killing the women in Kisii District.
The area has witnessed similar attacks in the past when people suspected of engaging in witchcraft have been killed or ostracised.
But correspondents say that this is a surprisingly large number of people to be attacked at the same time.
Local official Mwangi Ngunyi condemned the murders.
“People must not take the law into their own hands simply because they suspect someone,” he told AFP news agency.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:07 pm |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:07 pm |
“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7413268.stm”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm |
Brendon in #71: “I think that what John wrote in that context, namely of not having fellowship these people or inviting them into your home stands”
Even though Renier and others did an excellent job of pointing out the many inconsistencies of your faith, I would agree with your reading of 2 John. In fact, I would probably agree with your reading of many other verses… if I read the Bible “vertically” like you seem to do. Start with a book, read it from the first sentence to the last, and move on to the next chapter. Repeat the process.
A “horisontal” reading of the Bible (as practised by most scholars), offers an interesting alternative. Just to name a few of the strange things you will pick up, and only looking at the New Testament:
According to Matthew, Jesus is in the line of Solomon (1:6-7); while Luke mentions Nathan (3:23-31). Matthew writes that Jacob was Joseph’s father (1:16), Luke writes Heli (3:23). Matthews counts 28 generations from David to Jesus (1:17), Luke 43 (3:23-38). Matthew writes that Mary received a revelation before her conception (1:18-21), Luke after (1:26-31). Matthews writes that the angel appeared to Joseph (1:20), Luke writes to Mary (1:28). Matthew writes that the family of Jesus fled to Egypt, where they remained until after Herod’s death (2:13-16), Luke writes that they remain in Jerusalem and then returned to Nazareth (2:22-40). Matthew writes that Jesus spent 40 days the wilderness after his baptism (4:1-11), but John writes that Jesus was at a wedding at Cana 3 days after his baptism (2:1-11). According to Matthew, the good things you do should be visible to all (5:16), and he also writes that they should be kept secret (6:1-4 ). Matthew writes that Jesus did not come to abolish the law (5:17-19), but according to Paul, this is exactly why he came (Ephesians 2:13-15 and Hebrews 7:18-19). Matthew writes that being angry with your brother is always bad (5:22), but in Ephesians it’s sometimes OK (4:26). Not to mention that Jesus looked around in anger in Mark 3:5. In Matthew, divorce is cool if one of the partners sleeps around (5:32), but in Mark it’s never an option (10:11-12). In Matthew (5:39 and 5:44) Jesus tells us to love our enemies, but he seems to be doing the exact opposite in Matthew 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, also Mark 7:6, and Luke 11:40 etc. Not to mention 2 John 1:9-11, as we have seen above. Matthew writes that we should love our neighbour as we love ourselves (5:43-44), but also that they should go nowhere near the gentiles or Samaritans (10:5). Matthew writes that God can lead people into temptation (6:13), James that temptation is good (1:2-3), but then later that God does not tempt anyone (1:13). Matthew writes that we should not worry about tomorrow (6:25-34), that God will take care of us, but Paul writes something else (1 Timothy 5:8). Matthew tells us not to judge (7:1-2), and then to judge (7:15-20). Matthew writes that we will always find when seek (7:7-8). But Luke suggests otherwise (13:24). Matthew says that not everyone who calls on the name of Jesus will be saved (7:21), but in Romans we read something else (10:13). Matthew 7:21, Luke 10:36-37, Romans 2:6, and James 2:24 all say that we are justified by what we do, and not what we believe. John 3:16, Romans 3:20-26, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Galatians 2:16 says the opposite (that we are justified by faith, not works). In Matthew, the daughter was dead when Jesus raised her (9:18), but in Luke she was dying (8:42). In Matthew, Jesus gives the disciples special healing powers (10:1-8), but it doesn’t work that well in 17:14-16. In Matthew we have a different twelve apostles than in Luke (who excludes Thaddaeus and adds Judas). Also in Matthew, Peter is supposed to be an apostle to the Jews and not the gentiles (10:2, 5-6), but not in Acts (15:7). In Matthew Jesus tells us not be afraid of people (10:28), but in 12:16 (and John) he hides himself, escapes from people, and sort of acts secretly. Jesus is very gentle in Matthew (11:29), but in John he likes to whip people (2:15). In Matthew, Jesus says that those who are not for him are against him (12:30), but in Mark he says that those who are not against him are for him (9:40). Jesus says in Matthew 12:39, Mark 8:12, and Luke 11:29 that he will give no signs, but he seems to be doing just that in John 2:2, 20:30, and Acts 2:22. In Matthew 13:58 and Mark 6:5 Jesus could not do miracles, but in Matthew 17:20 and 19:26, Mark 9:23 and 10:27, Luke 17:6 and 18:27, Jesus says that you can do anything if you have faith the size of a mustard seed. In Matthew, Jesus rides on two animals (21:7), in Mark it’s only one (11:7). In Matthew, Jesus says that Zechariah was the son of Barachiah (23:35), but 2 Chronicles says that the father was Jehoida. In Matthew, the next coming of Jesus will be with signs and wonders (24:29-33), but Luke suggest otherwise (17:20-21). In Matthew, Judas deals with the priest before the fatal meal (26:14-25), but in John only after (13:21-30). In Matthew we should throw away our swords (26:52), but in John we should buy them (22:36-38). In Matthew, Simon carriers the cross (27:32), but according to John, Jesus carried it himself (19:17). In Matthew, Jesus was given vinegar to drink (27:48), in Mark it was wine and myrrh which he did not drink (15:23), and in John he drank (19:29-30). In Matthew, there was an earthquake and an angel who rolled back the stone (28:2), not so in Mark (16:5), or in Luke (24:2-4). In Matthew, they ran to tell everyone (28:8), but in Mark they said nothing to anyone (16:8).
There are many others, but they are all ultimately of no importance to most Christians. Bart Ehrman said in his debate with William Lane Craig: “Let me conclude by telling you what I really do think about Jesus’ resurrection. The one thing we know about the Christians after the death of Jesus is that they turned to their scriptures to try and make sense of it. They had believed Jesus was the Messiah, but then he got crucified, and so he couldn’t be the Messiah. No Jew, prior to Christianity, thought that the Messiah was to be crucified. The Messiah was to be a great warrior or a great king or a great judge. He was to be a figure of grandeur and power, not somebody who’s squashed by the enemy like a mosquito. How could Jesus, the Messiah, have been killed as a common criminal? Christians turned to their scriptures to try and understand it, and they found passages that refer to the Righteous One of God’s suffering death. But in these passages, such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and Psalm 61, the one who is punished or who is killed is also vindicated by God. Christians came to believe their scriptures that Jesus was the Righteous One and that God must have vindicated him. And so Christians came to think of Jesus as one who, even though he had been crucified, came to be exalted to heaven, much as Elijah and Enoch had in the Hebrew scriptures. How can he be Jesus the Messiah though, if he’s been exalted to heaven? Well, Jesus must be coming back soon to establish the kingdom. He wasn’t an earthly Messiah; he’s a spiritual Messiah. That’s why the early Christians thought the end was coming right away in their own lifetime. That’s why Paul taught that Christ was the first fruit of the resurrection. But if Jesus is exalted, he is no longer dead, and so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection. It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started. Nobody could go to the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been raised from the dead started having visions of him. Others told stories about these visions of him, including Paul. Stories of these visions circulated. Some of them were actual visions like Paul, others of them were stories of visions like the five hundred group of people who saw him. On the basis of these stories, narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we got the Gospels of the New Testament written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later.”
Comment by Oubaas — May 21, 2008 @ 4:08 pm |
I am willing to bet a large sum of money, that there is a christian religious leader behind these brutal killings. Some cult leader who believes he is doing gods good work by eradicating the evil from the local population. Burn a couple of witches today, burn a couple of thousand tomorrow. I hope they make some arrests in this case, but I doubt they will. If they do, I am willing to bet that there will be some cult leader behind this.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:12 pm |
Look what I found:
“The Witch Killers of Africa (2003)
Richard Petraitis
In June of 2001, villagers of Congo’s northeast provinces began a bloody witch eradication campaign, sparing neither neighbor, nor friend. Alleged witches were unceremoniously hacked apart by machete-wielding vigilantes, bringing about a scene of carnage unmatched since the machete killing-sprees of the Rwanda Crisis. The innocent victims were first “smelled out” (identified by tribal healers as witches) before they were savagely beaten into incriminatory confessions about others allegedly engaged in the black arts. After the unsuspecting parties were identified, the executions started in earnest throughout the rural areas. Three hundred villagers were killed in the first days of the witch paranoia.[1] In the following weeks, the death toll rose to nearly eight hundred victims.[2] Hundreds of Congolese fled to the relative safety of Uganda, many bearing machete wounds on legs, arms, and torsos.
The Ugandan army intervened to stop the mass killing spree.[3] However, the use of military power to stop the witchcraft killings in the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) only cooled the witch hysteria temporarily and the jungles of the Congo still remain a hotbed of belief in magic power. Even government rebels, the infamous Mai-Mai insurgents, believe they can repel bullets with magic water blessed by a witch doctor. However, Mai-Mai fighters, and members of other magic militia within the region, fear witchcraft so fervently that they will execute suspected witches, usually women, on the spot. One brutal method of executing witches in Central Africa is by burying the accused alive![4] Unfortunately, Uganda’s military intervention was but a short term solution to a very long term problem–the persistence of Old Age beliefs in a Modern Africa.
Not only the Congo, but also much of Sub-Saharan Africa remains a bastion for tribal healers, sorcerers, and wizards of every stripe. Sweeping across Africa’s Horn, magic practitioners number in the thousands. So called “tribal healers” hold great sway over millions in Central Africa’s rural and urban centers. Legions of magic practitioners claim the ability to bring rain in times of drought, to expel evil spirits, to find lost property, and to make one wealthy. Sadly, millions of Africa’s adherents to the major monotheistic faiths literally believe a “healer” can exert control over Nature by the use of spells or secret incantations. It is with great tragedy that the monotheistic religions continue to promote a belief in a Universe full of spirit beings–be they angels or demons. It is just such a spirit laden worldview that gives birth to all manner of magic men and women.
Inside the DRC, exorcist cults thrive and prey on homeless young children. One of the most controversial cults is led by a man who calls himself the Prophet Onokoko. According to a BBC News report, this prophet has claimed to have cast out dozens of demons from some of Kinshasha’s allegedly possessed street children.[5] In 1999, hundreds of children were thrown out of their homes and onto the streets of the capital city because family members believed them to be demon possessed.[6] Unfortunately, it isn’t a far reach for Africa’s superstitious to also believe that evil spirits find allies among the adult members of society. These perceived allies of demonic agents are branded by the more credulous as “witches.” Those called “witch.” by the true believers, often find themselves at the receiving end of a lynch mob. The culturally catastrophic impact of these Old Age beliefs is reflected in the horrific death toll of Twentieth Century Africa’s witch killings.
In one decade alone, (1991 to 2001), Tanzania had 20,000 persons accused of witchcraft, murdered by her citizenry–a disproportionate number of the suspected witches were female octogenarians. Tanzania’s Ministry of Home Affairs claimed that 5,000 victims of witch lynching were murdered between 1994 and 1998, all suspected by fellow Tanzanians of magical high jinks.[7] Red eyes, believed to be the mark of a witch, sparked many of these tragic neighborhood witch-hunts. Apparently, many Tanzanian women possess red eye color due to the smoke of their cooking fires.[8] If the execution of grandmothers isn’t horrific enough; trials by ordeal are making a comeback as the means of identifying a person as either a witch or sorcerer. During the nineteenth century, thousands of Africans were killed in trials by ordeal, by something known as the poison oracle. (From 1828 to 1861, over 200,000 persons were killed in poison ordeals administered by the Medina ruling class of Madagascar.[9] One of the greatest witch slaughters in world history, this witch paranoia depopulated entire Malagasy villages and towns.) Currently, in Eastern Africa, to prove their innocence, accused witches aren’t subjected to the poison ordeal, but the “witch” is given a sporting chance to retrieve a bracelet from a pot of boiling water. The theory behind this practice is that an innocent party won’t receive burn marks on his, or her, arms. The unlucky ones failing the ordeal have a nail driven through their head or they are administered some other form of ghastly execution–usually a death sentence via benzene fire.[10]
The Twentieth Century’s last decade became one of the bloodiest in African history. In 1992, some 300 Kenyans accused of witchcraft were executed by vigilante mobs who burned the homes of the accused parties down over their heads.[11] In 1995, over 50 Ugandans were killed by witch hunters.[12] That same year more than 70 people in South Africa’s Northern Province were lynched to death as suspected sorcerers.[13] In 1997, South African police investigated over 150 murders of alleged witchcraft practitioners.[14] The list goes on and on.
Sadly, these examples of witchcraft killings are only a sampling of the occult crime stories highlighted by the press agencies across Africa. Researching African news archives, I have calculated that between 1991 and 2001, a total of 22,000 to 23,000 Africans were lynched to death, by fearful neighbors, as witches. (The actual figure may be even higher, but it is difficult for police and humanitarian agencies to collect statistics from some of Africa’s more remote, war-torn regions. I have also omitted the victims of occult belief who fearlessly throw themselves in harm’s way believing they are immune to gunfire.) Compare these alarming fatality figures, caused by magical thinking, to the number of accused witches actually executed during Europe’s Inquisitorial years, from 1450 to 1750, a number reaching perhaps 40,000 to 50,000 victims.[15] Certainly, to a secular humanist, these are disturbing numbers to ponder indeed!
Currently, African societies are at the same critical historical juncture that propelled much of Europe out of a period of deadly superstitions, nearly three centuries ago, a time when Europeans executed those believed to be witches and warlocks–a worldview challenged by Enlightenment men. Thankfully, a subsequent Scientific Revolution eliminated Western Man’s fear of black cats and haggard old women. Today, in the West, there are only a handful of Old Age believers who think of witchcraft as a plausible explanation for natural phenomenon.
It may take several generations to win, but a crusade against irrational beliefs, south of the Sahara, must be won to free many Africans who are held prisoner by magical thinking. I am heartened that there are a number of African secular humanists, a small minority to be sure, waging a war against witchcraft beliefs. Like the organized rationalists of India who launched successful campaigns to discredit India’s “god-men,” these champions of Reason may have a great impact on the erroneous thinking of the more credulous parts of the population.
The literacy rate in many regions of Africa is low, however, posing a formidable barrier for the secular humanists who challenge local beliefs in ghosts, sorcerers, magical animals, and witches. .[ Education of the masses will certainly be the key to breaking the chains of superstition that bind so many. Especially effective will be the educational programs that will teach basic scientific literacy to thousands. The time has come to send the local "witch-doctor," or if you prefer "tribal healer," packing. These magic men need to be fought and discredited on their own turf by the rationalists who have the courage to help fellow Africans climb out of the dark pit that is superstition and witchcraft belief.
Works Cited:
[1] “Frenzied Mob Hacks 300 Witches to Death,” by Michael Dynes, The Times (UK), Wednesday, July 04, 2001. Accessed Jan. 01, 2002
[2] “More Than 800 Killed In Massive Witch-Hunt,” Ananova (Story filed: Thursday, July 12, 2001.) Accessed Dec. 28, 2001
[3] “Month of Hunting Witches Leaves 240 Dead,” Ananova (Story filed: Monday, July 02, 2001.) Accessed Dec. 28, 2001
[4] “Massive Violations Kill Human Decency,” Amnesty International Annual Report 2000: Congo Democratic Republic Of. Accessed Dec.10, 2001
[5] “Congo Witch-Hunt’s Child Victims,” BBC News: World Africa, Wednesday, Dec.22, 1999
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Witch-Hunts on the Increase in Tanzania,” by Odhiambo, Nicodemus. Daily Mail & Guardian. Johannesburg, South Africa, June 14, 1999. Accessed April 29, 2000
[8] Ibid.
[9] “Women, Servitude and Demography in Imperial Madagascar, 1820-95,” by Campbell, Gwyn. University of Avignon. Accessed Dec. 26, 2002
[10] “Witch-Hunts on the Increase in Tanzania,” by Odhiambo, Nicodemus. Daily Mail & Guardian. Johannesburg, South Africa, June 14, 1999. Accessed April 29, 2000
[11] “Witch Hunt Part 2,” Bethancourt III, W.J. Accessed Sept. 07, 1999
[12] “Four Sentenced To Death For Witchcraft Killings.” Reuters Limited, 1998. Accessed May 12, 2000
[13] “Witch Hunts in Africa.” (A Chronology of Witch Hunts.) Accessed March 30, 2003
[14] “Modern Witches-Saudi Arabia and Africa,” by Roberts, Jani F., 2000. Accessed March 30, 2003
[15] Briggs, Robin. Witches and Neighbors: the Social Context of European Witchcraft, New York: Viking Penguin. 1996. “
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:23 pm |
BBC News Online: World: Africa
Wednesday, 22 December, 1999, 15:48 GMT
Congo witch-hunt’s child victims
Congolese children are being accused of witchcraft and made scapegoats for the country’s many ills. Jeremy Vine reports from Kinshasa on the gruesome business of exorcism.
There is something wrong with the maize grinder in the Mahonda household. Pandi, a father of two, drags the rusted motor out of his home to work on it for the umpteenth time this week.
After five minutes, having got nowhere with his screwdrivers and hammers, he shrugs and gives up.
“This grinder will simply not work,” he says – bad news for Pandi and his partner, Kalumbu. Kinshasa is not the kind of place where helpful ironmongers stay open late to fix rusted motors.
We had a girl here who vomited a large prawn. When it came out, she was at peace
Prophet Onokoko
But the continuing problems with the grinder are also potentially devastating news for their two sons. Ikomba, 8, and Luwuabisa, 10, have already been identified as the cause of the problems this poor village household is experiencing.
Their mother sums up what has gone wrong.
“First the icebox in the kitchen broke, then I was ill. I just kept being sick. No doctor could tell me what the matter was.
“Then the grinder broke down, and I had an accident in the car. Also, money went missing from the home. That was when I realised.”
Realised – realised what, precisely?
“Realised that Ikomba and Luwuabisa are witches.”
It is no more precise than that. Kalumbu completes the sentence with the two boys sitting either side of her, not aware of how much trouble they may be in.
Bad times
Small children
This story is being repeated again and again in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the moment. The country has been badly scarred by war – first by the rebel uprising which ousted the corrupt and tyrannical President Mobutu in 1997, then by a second rebel move which is now threatening his successor, President Laurent Kabila.
He was Congo’s best hope for democracy, but has not yet held an election and is suspected of pocketing state money. To call the economy a basket case does not do even half its problems justice.
People are superstitious here. They want explanations when things go wrong.
Because of the increasing hardship many children end up living with members of their extended family, and a phenomenon which experts say is unique to Congo is developing. Children are being accused of sorcery and chucked onto the streets.
The unlucky ones are murdered by their own family members before they escape. Which is why Ikomba and Luwuabisa are in such danger. For now, their parents are not completely certain of their diagnosis.
‘Exorcism’
So they take them to a sect to find the real truth. It is there that the story starts to get really frightening.
Prophet Onokoko:
The sect – run by a free-thinking Congolese Bible teacher called Prophet Onokoko – has 230 children on its books. All are accused of witchcraft.
Many have been thrown out of their family homes. All will have to undergo some kind of ritual exorcism to expunge the evil spirits.
In a small room, members of the sect crowd round the two terrified Mahonda boys, praying. Eyes closed, with an air of deep concentration, Prophet Onokoko joins in with chosen words.
“Oui!” someone shouts suddenly – confirmation, it is said, that the boys are witches (or as they call them here, enfants dits sorciers).
The Prophet’s eyes open and light up. He shakes Ikomba and Luwuabisa by the hand. “Yes, yes,” he grins. “It is confirmed.”
‘Vomit up the devil’
The procedure is simple, Prophet Onokoko explains. The boys will be made to vomit up the devil. He produces other “devils” that have been sicked up by young children: a whole prawn, a shell in the shape of a horn, and even – kept in a blue bucket which he lifts with a flourish – two barbel fish.
Angella
“These came out of the mouths of children who had spirits,” he tells us. “We had a girl here who vomited a large prawn. When it came out, she was at peace.”
The we meet the girl, Angella, who is busy hanging washing on a line. She says she is 10 years old. Then she tells how she was treated when her parents decided their bad luck was being caused by her sorcery.
“They wanted to kill me. They wanted to throw me into a big river. They put me in a sack, ready to do it. When I escaped, they gave me shocks with an eletrical power flex.”
More than 14,000 children in Kinshasa are said to have been thrown out of their homes accused of witchcraft. It is tempting to think that if Prophet Onokoko manages to remove the stigma from some of them so they can return to their families, his sect is worth its weight in gold.
Abuse
Girl falls to the floor
Not so, says Save The Children. The organisation’s representative here, Mahimbo Mdoe, has researched the world of enfants dit sorciers and is extremely worried by the work of the exorcism sects, and not least Prophet Onokoko’s.
“As far as we’re concerned, what’s going in that organisation is purely and simply child abuse,” he says.
“Children are made to vormit up things that have been inserted into them unnaturally.
“Two eyewitnesses have told us of objects like bars of soap being inserted into the anuses of children. It all shows just how vulnerable children in Kinshasa are, if they get thrown out their families accused of being child witches.”
Bloated stomach
The Prophet denied all of this, but he was happy enough showing his Polaroid photos of items he claimed to have forced children to vomit up – and one photograph in particular was distressing to see.
A boy with a massively bloated stomach grinned at the camera. But a part of the picture, just over his right leg, had not come out. There was a white flash over his shin.
“The white is there because the spirit of the demon was inside his leg,” said the Prophet.
“He had to be given several exorcisms. Now, he is fine.”
Quite what “several exorcisms” would do to a boy who could not have been more than 12 is anyone’s guess, but the charity thought they knew – his insides were so badly disrupted, they believed, that he died.
The “demon” in his leg was nothing more than a fault when the photo was developed.
We stood looking at that picture for a while, wondering when the suffering of Congo’s children would ever end.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:27 pm |
Stellar effort, Oubaas, simply stellar your #83. Alas, probably too dense and packed with nutrients to affect anything of significance.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 21, 2008 @ 4:27 pm |
Prophet Onokoko, doing gods good work!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:28 pm |
McBrollocks, in the background I see Alfred F Neuman. Any relation? If so, you are totally MAD!
Comment by Savage — May 21, 2008 @ 4:32 pm |
Actually, it’s Alfred E Neuman. After I had my DNA analyzed the results we’re quite astonishing. I am definitely a decendend of Alfred E Neuman. It was easy to spot because of a certain gene mutation that I have. This gene mutation has baffled scientists for quite some time. Apparently, people who have this gene mutation, should be completely mad, as Savage has pointed out. They can’t understand how people with this mutation can actually appear to lead normal lives.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:51 pm |
Oubaas, very good post. I was wondering if you could help me. Does it say somewhere in the bible anything about witches? And if it does, does it also mention that they should be burned?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 4:53 pm |
Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (KJV)
Comment by Con-Tester — May 21, 2008 @ 4:58 pm |
The burning of witches and warlocks is most probably an instance of overzealous application of biblical fervour: give ’em a taste of hell before they get there.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 21, 2008 @ 5:05 pm |
Thanks a lot CT. I was curious as to where these religious leaders got this idea of killing people as witches from. It seems like a good way to get rid of any competition.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 5:06 pm |
McBrolloks wrote (#94 or thereabouts):
But that has always been one of the most extensive of religions’ great “strength”, accounting to a large extent for their ongoing success: the ability to subvert just about any and all competition by supplying on demand deceptively simple, cut-and-dried answers to, and evasions around, complicated questions – answers that are superficially pleasing at the gut level because they either confirm our preexisting prejudices or because they accord with what we’d like to be true.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 21, 2008 @ 5:29 pm |
McBrolloks: “They can’t understand how people with this mutation can actually appear to lead normal lives.”
You call your life normal? Your attacks on the bible thumpers are not only vicious and cruel and then you hide behind the supercillious smile of Alfred E Neuman. If this is normal life, please tell me where can I enlist?
Comment by Savage — May 21, 2008 @ 6:18 pm |
I meant “normal life” in the sense that I don’t drool on myself all the time.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 6:27 pm |
You still have not given me the subscription number.
Comment by Savage — May 21, 2008 @ 6:29 pm |
Well, there is a good source that can help you. I highly recommend it.
http://www.dccomics.com/mad/
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 6:33 pm |
I also recommend a good weekly supply of beer and wine.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 6:35 pm |
first recommendation; I repeatedly get rejected there. Maybe you could put in a good word in for me. Second recommendation; WHAT A LIFE!!
Comment by Savage — May 21, 2008 @ 6:39 pm |
I just talked to the idiots at MAD. They said they are very sorry. You should have no trouble from them any more. They said that because of budget cuts, they had to hire a bunch of monkeys, but they realized just now that customer service might not be the best department to have them in. They will be moved over to the creative department.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 6:46 pm |
Ah, witches. Always female. St. Jerome (he’s the one who translated the Bible into Latin), wrote that “Woman is the gate of the devil, the way of evil, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous thing.” According to St. Augustine, “Sin reaches its peak in sexual desire… the desire in which the indecent parts of the body are excited.” St. Aquinas called woman a failed man. Con-Tester quoted the verse in #92. The rest is, shall we say, history.
Comment by Oubaas — May 21, 2008 @ 6:49 pm |
Oubaas wrote (#103 or thereabouts) about humanity’s elder’s misogyny. Much more recently (late 60s), seminal British hard rock/heavy metal outfit Led Zeppelin wailed with great lament and passion that, “The soul of a woman was created belo-o-o-w-o-o-w!” The irony is, of course, that all this is a preemptive attempt at self-approbation by deflecting attention away from repressed men’s rampantly libidinous lechery by declaring women as the tempters whose only aim is to prey on men’s fleshly weakness. In other words, it’s just another religiously inspired fairytale of convenience.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 21, 2008 @ 7:25 pm |
McBrolloks in #97: “I meant “normal life” in the sense that I don’t drool on myself all the time.”
Really funny
Comment by Oubaas — May 21, 2008 @ 7:30 pm |
Con-Tester in #104: “In other words, it’s just another religiously inspired fairytale of convenience.” So true. Even today, the Catholic Church in Germany budgets for at least 4 children per bishop. They know that’s it is not so easy to keep a hard man down.
Comment by Oubaas — May 21, 2008 @ 7:35 pm |
4 children per bishop in Germany. Those Germans usually have their numbers right.
In Australia it is much worse, even worse than in the USA.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23662882-5001021,00.html
Comment by McBrolloks — May 21, 2008 @ 7:44 pm |
Oom Stoffel post #33.
I know the post was not directed at me, but I do want to say it is a post that touched me. There is a lot of wisdom in there. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Oubaas, your comment @ #83 is a jewel. Would you mind if I repost it elsewhere with credit to you and this thread of course?
Comment by Renier — May 22, 2008 @ 10:07 am |
Renier, please use – no credit required, these issues are common knowledge. Also: My typing was fast, so there are most probably some wrong references – must like you have in the Bible
Comment by Oubaas — May 22, 2008 @ 1:13 pm |
Australia appoints woman bishop
Australia’s first woman bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, has been consecrated in St George’s Cathedral in Perth.
The move has been welcomed by Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner as a turning point for the church and the nation.
But a minority of Australian Anglicans, angered by the appointment, have warned that it will split the church.
Women have been serving as Anglican bishops in the US since 1989, but many other countries find the idea divisive.
Twenty-one Anglican bishops from Australia and New Zealand were among a congregation of more than 800 to show their support for Kay Goldsworthy’s controversial appointment.
Opponents of the ordination of women, including the head of the Sydney diocese, Archbishop Peter Jensen, did not attend the ceremony.
I’ve travelled a path where there’s always been someone or some group that doesn’t agree or doesn’t want to receive your ministry
Kay Goldsworthy
The Bishop of Northwest Australia, David Mulready, was also absent from the service.
Bishop Mulready has said he will not permit Bishop Goldsworthy to officiate in his diocese.
Australia’s Anglican bishops have agreed that parishes that cannot in good conscience recognise the ministry of a woman bishop will be offered the services of a male bishop.
Australia’s federal sex discrimination commissioner has described Bishop Goldsworthy’s appointment as a “turning point for the church and the nation as a whole,” and placed it alongside other recent “feminist firsts”.
The BBC’s Nick Bryant in Sydney says that women in Australia still find it difficult to penetrate the upper echelons of politics, business and society.
Bishop Goldsworthy, 51, is married and has two sons. She has said she is unlikely to feel offended by parishes not accepting her ministry, having faced criticism over the years.
“I’ve travelled a path where there’s always been someone or some group that doesn’t agree or doesn’t want to receive your ministry, so I won’t feel slighted,” she said last month.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7414979.stm
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:41 pm |
Australia appoints woman bishop
Australia’s first woman bishop, Kay Goldsworthy, has been consecrated in St George’s Cathedral in Perth.
The move has been welcomed by Australia’s sex discrimination commissioner as a turning point for the church and the nation.
But a minority of Australian Anglicans, angered by the appointment, have warned that it will split the church.
Women have been serving as Anglican bishops in the US since 1989, but many other countries find the idea divisive.
Twenty-one Anglican bishops from Australia and New Zealand were among a congregation of more than 800 to show their support for Kay Goldsworthy’s controversial appointment.
Opponents of the ordination of women, including the head of the Sydney diocese, Archbishop Peter Jensen, did not attend the ceremony.
I’ve travelled a path where there’s always been someone or some group that doesn’t agree or doesn’t want to receive your ministry
Kay Goldsworthy
The Bishop of Northwest Australia, David Mulready, was also absent from the service.
Bishop Mulready has said he will not permit Bishop Goldsworthy to officiate in his diocese.
Australia’s Anglican bishops have agreed that parishes that cannot in good conscience recognise the ministry of a woman bishop will be offered the services of a male bishop.
Australia’s federal sex discrimination commissioner has described Bishop Goldsworthy’s appointment as a “turning point for the church and the nation as a whole,” and placed it alongside other recent “feminist firsts”.
The BBC’s Nick Bryant in Sydney says that women in Australia still find it difficult to penetrate the upper echelons of politics, business and society.
Bishop Goldsworthy, 51, is married and has two sons. She has said she is unlikely to feel offended by parishes not accepting her ministry, having faced criticism over the years.
“I’ve travelled a path where there’s always been someone or some group that doesn’t agree or doesn’t want to receive your ministry, so I won’t feel slighted,” she said last month.
Story from BBC NEWS:
“http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7414979.stm”
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:42 pm |
“But a minority of Australian Anglicans, angered by the appointment, have warned that it will split the church.”
“Opponents of the ordination of women, including the head of the Sydney diocese, Archbishop Peter Jensen, did not attend the ceremony.”
I wonder when a woman is going to sue these bastards for discrimination, and win a couple of million $$$$$$. Surely they can’t be above the law. That will really piss of the fundies too. If they want to interfere in our schools and universities, then maybe we can rock their boat a little too.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:47 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
The Church in Wales’ governing body has narrowly rejected proposals to allow women priests to become bishops.
The controversial bill was defeated by three votes at the 140-member body meeting in Lampeter, despite being backed by the Archbishop of Wales.
Ahead of the vote, Dr Barry Morgan had urged backing for the bill saying he could not see how women could logically be excluded from becoming bishops.
Afterwards the church leader spoke of his “great disappointment”.
“I feel we won the argument, but we narrowly lost the vote,” he said.
“I think it is three years before this can be brought forward again and the issue will certainly not be going away.”
It is essential that the church makes best use of everybody’s talents so this outcome was very upsetting
Gill Todd, member of the church’s governing body
More than 100 clergy warned in December last year they would not accept the ministry of women bishops.
The bill, proposed by six diocesan bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in each section of the governing body to take effect.
Voting was split into three separate sections, the House of Laity, the House of Clerics and the House of Bishops.
The House of Clerics voted 27 to 18 in favour but, with abstentions, missed the required two-thirds majority. The other houses attained the required minimum.
Its defeat leaves Wales and England as the only UK regions in the Anglican Church that do not allow women bishops. The Anglican Church in Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the United States already allows women to be ordained as bishops.
Women have been ordained as priests within the Church in Wales since January 1997. There are now 160 women in that role out of a total of 696 clerics in the church.
An amendment for the bill to provide a male bishop for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops was also voted down.
Dr Morgan said he was pleased the amendment was also defeated as he said it would have changed the constitutional nature of the church by requiring bishops to appoint an assistant bishop.
In a statement, he said: “It is likely the bill would have sailed through if the amendment had been passed but that would have meant us, as supporters, compromising our principles, which we were not prepared to do.
“Like this bill, the bill to ordain women to the priesthood was initially defeated, but it came back to the governing body and was passed 11 years ago.
“This is not the end for this bill either – it will not go away and it will not be ignored, it is something the Church in Wales will have to grapple with.
“But it saddens me that we will have to go through the whole process and all the work involved once again.”
One of those opposed to the bill, Reverend Jeremy Winston, vicar of St Mary’s Priory Church, Abergavenny, said he expected the issue to return.
He said the bill might have gone through if the proposed amendment had been passed for more “traditionalist” members of the church.
He said: “It [the amendment] was very much a way in that those who are very devout and committed members of the Church in Wales but are not in agreement on this issue [women bishops], could continue to play a full active and devout, prayerful, part in the life of the Church in Wales, which we want to do.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
“http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7325877.stm”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:49 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
The Church in Wales’ governing body has narrowly rejected proposals to allow women priests to become bishops.
The controversial bill was defeated by three votes at the 140-member body meeting in Lampeter, despite being backed by the Archbishop of Wales.
Ahead of the vote, Dr Barry Morgan had urged backing for the bill saying he could not see how women could logically be excluded from becoming bishops.
Afterwards the church leader spoke of his “great disappointment”.
“I feel we won the argument, but we narrowly lost the vote,” he said.
“I think it is three years before this can be brought forward again and the issue will certainly not be going away.”
It is essential that the church makes best use of everybody’s talents so this outcome was very upsetting
Gill Todd, member of the church’s governing body
More than 100 clergy warned in December last year they would not accept the ministry of women bishops.
The bill, proposed by six diocesan bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in each section of the governing body to take effect.
Voting was split into three separate sections, the House of Laity, the House of Clerics and the House of Bishops.
The House of Clerics voted 27 to 18 in favour but, with abstentions, missed the required two-thirds majority. The other houses attained the required minimum.
Its defeat leaves Wales and England as the only UK regions in the Anglican Church that do not allow women bishops. The Anglican Church in Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the United States already allows women to be ordained as bishops.
Women have been ordained as priests within the Church in Wales since January 1997. There are now 160 women in that role out of a total of 696 clerics in the church.
An amendment for the bill to provide a male bishop for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops was also voted down.
Dr Morgan said he was pleased the amendment was also defeated as he said it would have changed the constitutional nature of the church by requiring bishops to appoint an assistant bishop.
In a statement, he said: “It is likely the bill would have sailed through if the amendment had been passed but that would have meant us, as supporters, compromising our principles, which we were not prepared to do.
“Like this bill, the bill to ordain women to the priesthood was initially defeated, but it came back to the governing body and was passed 11 years ago.
“This is not the end for this bill either – it will not go away and it will not be ignored, it is something the Church in Wales will have to grapple with.
“But it saddens me that we will have to go through the whole process and all the work involved once again.”
One of those opposed to the bill, Reverend Jeremy Winston, vicar of St Mary’s Priory Church, Abergavenny, said he expected the issue to return.
He said the bill might have gone through if the proposed amendment had been passed for more “traditionalist” members of the church.
He said: “It [the amendment] was very much a way in that those who are very devout and committed members of the Church in Wales but are not in agreement on this issue [women bishops], could continue to play a full active and devout, prayerful, part in the life of the Church in Wales, which we want to do.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
“http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7325877.stm”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:50 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
The Church in Wales’ governing body has narrowly rejected proposals to allow women priests to become bishops.
The controversial bill was defeated by three votes at the 140-member body meeting in Lampeter, despite being backed by the Archbishop of Wales.
Ahead of the vote, Dr Barry Morgan had urged backing for the bill saying he could not see how women could logically be excluded from becoming bishops.
Afterwards the church leader spoke of his “great disappointment”.
“I feel we won the argument, but we narrowly lost the vote,” he said.
“I think it is three years before this can be brought forward again and the issue will certainly not be going away.”
It is essential that the church makes best use of everybody’s talents so this outcome was very upsetting
Gill Todd, member of the church’s governing body
More than 100 clergy warned in December last year they would not accept the ministry of women bishops.
The bill, proposed by six diocesan bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in each section of the governing body to take effect.
Voting was split into three separate sections, the House of Laity, the House of Clerics and the House of Bishops.
The House of Clerics voted 27 to 18 in favour but, with abstentions, missed the required two-thirds majority. The other houses attained the required minimum.
Its defeat leaves Wales and England as the only UK regions in the Anglican Church that do not allow women bishops. The Anglican Church in Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the United States already allows women to be ordained as bishops.
Women have been ordained as priests within the Church in Wales since January 1997. There are now 160 women in that role out of a total of 696 clerics in the church.
An amendment for the bill to provide a male bishop for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops was also voted down.
Dr Morgan said he was pleased the amendment was also defeated as he said it would have changed the constitutional nature of the church by requiring bishops to appoint an assistant bishop.
In a statement, he said: “It is likely the bill would have sailed through if the amendment had been passed but that would have meant us, as supporters, compromising our principles, which we were not prepared to do.
“Like this bill, the bill to ordain women to the priesthood was initially defeated, but it came back to the governing body and was passed 11 years ago.
“This is not the end for this bill either – it will not go away and it will not be ignored, it is something the Church in Wales will have to grapple with.
“But it saddens me that we will have to go through the whole process and all the work involved once again.”
One of those opposed to the bill, Reverend Jeremy Winston, vicar of St Mary’s Priory Church, Abergavenny, said he expected the issue to return.
He said the bill might have gone through if the proposed amendment had been passed for more “traditionalist” members of the church.
He said: “It [the amendment] was very much a way in that those who are very devout and committed members of the Church in Wales but are not in agreement on this issue [women bishops], could continue to play a full active and devout, prayerful, part in the life of the Church in Wales, which we want to do.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:50 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
The Church in Wales’ governing body has narrowly rejected proposals to allow women priests to become bishops.
The controversial bill was defeated by three votes at the 140-member body meeting in Lampeter, despite being backed by the Archbishop of Wales.
Ahead of the vote, Dr Barry Morgan had urged backing for the bill saying he could not see how women could logically be excluded from becoming bishops.
Afterwards the church leader spoke of his “great disappointment”.
“I feel we won the argument, but we narrowly lost the vote,” he said.
“I think it is three years before this can be brought forward again and the issue will certainly not be going away.”
It is essential that the church makes best use of everybody’s talents so this outcome was very upsetting
Gill Todd, member of the church’s governing body
More than 100 clergy warned in December last year they would not accept the ministry of women bishops.
The bill, proposed by six diocesan bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in each section of the governing body to take effect.
Voting was split into three separate sections, the House of Laity, the House of Clerics and the House of Bishops.
The House of Clerics voted 27 to 18 in favour but, with abstentions, missed the required two-thirds majority. The other houses attained the required minimum.
Its defeat leaves Wales and England as the only UK regions in the Anglican Church that do not allow women bishops. The Anglican Church in Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the United States already allows women to be ordained as bishops.
Women have been ordained as priests within the Church in Wales since January 1997. There are now 160 women in that role out of a total of 696 clerics in the church.
An amendment for the bill to provide a male bishop for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops was also voted down.
Dr Morgan said he was pleased the amendment was also defeated as he said it would have changed the constitutional nature of the church by requiring bishops to appoint an assistant bishop.
In a statement, he said: “It is likely the bill would have sailed through if the amendment had been passed but that would have meant us, as supporters, compromising our principles, which we were not prepared to do.
“Like this bill, the bill to ordain women to the priesthood was initially defeated, but it came back to the governing body and was passed 11 years ago.
“This is not the end for this bill either – it will not go away and it will not be ignored, it is something the Church in Wales will have to grapple with.
“But it saddens me that we will have to go through the whole process and all the work involved once again.”
One of those opposed to the bill, Reverend Jeremy Winston, vicar of St Mary’s Priory Church, Abergavenny, said he expected the issue to return.
He said the bill might have gone through if the proposed amendment had been passed for more “traditionalist” members of the church.
He said: “It [the amendment] was very much a way in that those who are very devout and committed members of the Church in Wales but are not in agreement on this issue [women bishops], could continue to play a full active and devout, prayerful, part in the life of the Church in Wales, which we want to do.”
Story from BBC NEWS:
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:51 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
The archbishop supported the move to create women bishops
The archbishop supported the move to create women bishops
The Church in Wales’ governing body has narrowly rejected proposals to allow women priests to become bishops.
The controversial bill was defeated by three votes at the 140-member body meeting in Lampeter, despite being backed by the Archbishop of Wales.
Ahead of the vote, Dr Barry Morgan had urged backing for the bill saying he could not see how women could logically be excluded from becoming bishops.
Afterwards the church leader spoke of his “great disappointment”.
“I feel we won the argument, but we narrowly lost the vote,” he said.
“I think it is three years before this can be brought forward again and the issue will certainly not be going away.”
It is essential that the church makes best use of everybody’s talents so this outcome was very upsetting
Gill Todd, member of the church’s governing body
More than 100 clergy warned in December last year they would not accept the ministry of women bishops.
The bill, proposed by six diocesan bishops, needed a two-thirds majority in each section of the governing body to take effect.
Voting was split into three separate sections, the House of Laity, the House of Clerics and the House of Bishops.
The House of Clerics voted 27 to 18 in favour but, with abstentions, missed the required two-thirds majority. The other houses attained the required minimum.
Its defeat leaves Wales and England as the only UK regions in the Anglican Church that do not allow women bishops. The Anglican Church in Scotland, Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and the United States already allows women to be ordained as bishops.
One of the three voting sections missed the required majority
One of the three voting sections missed the required majority
Women have been ordained as priests within the Church in Wales since January 1997. There are now 160 women in that role out of a total of 696 clerics in the church.
An amendment for the bill to provide a male bishop for those opposed to the ordination of women bishops was also voted down.
Dr Morgan said he was pleased the amendment was also defeated as he said it would have changed the constitutional nature of the church by requiring bishops to appoint an assistant bishop.
In a statement, he said: “It is likely the bill would have sailed through if the amendment had been passed but that would have meant us, as supporters, compromising our principles, which we were not prepared to do.
“Like this bill, the bill to ordain women to the priesthood was initially defeated, but it came back to the governing body and was passed 11 years ago.
“This is not the end for this bill either – it will not go away and it will not be ignored, it is something the Church in Wales will have to grapple with.
“But it saddens me that we will have to go through the whole process and all the work involved once again.”
One of those opposed to the bill, Reverend Jeremy Winston, vicar of St Mary’s Priory Church, Abergavenny, said he expected the issue to return.
He said the bill might have gone through if the proposed amendment had been passed for more “traditionalist” members of the church.
He said: “It [the amendment] was very much a way in that those who are very devout and committed members of the Church in Wales but are not in agreement on this issue [women bishops], could continue to play a full active and devout, prayerful, part in the life of the Church in Wales, which we want to do.”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:52 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7325877.stm
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:53 pm |
Church rejects women bishops bill
“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7325877.stm”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 3:53 pm |
I recently heard an interview on the radio. It was an ex anglican minister, who is married, but went over to the catholic church, because he was so upset that they started to ordain women as ministers. Of course the catholic church was very happy for the conversion, and gave him his own parish. They did not mind that he is married. They will take anybody these days.
The minister said that if jesus wanted women in his church, and if he wanted women to spread his word, he would have had at least 1 women as an apostell. But since all twelve were men, they have no right to be ministers or to serve him in his church. This dickhead was furious with the anglican church, and was quick to say they are all going to hell, and that he is very grateful for converting to cathalosism.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 4:02 pm |
“http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/706″
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 4:47 pm |
Here is a great article from the latest Scientific American:
Enjoy!!!!!
Expelled Exposed
A film challenging evolution by game show host and financial analyst Ben Stein is a case study in antiscience propaganda
By MIChAel SherMer
“Should I be worried about the Crips and the Bloods
up here?” These were the first words out of the mouth of Ben Stein as he entered my office at Skeptic magazine, located in the racially mixed neighborhood of Altadena, Calif. I cringed and hoped that the two African-American women in my employ were out of earshot of what was perhaps merely Stein’s ham-handed attempt at humor before he began inter¬viewing me for what I was told was a film on the intersection of science and religion entitled Crossroads.
That is not what the interview was about. And neither is the film, now called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The subtitle exposes its motif—intelligent design has been expelled from class¬rooms and culture, and Ben Stein sees a sinister conspiracy at work. This supercilious financial columnist and ersatz actor and game show host proceeded to grill me on whether or not I think someone should be fired for expressing dissenting views. My answer: it depends. Who is being fired for what, when and where? People are usually fired for reasons having to do with bud¬getary constraints, incompetence or failure to fulfill the terms of a contract. If you are hired to teach biology accord¬ing to the curriculum standards of your school district but instead spend the semester telling students that science has no definitive explanation for DNA, wings, eyes, brains and that mystery of mysteries—bacteria flagella—then, yes, you should be fired posthaste. But I know of no instance in which this has hap¬pened, and the film’s examples of such alleged abuses have reason¬able explanations detailed at http://www.expelledexposed.com, where Eugenie Scott and her tireless crew at the National Center for Sci¬ence Education have tracked down the specifics of each case.
After asking the question a dozen different ways, Stein final¬ly changed the subject and queried my opinion on the social impact of Darwinism. Having just finished my book on evolu¬tionary economics (The Mind of the Market), I drew the con¬nection between Adam Smith’s invisible hand and Charles Dar¬win’s natural selection and noted how capitalists have long used social Darwinism to justify unfettered market competition, from the early 20th-century belief in the survival of the fittest corporations to Enron’s CEO Jeffrey Skilling, who said his favor¬ite book in Harvard Business School was Richard Dawkins’s The Self sh Gene. This was not the answer Stein wanted, and he re -joined with a vehemence I did not understand until I saw his film.
Expelled’s exegesis is this: Darwinism leads to atheism, com¬munism, fascism and a repetition of the Holocaust. We are in an ideological war between a scientific, natural worldview that leads to the Gulag Archipelago and Nazi gas chambers and a religious, supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. Expelling intelligent design from American class¬rooms and culture will inexorably take us down a path of doom, and the film’s blunt editing intersperses interview snippets from evolutionary biologists with black-and-white clips of, in ascend¬ing scale of ominousness, bullies pounding on a 98-pound weak¬ling; Charlton Heston’s character in Planet of the Apes being blasted by a water hose by a gorilla thug; Nikita Khrushchev pounding his fist on a United Nations desk; East Germans cap¬tured trying to scale the Berlin Wall; and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves. The for¬mula is unmistakable: Darwinism = death.
Expelled is pure propaganda that would make even Leni Riefenstahl blush. The film deserves the Michael Moore Palme d’Or Award for Objective Journalism. Tellingly, it is being marketed to church groups, reli¬gious organizations and conservative Christians. I saw it at the National Religious Broadcasters conven¬tion, where Stein and the producers received a stand¬ing ovation and we were all given an Expelled “Event & Resource Kit,” which includes movie posters, bumper stickers, teaching outlines, literature from the pro–intelligent design Discovery Institute and even a whistle for “Blowing the whistle on suppression.” A DVD includes interviews with intelli¬gent design proponents and suggestions on how to “host a ‘Din¬ner with Darwin’ … using the Discussion Guide, DVD and the film as an opportunity to educate yourselves about the ‘good sci¬ence’ in support of our faith.”
When will Americans learn that evolutionary theory has noth¬ing to do with religion and that “good science” is the product of good data and theory, not “good fit to scripture”? After Expelled, will anyone take Ben Stein seriously again? Anyone? Anyone?
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 4:59 pm |
Ben Stein is ‘n doos.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 5:00 pm |
Ben Stein is ‘n doos.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 22, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
An empty one?
I think he is simply a very scared person…like all xtians who realise that they have nothing to offer. Such motives are present in many movies and often in cartoons aimed at children. Cant think of one off the cuf (not being a serious moviest myself) but pay attention and you will see it…
Comment by Objective — May 23, 2008 @ 5:28 am |
Below are two quotes from D James Kennedy, founder of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
“As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society. We are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government… our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
and
“I trust that the day is soon coming when there will be someone who’ll be willing to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court and to this godless, atheistic, evolutionary, amoral, collectivist, socialistic, communistic religion right out of the public system of our nation.”
If anyone thinks these bible thumpers are not dangerous, think again.
Comment by Savage — May 23, 2008 @ 5:40 am |
Yes Savage, their words, desires and actions should leave us in no doubt. No matter how much they hide their agenda behinds words like “love”, “freedom” and “holiness”.
Comment by Renier — May 23, 2008 @ 5:51 am |
Renier wrote (#119 or thereabouts):
And, with supreme irony, “free will” whenever it suits their purposes.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 23, 2008 @ 7:33 am |
Tiamat wrote, “You sound like one of those youth pastors, the one’s who get tatoo’s and play in a rock band. Because y’know, they’re cool like that and they want to show even the toughest of rebels that “god is cool, and he understands you”. Those people make me sick to my stomach. I mean ok, you want to indoctrinate everyone, you want to push those people who “haven’t made up their mind yet” towards the “light” fine. Well not really but whatever.”
Would you mind if I use this as quote. This kinda thing coming from an atheist is good ammo for those idiots trying to look cool. http://www.christianaction.org.za/articles_ca/2003-4-BodyPiercing-AReturntoPaganism.htm
Tiamat wrote, “One last thing, Brendan, quoting the bible on what atheistic people think, could you think of ANYthing more stupid to do? Honestly man, right then and there you should have realised that switching the computer off and going to bed would have been the best course of action.
Isaiah 55:11. God’s word never returns void. It will accomplish the task for which it was sent – so no. Contrary to your believes, it is the best weapon to use.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 23, 2008 @ 7:39 am |
Con-tester wrote, “Why should parishioners be deprived of considering alternative explanations? “
For one the media is so replete with the humanist agenda, why on earth would a pastor also give a human-centred talk in a God-centred church. That pastor would be a hypocrite. And you accuse of have many of those in the church, but please not in the pulpit.
Con-tester wrote, “So why would you want to supplant legitimate science with it?”
Science has to do with explaining physical phenomena. You don’t have a legitimate, consistent answer as where we come from. You don’t know where we’re going. Life is all about me, myself and I – to hell with all the rest (if you’d excuse the reference to hell). Science hardly explains all this. The Bible does though. So you keep to your physics. I’ll keep to the Bible.
You know what. I prefer “I’m made in God’s image.” “I’ll be in Heaven for eternity when I die.” “Life has meaning because there is a judgment day.”
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 23, 2008 @ 8:01 am |
McBrollocks wrote, “You guys keep saying god made man and women in his image. Well, Brendon, if the bible is correct, then you are right, and then god did make man in his image. The only problem is, you are not right, you are wrong. Man made god in his (man’s) own image. Why else is he (god) such a sick bastard. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” So says Richard Dawkins. Now this sounds like a pretty fair summary of your god.”
Interesting. You give a whole lot of attributes of sinful human beings. Now I’ve already pointed out that God is NOT human. You also simply fail to understand that God has a right to judge us. He created us. We rebelled. What is amazing is that He let’s anyone live at all. BTW. What you see is God’s vengeance on sin. If you think that is bad, wait for judgement day.
McBrollocks wrote, “God did not give me my conscience. Lucky for me he didn’t. My conscience comes from a very long period of evolution. If god made it, I’d be feeling guilty of just about everything I do everyday. Instead, I can go about my life and enjoy it, without that crutch you guys love so much.”
I’m glad you admit to having a conscience. Suppressing your conscience doesn’t make you ‘not guilty’. It is God-given at it will be awakened on judgement day.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 23, 2008 @ 8:16 am |
Brendon wrote: “Isaiah 55:11. God’s word never returns void. It will accomplish the task for which it was sent – so no. Contrary to your believes, it is the best weapon to use.”
Go back and read all the threads where you quote your imaginary friend’s super-duper all answers(tm) self-help book. Did it have the desired effect? No? Well then, perhaps Isaiah 55:11 is just a stupid lie? But of course, if nobody takes your quotes seriously then it might just do what it was intended to do, like affirm the fact that is silly hogwash.
Brendon, we keep telling you your Bible quotes are useless and not proof to convince us of anything. Somehow your brain does not grasp this little fact. I *know* you think speaking the Bible (quotes) works like magic (literally), speaking life and all that fundie crap, but perhaps observe the total non-effect it has on us and refrain from trying your magick words to chase Satan out of our minds and allow the Holy Spoo, eh, Ghost to possess us.
Comment by Renier — May 23, 2008 @ 8:44 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#121 or thereabouts):
That’s very curious, Brendon Schafer – “never returns void”. So your god’s word is like a C/C++, C# or Java function. What return type is it? LONG? BOOL? What? Is it straight procedural, or perhaps a class or an object method? Also, it must be a recursive function because it calls itself so often. That, in turn, raises the spectre of re-entrancy contentions and possible stack overflows, maybe even race conditions in pre-emptive multitasking operating environments.
Sheesh, but you can fabricate some nonsense.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
The media is even more replete with the inane drivel spouted by religious and other anti-scientific so-called “authorities”. Whenever some human disaster occurs, you can be sure that somewhere along the line, some mealy-mouthed, conceited and cassocked twit will wax lyrical about “god’s will” and “god’s love” as though what he’s saying is (a) somehow profound and meaningful, and (b) of great comfort to the bereaved. No, Brendon Schafer, the hypocrites are people like yourself who would put “god-talk” into schools and in the same breath withhold “people-talk” from your church.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
Yes, and religion first posits on nil evidentiary or logical basis a “spiritual realm” and then proclaims itself the supreme authority on any and all questions about this imaginary thing.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
Science is still examining the question and has some ideas worth examining. Religion, on the other hand, starts with a touchy-feely made-up answer and then proceeds to panel-beat any discordant facts until they sort of fit. But the edifice is becoming ever more tatty and obviously cobbled together, so your answer is even less legitimate and consistent.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
I know I won’t be going to church to attend any sermons, that’s for sure. But neither do you know where you’re going, unless you want to redefine what “to know” means.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
Wrong. It’s religion that makes it easy to divide the world into “us” and “them” and to condemn those who happen not to belong to the “us” category.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
Wrong. The bible doesn’t “explain” anything, unless you want to redefine what “to explain” means.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#122 or thereabouts):
Okay, but only if you swear to keep the bible out of schools and out of children’s heads until they’re at least 18 years old.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 23, 2008 @ 8:59 am |
Brendon wrote: “Science hardly explains all this. The Bible does though.”
Prove it. Back your statement up. What can the Bible teach us that science can not? That donkey’s can talk if posessed by your god? We already know the whole Genesis creation myth is wrong. We have evidence. Varves alone is enought to utterly decimate the creation myth as found in Genesis. Personally I think the Bible is useless. We have better children stories, don’t need the Bible anymore.
Brendon wrote: “So you keep to your physics. I’ll keep to the Bible.”
Try sending a rocket to the moon, create particle accelerators or observe the whole spectrum of radiation with your Bible. Don’t be silly, science is valuable to humans, the Bible is not. The Bible is good for reducing people to idiots blabbering about R.Rex eating coconuts and making up shit to try and cram the round peg of reality into the square of personal beleifs and fantasies. Also, The Bible appears to be good to make people hate and reject scientific discovery. Was it not just last month that we discussed how parents, reasoning like you prefered the Bible to medication for their child? A child (innocent!) died because of the type of sentiment you display above. You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting such a wicked meme!
Brendon wrote: “You know what. I prefer “I’m made in God’s image.” “I’ll be in Heaven for eternity when I die.” “Life has meaning because there is a judgment day.”
As is your right. You have the right to prefer your own beliefs and reject reality.
Brendon wrote: “Now I’ve already pointed out that God is NOT human.”
Not human? The only thing that makes your god not human is his superb hiding skills and of course the issue that he only lives in your imagination. But hey, love, adore, worship and pray to you imagination all you want to.
Brendon wrote: “You also simply fail to understand that God has a right to judge us.”
Judge us for the way he made us? Bullshit dude! If we judge you god by his own standards then even he would be guilty, very very guilty. He is way to obsessed with his ego, wrath and other peoples’s sex preferences anyway, perhaps a godly shrink could help him. Killing people for pissing against a wall. What type of pshyco freak do you “love” anyway?
Brendon wrote: “What you see is God’s vengeance on sin. If you think that is bad, wait for judgement day.”
God’s vengeance on sin? Bullshit. What do we see that is your god’s vengeance on sin? Oh, and of course, true to the fundie cult, the treat of Hell is once again being waved around like an old school teacher and his cane, eager to dominate the upstarts by fear. Heaven and Hell. Bribary and blackmail.
Brendon wrote: “It is God-given at it will be awakened on judgement day.”
So you say. Considering Jesus said that “that” generation will not pass before his words and prophesies come to fruitation I think we could say, once again, the Bible simply proves itself wrong. “Behold, I come quickly!” Perhaps it was not a reference to his second coming, but his first coming with Mary. It would explain why he had to visit Mary again to tell her “something” happened.
Brendon wrote to Tiamat: “Would you mind if I use this as quote. This kinda thing coming from an atheist is good ammo for those idiots trying to look cool.”
Now there is an idea. You have my support in getting those fellow christians of yours, uhm, idiots by your words, anyway, getting them to dump the “worldy” camo and stop annoying the rest of us. Wait, wait, lo and behold, a memory from my fundie days. It must be the Holy Ghost speaking to me!!! I recall… I recall a verse, a very important verse… fuzzy… Something about what will happen if you call another person an idiot… a verse… can anyone recall such a verse? Is it just my imagination or is it a revelation from Gawd? What does the Bible say about calling someone an idiot?
Comment by Renier — May 23, 2008 @ 9:41 am |
Con-Tester. Assuming a return is “expcted” from the function, I think you might be on to something. Where null is the same as a void really.
private function ReturnGodsWord(sVerse)
{
return null;
}
if (ReturnGodsWord(”Isaiah 55:11″) == null)
{
MessageBox.Show(”Human ERROR, don’t blame god. Praise god anyway. It’s the Humans fault, he is not opening his heart!!! Infidel!”);
}else{
MessageBox.Show(”See? I told you god is real, stupid infidel!”);
}
Comment by Renier — May 23, 2008 @ 9:52 am |
Actually Renier, I also meant to ask that if Brendon Schafer’s god’s word is a class/object method, whether it is virtual. Deprecated? What is its parent class? Is the class fully polymorphic? What is the function’s scope? What arguments does it take?
I think you’ve pretty much answered the last two questions, though – “private” scope, which kind of figures. But is “sVerse” a string object? ANSI or Unicode? Or is it a null-terminated string?
Comment by Con-Tester — May 23, 2008 @ 10:16 am |
Renier wrote, “Con-Tester. Will you accept a tested, verified, peer-reviewed (science) proof of amputees being healed in God’s name, right on stage? I would. So Brendon, your whining about us asking for proof is silly. Let god come down, appear to millions of people and in his all-mighty capacity and wisdom do something to make people accept the Bible as god’s word. Or is the all-mighty god out of ideas on how to provide proof? Tsk tsk. Silly little god, cant even prove he exists. No wonder his religion bloomed in a time when every assumed there must be a god.”
Umm…. Would raising dead people be sufficient proof as well? I suppose eye-witness accounts – including those from the rulers of the day that killed Jesus, wouldn’t be sufficient evidence? Would it? It’s not like it didn’t happen. It was like well, you’re living in the wrong time in history. Sorry dude. Even Jesus didn’t do these miracles to put on a show. Why should these things happen to make you happy now.
Renier quoted, “From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion“
from etymology “supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice”
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Fortunately Webster got it right. I don’t think you see it. My outward expressions, the things I do have nothing to do with religion, even as it is expressed here. All these things listed have are intrinsically self-motivated.
The final statement above ’system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith’ suggests a blind faith even. I do not have a blind faith, but a calculated faith. Looking at the evidences, weighing up the internal (Bible) and external (including self) evidences, I believe the Bible to be God’s word. He is the Authority. He is the Creator. His Word is Final. The Alpha and Omega.
Now as I said, going back to the self-motivation statement. If I’m religious, I do things to see what I can get out of the deal. I do things to earn my own way to heaven. Self-motivated – selfish. The Bible on the other hand, says that Heaven is a free gift. I can’t earn eternity in heaven and I don’t deserve it – like any real gift. I don’t think you saw the definition, it is all do, do, do. What I have is ‘done’. The payment for my sins was taken by Jesus on the Cross. If there was anyway back to God, it would have been shown to us. Even as Jesus prayed in the Garden. I recognize that this gift is of infinite value and I can never repay God for it. I got a gift of a brand new Porsche, first thing I’d do is show it off to my friends. I’d also be very grateful to the giver of the gift and would thank him. Eternal life as a gift from God is greater than the Porsche and everything I do now, isn’t to earn my to heaven, but as a thank you to God for that gift.
What I have is very different to how religion is defined. Yes. I do agree with some of the definitions given on the internet even, but they’re not sufficient to explain what I have. The best explanation is a relationship.
Renier wrote, “Just a drop of honesty with yourself and you will abandon this futile propaganda campaign to set fundies apart from religion.”
Mmmm…. A bit of honesty? I trust my explanation above is sufficient.
Renier wrote, “But Humans being religious is no proof that a certain religion is true. Do you understand this?
O yes. I understand this very well and am in complete agreement with you. That’s why I stated above that I don’t have a ‘blind faith’, but a ‘calculated faith’. You guys keep at us Christians on with this blind faith thing. Blind faith is what happens when cults arise and kill people (and / or themselves) – and you guys love pointing these things out. Blind faith is no faith at all – it’s stupid.
Renier wrote, “Is it possible that feelings and emotians (very powerful, I know) is enhanced by total acceptance of the Bible and the idea that a “good” god is looking after you?”
Yep. Again. I completely agree with you. If we always went on feelings, we’d marry a different woman every day. I mean hey, see a pretty girl walk down the street and feel an attraction. Fall in love – really lust at first (extremely powerful emotion). You wake up together next day – she’s in a mood. Yikes – serious anti-emotion (if I can use that made up phrase). But actually, whereas I think lust is an initial attraction, somewhere along the line you either learn to love the person or you’re outta there in a flash. Fortunately some marriages do last, because a couple learns to love each other and trust each other. Love must be based on facts – not emotions. “total acceptance of the bible” is again a ‘blind faith’ argument to which I have never subscribed.
Renier wrote, “BS. You want claim Fred May condemned their actions? Why the hell are you making excuses for this fucked up corrupt fundie cult church? ‘Cause they are brothers and not infidels?”
No. Because you’re not discerning between the sins of individuals and the teachings of the church. Jesus never taught fanaticism. He never taught violence as a means to win people. He never taught to spit at people. In fact, he taught the very opposite. “Turn the other cheek” comes to mind. Again, you’re looking at the hypocrites in the church and pointing to the church as the source of the problems. This in itself is being hypocritical – on your part. In fact, I think the church generally errs too far on the passive resistance front. I don’t believe there is a valid doctrine of always being passive, but we do tend to err that way too far.
Again, you’re probably going to point to the Old Testament where God used a nation to bring judgement on other nations. In fact later, you used a pagan nation (Babylon) to bring judgement on apostate Israel. In and amongst all that drama, God was still being merciful and saving to some people. Looking at the big picture, you’re missing out on the smaller details.
Renier wrote, “But Brendon, just to say, thanks for taking the time to comment. It is very very rare that a Christian will actually try and explain their views when people are critical about it. Most Christians usually run after the first little hiding, in my opinion and observation.”
Pleasure. It is my hearts desire to see at least someone on this blog in heaven one. The only reason I remain is because God has given me a love for the lost. That love overcomes cowardice any day. I will never be able to read as much as you, I’ll never be able to understand science and all the rest as well as you etc. etc. But God’s love compels me each time. Reading for me hasn’t been a lifelong occupation and only started so that I can try to give something of an intelligent answer. Don’t remember much… but I try.
I’m only sorry I can’t contribute more. Reading some of the posts (sometimes much) later, I see I miss some arguments. Too bad.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 23, 2008 @ 10:48 am |
Jesus: “if any one will not receive you in your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town”.
Jesus: “think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”.
Jesus: “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.”
Brendon: “He never taught violence as a means to win people. He never taught to spit at people. In fact, he taught the very opposite”
Voltaire: “The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reason.”
Bierce: “Faith, n. – Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
Comment by Oubaas — May 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am |
Renier wrote, “You said you hated religion, did you not? The freedom of religion is something I too support but that freedom does not give you the right to indoctrinate kids (other people’s kids too) in a public school. It’s that simple. Why do you not understand this? Indoctrinate your own kids at home if you have to but leave other people’s kids in peace.”
So you can indoctrinate these same kids that are not your own? You don’t see the double standard? I think the honest way to do things is to show the arguments both for and against both creation and evolution, then let the kid decide. You seem intent on only pointing out the positives of evolution and the negatives of creation (yes I concede there may be problems). Umm… But not only these two arguments, because there are various other arguments you should not exclude. Sorry, this seems right and fair to me.
Renier wrote, “Good, good, there is hope for you yet. It was not his wife however. Now I ask you. When one of your fellow brother fundies repeats this lie, do you stand up for the truth and tell him/her that it is false and Darwin died convinced of his theory?”
Never had this question posed to me by anyone other than an atheist. To me it doesn’t matter if he repented on his death bed or not. It doesn’t change my faith.
Renier wrote, “Ok, so enlighten me oh Holy one. What is the difference between gut-feel and the voice of the Holy Spoo, eh, Ghost? “
No. You remain in ignorance.
The god of the Bible is a bigger sinner by his own “standards” than any other human being ever was or will be. The simple commandment of “love” is the one he has serious problems with. Perhaps you can explain love to him, he somehow thinks eternal torturing people in hell is a natural result of a just loving god. Tell him we disagree and thinks he needs some counceling for such pshycotic ideas. The Bible is also clear that very few people will enter heaven. Sounds like god’s salvation plan is a bit of a failure. He fails, not even 50%! Tell him his plan sux.
Firstly. God is the lawgiver. He is the final authority. I think if you give someone what they want, it’s a loving thing to do. People have choices. You choose your path. Fine. But then when you come to the end of your life – don’t blame God. In fact He is so loving that if you do not want anything to do with Him, that’s exactly what you get. Separation from God.
Secondly. Life’s unfair. You’ve no doubt been a victim of crime as we all have. These people have apparently gotten away with it. But they haven’t, because there is a day of reckoning. I think a loving God will see to it that justice is done. I am glad you defined God as both ‘just’ and ‘loving’.
However, it is that same love and the same justice that drove Jesus to the cross so that you do not have pay for your sins yourself. If Jesus is God, as the Bible says He is, then He did it Himself – for you. He paid for your sins. Man to reject that offer of love has got to be the height of foolishness.
Few people go to heaven??? I know where you get that from – probably the farmer that plants the seeds. Of all the seed he planted, he only had a 25% yield. The rest was either eaten, shriveled from the hot sun, or was choked by weeds. Other than that I’m not sure the Bible does speak of a number.
Renier wrote, “neither you nor Wesley is god’s chosen(tm) spokeman on earth, even thou you might think you are.”
1 Peter 2:9 contradicts you. Trademark was taken long ago.
Renier wrote, “But you still make no sense. God’s enemies. Are they not your enemies too? “
No. All God’s enemies (from my point of view – not God’s) are to be evangelized. I will most certainly invite a JW in to my home (and have done) if the opportunity arises. But I do not consider him a brother.
Renier wrote, “Hmm. People like Benny Hinn, Reinhard Bonke, Fred May, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, Ray Mcauly etc etc. Oh, and let’s not forget the “Prophet” Joshua from Nigeria. In truth Brendon, I interpret the verse in a different way. A doctrine that is not the same as your doctrine is what is meant here.:
Fortunately, I have history on my side. Down through the ages, people have interpreted scripture pretty much the same way. Now, there are those (some of whom you’ve listed) are exactly the people John was talking about. Especially Benny Hinn, Joshua and (I’m not certain about this, but) Ray McCauley as well. Pat Robertson I don’t know enough about, but please, when you list these people, please check where the money they get goes to. Besides, I have no qualm about people becoming rich (especially Christians) because they usually funnel their money to good causes.
Renier wrote, “Okay then. Lets go by *your* divine interpretation. The JW people does not even acknowledge that you bff (Best Friends Forever) Jesus is part of the god head (Jesus was just a man) and that the holy spirit is more like an impersonal power than a person. Is this not “core”(primarily important) doctrine being distorted? So why does your interpretation of the verse not apply to them?”
Your knowledge of JW’s is partially correct. They translate John 1:1 as reading “… the word was a god…”. Why this verse doesn’t apply to them? Well. Two things really. Firstly they’re not coming into my home to teach me the Bible nor to peddle their wears. Secondly I think they “gain points” in speaking to people, so I’ll allow them the points – to show them their error in the hope that they’d turn to the real Jesus which the Bible says “is God”. I think for people to work so hard then still land up in hell is a terrible thing.
Let’s see: “denieth that Jesus is the Christ”. Yup, thats me. Any other criteria there? “that denieth the Father and the Son” Yup, that’s me. I don’t even assume they exist like all good Christians are supposed to! I abhor the concept of god that the Bible teaches and oppose it.
I believe verse 18 and 19 are the context. These are people that are in the church. They are claiming to be Christians. They have all the attire, the right words – everything. Yet they are preaching a false gospel (eg. JW’s). Charley Russel and many other cult leaders were in the church but they went their own way. There are times when I think even Islam is a Christian cult – although Mo didn’t grow up in a church, but he had some influence at least on his early journeys.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 23, 2008 @ 12:36 pm |
A court in Texas has ruled that the state of Texas’ seizure of polygamist-cult kids was unlawful. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints won an appeal. This basically means that in the state of Texas, it is OK to rape 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 year old girls, as long as you put the name of jesus fucking christ in front of the whole act. So never mind the law in Texas, jesus fucking christ and all his predator followers has a green card and immunity against forcing very young girls to marry older men and are forced to have sex with them. So now the state of Texas will have a boom in sex tourism. No need to go to Thailand, or Vietnam any more, just go to Texas, join this fucking cult, and do what ever you like. The parents are more than willing to give away their children to predators, and they are not afraid to use the law to ensure their god given rights to have their daughters raped by jesus FC followers.
“http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/23/20080523polygamist0523.html”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 23, 2008 @ 3:12 pm |
Am I insane? What the fuck is wrong with people? How the hell do they get away with this shit? Fucking animals!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 23, 2008 @ 3:14 pm |
Court overrules Texas sect raid
An appeal court has ruled that US officials had no right to seize 463 children from a polygamist sect in western Texas last month.
The court said that the reasons given for the children’s removal were “legally and factually insufficient”.
But it did not immediately order the return of the children to the ranch.
In April, officials raided a compound of the sect, saying young girls were being forced into marriage and sex. The children were placed into foster care.
But the Texas Third Court of Appeals ruled that officials failed to demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, which is the only legally allowable reason for taking children from their homes without court proceedings.
Confusion
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has denied abuse and says it is being persecuted.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Archive scenes at a Texas courthouse
Correspondents say the case, which began with a raid on 3 April, has been marked by confusion.
So far, 168 mothers and 69 fathers of the children have been identified – reflecting the polygamist practices of the sect – the Associated Press news agency reports.
More than 100 children have still not been matched with mothers.
Some of the parents say they do not know where their children have been placed, while others have complained that their sons and daughters are living at different locations, forcing them to criss-cross Texas to see them.
Officials have said that several of the sect members they had listed as minors are in fact adults.
They said the situation was complicated because some women and children had given different names and lied about ages.
Initially, officials said more than half of the underage girls were either mothers or were pregnant.
The legal age of sexual consent in Texas is 17 and polygamy is illegal in the US.
The children were removed from the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado after someone called a domestic abuse hotline claiming to be a pregnant 16-year-old abused by a much older husband.
The girl has never been found and authorities are investigating whether the calls were a hoax.
Earlier this month, investigators said they had found signs of physical injuries among the children, but added it was unclear whether these were due to abuse.
Members live in large extended families, making it hard to determine exact parenthood, and the state is using DNA tests in its investigation.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) is an offshoot of the Mormon Church.
It broke away from the mainstream Mormons more than a century ago.
FLDS members are taught that a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven.
The church denies forcing young girls into polygamy.
Story from BBC NEWS:
“http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7415628.stm”
Published: 2008/05/22 18:43:59 GMT
Comment by McBrolloks — May 23, 2008 @ 3:20 pm |
“The church denies forcing young girls into polygamy.”
Poor bastards, they are being persecuted. These girls are beating each other up to be the first to marry these old men, and be their 3rd of 4th or 5th wives.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 23, 2008 @ 3:23 pm |
Now if you believe bullshit like this you’ll believe anything.
http://www.angryflower.com/bibbal.html
And seeing I don’t believe the bible’s stories, the fundies will no doubt set killer bears on me if they can find me (or the bears). But since the bible approves killing by stoning, a few rock will do the trick if god do not send on the bears.
Comment by Savage — May 24, 2008 @ 5:17 am |
Savage wrote: # 118
Below are two quotes from D James Kennedy, founder of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
“As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society….. ”
I know you wont believe the following story since all you evil atheists dont believe in stories and revelations and such bullshit and you worship only reason and science and logic ….but i swear before the great R**s*n that the following story is true. (it will shortly appear in a book that is currently in press and then you will have to believe it anyway…since it will be the revealed word of the truth and will of the holy R**s*n – )
I woke up suddenly last night and there was this extremely bright light in the room….and i could vaguely see something inside the light…and just as i was about to crawl under the bed (seeing as how the light was blocking the door)…a voice came from the light that said unto me: “Fear not for i am the light of the world…i am the god R**s*n (do not pronounce the name lest you are struck dead by a lightning bolt or some other plague!) I command you to go forth and do my will.
I was trembling but i managed to to stutter: “Thy will oh great and supreme R**s*n? How will i know thy will?”
To which R**s*n replied: “Whatever you can imagine is my will will be my will since you are my chosen one in whom i will reveal my will. And fear not if in this process you destroy the minds of children or flood the world with blood for i have chosen you as my special means of revelation and therefor i forgive you for doing the things i profess to hate in my special scripture that are being written under my godly inspiration as i speak.”
And the light disappeared…. and it came to me suddenly…. that mystics must be burnt at the stake…for that is the will of the holy R**s*n and henceforth i shall ensure that the will of Rsn is done…”
I know this may sound like bs to you and McBrollocks will most probably utter a number of fuckens but i swear by the holly R that what i relate is the gospel truth…
Before i forget.. it came to me suddenly (so clearly it must be the truth and therefor R’s will..)..that the will of R is also that we destroy all those who believe in false gods…. like G*D and J*Hv* and *ll*h and Jf*c*ngC
It surely must be the will of RSN because it is in my head and how will it get there if it wasnt revealed to me?
Comment by Objective — May 24, 2008 @ 8:08 am |
From Scientific American:
“Skeptic
Rational Atheism
An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens
BY MICHAEL SHERMER
Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy
has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) at¬tacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s
Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about
irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by them¬selves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & the¬ism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow[s] from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our right¬ful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and dis¬belief. A higher moral principle that en¬compasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, be¬liefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
As King, in addition, noted: “The marvelous new militancy which has en¬gulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.”
Rational atheism values the truths of science and the power of reason, but the principle of freedom stands above both science and religion.
Michael Shermer is publisher of
Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His
latest book is Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt, 2006).”
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 5:46 pm |
“”…in Dawkins’s always poignant prose,“raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.”"
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 6:13 pm |
“As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.”
Unfortunately, if you attend most churches and religious gatherings, there are many instances where the religious attack science. This is preached from high up on the pulpits. The followers know no better than to believe their religious leaders, and this makes it easy for them not to think or to reason, and they are told it is a sin against god to read science books, like Darwin’s origin of the species etc.
Then they move into policy making, and they insist that their Intelligent (NOT) Design be taught in our class rooms, in our science classes.
They are the ones who attack, and they don’t want to tolerate our right t disbelieve their fairy tale.
The other thing that really pisses me off is the child abuse that is rife through all these churches and cults, and the law seems to be at an extreme disadvantage to enforce the laws that applies to all of society. Somehow, they seems to get away with it a lot, because they always pretend to be persecuted. Well I say persecute them as anybody else would be persecuted. Make them accountable, as high up as the accountability goes. No religious leader should be immune from procecution if he or she knew what was going on.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 6:57 pm |
Objective wrote:
“”Below are two quotes from D James Kennedy, founder of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
“As the vice-regents of God, we are to bring His truth and His will to bear on every sphere of our world and our society….. ””
Michael Shermer wrote: “..our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.”
D James Kennedy does not agree with that. Here is the link to this nut’s website: “http://www.coralridge.org/” If these guys get power, they will force god’s will on every citizen in the USA. A quote from their website: “Federal judges hold enormous power in the United States! The upcoming elections are critical, and you need to take a stand…”
The Federal judges in America has been the saving grace for normal citizens from the control of these maniacs. “..our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.” Thanks to the Supreme Court!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 8:34 pm |
D James Kennedy, a short list of things he did in his life:
* Same-sex marriage: Kennedy was strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and called for a constitutional “Firewall” to protect the nation from “counterfeit marriage.”[20]
* Apologetics: Kennedy frequently claimed that if Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ’s commandment to ‘Love thy neighbor’ reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature.[21]
* Constitution Restoration Act: a bill promoted during the 2005 Confronting the Judicial War on Faith conference that sought to authorize Congress to impeach judges who fail to acknowledge “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government” and to limit the power of the federal judiciary to rule in religious liberty cases.[22]
* Creation-evolution controversy: Kennedy was a Young Earth Creationist[4][23][24][25][26][27][28] and supporter of intelligent design[29][30][31][32][33] who rejected the theory of evolution and believed that it “led to the death of nine million people in Nazi Germany…. The greatest mass murderers of all time [are] all compliments of evolution,”[34] an idea reflected in Coral Ridge’s controversial documentary Darwin’s Deadly Legacy in 2006. Darwin’s Deadly Legacy is based on the 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany by Discovery Institute Fellow Richard Weikart. The Discovery Institute is the hub of the intelligent design movement,[35] and the Institute’s Fellows are frequent Coral Ridge Ministries guest speakers. Phillip E. Johnson, considered the father of the movement,[36] was a featured speaker at Coral Ridge Ministries’ 1999 Reclaiming America for Christ Conference.[37] There he gave a speech called How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won which was widely promoted by the Ministries’ Truths that Transform.[38]
* Kennedy was a co-signer of the “Land Letter” sent to President George W. Bush in October 2002 which outlined a “just war” rationale for the military invasion of Iraq.[39]
* Kennedy sought to “reclaim America for Christ” in which government policies and laws would be consistent with evangelical Christianity.[40] Many of his public messages on this topic focused on his assertion that the Founding Fathers of the United States were Christian and had intended to establish a Christian constitution.[9]
* Kennedy was a notable member of the Moral Majority political movement in the 1970s and 1980s.[41][42]
“http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._James_Kennedy”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 8:51 pm |
Talk about a nut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 8:52 pm |
“It is strange that there’s this whole suite of positions that would seem to be unrelated, but almost always seem to be adopted wholesale. If you know someone is against evolution, you can pretty much predict their positions on abortion, stem cells, the death penalty, education, GW Bush, and homosexuality. I wonder what common force ties all those disparate ideas together?”
P Z Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
Comment by Savage — May 25, 2008 @ 9:25 am |
Freedom of belief and disbelief, as a principle, does not carry with it the form in which it is almost always expressed by the religious, namely an assumed freedom to distort and to make up convenient facts as needed. There’s a huge difference between the two.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 25, 2008 @ 10:02 am |
Brendon wrote: “Umm…. Would raising dead people be sufficient proof as well?”
Yes, you got any that we could verify?
Brendon wrote :” I suppose eye-witness accounts – including those from the rulers of the day that killed Jesus, wouldn’t be sufficient evidence? ”
Written how long after the whole “god kills god” happened? Any secular documents of that time to confirm it? No? Then I quess you supposed correctly.
Brendon wrote: “It’s not like it didn’t happen.”
Its not like all the other religious stories of that time about gods rising from the dead, is it?
Brendon wrote: “Even Jesus didn’t do these miracles to put on a show. Why should these things happen to make you happy now.”
I thought god wants all people to be saved. He should lift his ass and at least, at the very least start showing up proclaiming that he does indeed exist. It would be a great start, would it not?
Brendon wrote: “The final statement above ’system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith’ suggests a blind faith even.”
Look in the mirror, there is a face smiling at you. but ooh noo, your flavour of religion is not religion at all!
Brendon wrote: ” I do not have a blind faith, but a calculated faith.”
Show us. Start with throwing out all the assumptions your belief is based on, like that god exists and that he takes a keen interest in *you*. Uhm, I think you might have meant it in a different way, but if your faith is calculated I would really like to see the calculations (or logic) that you claim.
Brendon wrote: “Looking at the evidences, weighing up the internal (Bible) and external (including self) evidences,”
We already asked you numerous times to provide the evidence you claim to have. Yet, so far we found your “evidence” to be lacking and nothing else but blind belief and assumptions. If you have anything of substance to bring to the table, then please do. If not, at least be honest and admit you have faith and no evidence. It takes strong faith (blind?) after all to believe whilst reality snubs you on any evidence for your beliefs.
Brendon wrote: “I believe the Bible to be God’s word.”
Yes, we know. You keep on repeating yourself as if repeating you beliefs and assumptions will convince us. It won’t.
Brendon wrote: “He is the Authority.”
Oh yeah, the one that fell out of his crystal coach and died a pitifull creature as told in Pullman’s book?
Brendon wrote: “He is the Creator.”
No.
Brendon wrote: “His Word is Final”
I don’t know about final, but what I do know is that it is insane.
Brendon wrote: “The Bible on the other hand, says that Heaven is a free gift.”
If you worship *your* god, then he gives you heaven. How wonderful! Worship me Brendon and I’ll give you a hundred bucks. Its a lot more than what your god ever gave you or ever will give you.
Brendon wrote: “What I have is ‘done’.”
So, if you turn Atheist than god will not take back his “gift”? He gave it to you after all. Or are there strings attached? You god really does operate like a human, does he not? Perhaps you should consider why.
Brendon wrote: “The payment for my sins was taken by Jesus on the Cross.”
Who pays for God’s sins against humanity? If your sins are already paid for, can you become atheist now?
Brendon wrote: “I recognize that this gift is of infinite value and I can never repay God for it.”
How about that super duper Merc I promised you in the afterlife? Is there any difference?
Brendon wrote: “Yes. I do agree with some of the definitions given on the internet even, but they’re not sufficient to explain what I have.”
People with delusions would also claim definitions do not describe what they experience. Can you say the sword “subjective”. How about “feeling”. How about “emotion”? How about “blind faith”?
Brendon wrote: “The best explanation is a relationship.”
No, the best explanation is that you believe your make-belief friend is real.
Brendon wrote: “Mmmm…. A bit of honesty? I trust my explanation above is sufficient.”
It was an honest attempt at least. You just need a drop of critical thinking, step back and look at yourself in a more objective way.
Brendon wrote: “Blind faith is what happens when cults arise and kill people (and / or themselves) ”
Yes, but not just that. Blind faith is when people choose to believe in spite of evidence to the contrary. I know you don’t like hearing this, but the very fact that you reject reality and observation and shoose to believe in a 6000 year old earth is in fact blind faith. Think about this Brendon. If a person believed that all elephants have 6 legs and you show him thousands of elephants with only four legs (and no sign of amputation) and still that person inists that all elephants have 6 legs. It is blind faith, right? So, if there are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers showing you the Universe is a lot older than 6000 years, and you still choose to believe the universe is only 6000 years old, why does your faith not qualify as blind?
Brendon wrote: “Blind faith is no faith at all – it’s stupid.”
You Bible says you should have faith like a child. A child’s faith is blind. The type of faith your Bible does encourage is in fact the blind variety.
Brendon wrote: “Jesus never taught fanaticism.”
“Leave everything, even your family and follow me” is not fanatical?
Brendon wrote: “He never taught violence as a means to win people.”
No, just to get the market stalls removed from the temple.
Brendon wrote: “No. Because you’re not discerning between the sins of individuals and the teachings of the church.”
Our concern is that the Bible can be interpreted in such a way that would support actions such as the Shofar thugs with their monkey antics. If I can find you a church with such teachings, would you then understand what we are trying to say? Or will you once again move the goalsposts and claim those churches have false teachings, even if they do justify thier actions from the Bible?
Brendon wrote: “This in itself is being hypocritical – on your part.”
Sure, but this incident is not the only issue with Shofar, is it? Do you not see the pattern? Why don’t you find out what Fed May teaches before claiming it was not taught?
Brendon wrote: ” In and amongst all that drama, God was still being merciful and saving to some people. Looking at the big picture, you’re missing out on the smaller details.”
Some peopel survived your god’s sanctioned murder of even children and therefore he is merciful? c’mon! I see the big picure here, and it’s not about what happened or not but about people justifying murder and genocide and call it God’s mercy.
Brendon wrote: “The only reason I remain is because God has given me a love for the lost.”
I lost my watch. Do you love it? :-p What a pity that “lost” in your religious world means people who have thrown off superstition and made a serious effort to start thinking for themselves.
Brendon wrote: ” I’m only sorry I can’t contribute more.”
You do well enough, considering the amount of goldy effort we see from your fellow brothers and sisters.
Brendon wrote: “So you can indoctrinate these same kids that are not your own?”
I’m sorry? When did they start teaching Atheism in public shools? Last I checked it was all Christian.
Brendon wrote: “You don’t see the double standard?”
If you are seeing double in what I wrote, then cut down on the wine. The double vision should go away after a good sleep. Evolution is not an atheist doctrine, it is grounded in science. Science that is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Science in science class. Should we not teach biology because it is based on evolution? Science is not religious indoctrination. Only religions that are false has issues with reality.
Brendon wrote: “Renier wrote, “Ok, so enlighten me oh Holy one. What is the difference between gut-feel and the voice of the Holy Spoo, eh, Ghost? “
No. You remain in ignorance.”
Answer the question Brendon. What is the difference between gut-feel and the voice of the Holy Spirit?
Brendon wrote: “Firstly. God is the lawgiver. He is the final authority”
You ever wonder at the fact that every single argument you make here starts with an assumption and continues from there?
Brendon wrote: “In fact He is so loving that if you do not want anything to do with Him, that’s exactly what you get. Separation from God.”
Sure, but he created Hell to make sure those people will know about thier mistake! For all eternity, a hellfire torture. Yet you mention live in the same sentence. Can we stick to a common understanding of love, such is “what is best for the other person” instead of this phsycotic notion that goldy love leads to torturing people?
Brendon wrote: “But they haven’t, because there is a day of reckoning.”
The more you bring up this point, the more it seems that your faith is just your desire that bad people will be punished if we can’t do it here on earth, then in hell at least.
Brendon wrote: “drove Jesus to the cross so that you do not have pay for your sins yourself. If Jesus is God, as the Bible says He is, then He did it Himself – for you. He paid for your sins. Man to reject that offer of love has got to be the height of foolishness.”
No, for man to believe in all this super-natural sin and crap must be the height of it all.
Brendon wrote: “Few people go to heaven??? I know where you get that from – probably the farmer that plants the seeds.”
Oh crap. Let me think. I recall a verse about “few are the ones who pass through it”?
Brendon wrote: “1 Peter 2:9 contradicts you. Trademark was taken long ago”
Please quote the verse. I can’t get to onlike Bibles from here and I smokes my last physical bible. Just kidding about the smoking, but I still require the quote.
Brendon wrote: “No. All God’s enemies (from my point of view – not God’s) are to be evangelized.”
So why do you disobey god’s point of view?
Brendon wrote: “I have no qualm about people becoming rich (especially Christians) because they usually funnel their money to good causes.”
You checked, right?
Brendon wrote: “Firstly they’re not coming into my home to teach me the Bible nor to peddle their wears.”
Funny, the JW over here ALWAYS want’s to talk,discuss and teach the Bible. But wait, there is more. If you buy one Wathctower booklet then you get 10% discount on the hardcover book about “God’s true name is Jehova” or whatever other trash they sell.
Brendon wrote: ” I think for people to work so hard then still land up in hell is a terrible thing.”
I’d rather say that for people to work so hard at indoctrination and then still end up with no after life is a funny thing.
Brendon wrote: “I believe verse 18 and 19 are the context. These are people that are in the church.”
I’ll concede this point for now. Personally I don’t understand why the Bible is so harsh on “confused” people inside the church and kisses the buts of “confused” people outside of the church.
Sorry, too lazy to proof read and check spelling.
Comment by Renier — May 25, 2008 @ 12:20 pm |
Savage wrote: “P Z Myers, biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.”
PZ’s blog is a blog I never miss. I must admit, I am a big fan of PZ’s writings.
Comment by Renier — May 25, 2008 @ 12:21 pm |
“The Federal judges in America has been the saving grace for normal citizens from the control of these maniacs. “..our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.” Thanks to the Supreme Court!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 24, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
I would challenge the idea that our freedom to disbelieve is bound to the freedom of others to believe.
In principle we are free agents whether we like it or not and one man’s beliefs have nothing to do with that of another. You are implying that freedom (of thought) is granted by the vox populi who got their voice from Vox Rex (once they replaced it with their own voice) and the voice of the king was derived from the Vox Dei. That kinda fits the sceptic epistemological paradigm – meaning since all knowledge is ultimately revealed by god we have to believe….but since freedom is granted what goes for the believer must be accorded to the non believer. Take that idea a bit further and you have the protection of the property rights of all kinds of criminals.
The idea that the courts protect our freedom (our rights) is bs.- most court rulings are in violation of all the principles of reason and logic: they are governed by the edicts and wishes of some ruling elite…(other people like you and me: dumb asshole who know shit…but hey they were elected and their election infuses them with instant knowledge and wisdom on all things)
Even a cursory reading of legal textbooks will quickly reveal the principle: “We dont know what to do about this or that since they havent made a law that governs that particular action.” And fuck alone knows…we dont know…how to arrive at truth and justice and legality…so we wait for the voice of the people to elect representatives, who MAGICALLY acquires instant knowledge in all thing divine and who may in their eternal wisdom tell us exactly what rights they will grant us and what not. (of course they also know what our obligations are….)
“When will we be strong enough sir?” Patrick Henry.
Like the jew said: when they came for the atheists i didnt do anything; when they went after the xtians i didnt do anything; when they went after the mozambicans i didnt do anything; now i just pray to god that someone will do something when they come after me…
Comment by Objective — May 25, 2008 @ 5:53 pm |
Hi Objective.
You wrote: “Like the jew said: when they came for the atheists i didnt do anything; when they went after the xtians i didnt do anything; when they went after the mozambicans i didnt do anything; now i just pray to god that someone will do something when they come after me…”
The actual quote was by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller, a prominent German anti-Nazi theologian[1] and Lutheran pastor.
It is from a poem he wrote:
“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up. ”
It is on a stone slab in Boston, as part of The New England Holocaust Memorial.
Objective also wrote:
“I would challenge the idea that our freedom to disbelieve is bound to the freedom of others to believe.”
You are absolutely right, but when you think about it, without laws and judges who have to protect our rights, I believe these religious nuts will start going to town again on the free thinking man. The South African constitution protects people’s right to practice their religious believes, and also the right not to have to practice any religious believes.
Michael Shermer was just trying to point out that if atheists go down to the level of the religious nuts bags, we could all be in trouble.
I also agree with you that judges and the elite does not always help the little guy in the street. But I do think the times we live in today are better than things were in the past, say the last 1000 years and more.
In America, the Supreme Courts have really kept religion out of most schools. To me that is a good thing. They have upheld many laws, that gets challenged by some religious organization on a regular basis. If they weren’t there, every small town and State would be able to do whatever they wanted, without anybody been able to challenge them.
I can’t speak for South Africa.
Comment by mcbrolloks — May 25, 2008 @ 7:17 pm |
Another quote by Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller, commenting on Hitler and the Nazis, while he was interned at Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1938 to 1945.
“…I hated the growing atheistic movement, which was fostered and promoted by the Social Democrats and the Communists. Their hostility toward the Church made me pin my hopes on Hitler for a while. “I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.”
“http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller”
Michael Shermer wrote in the article I posted at #138:
“It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind.”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 25, 2008 @ 8:02 pm |
First they came……..
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
Comment by McBrolloks — May 25, 2008 @ 8:15 pm |
First they came…..
“http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 25, 2008 @ 8:16 pm |
McBrolloks,
Thanks for the poem – i knew i read it somewhere but couldnt remember where so i gave a freehand version – which makes the point.
you also wrote: “The South African constitution protects people’s right to practice their religious believes, and also the right not to have to practice any religious believes.”
This is a contentious point. The SA constitution for example also protect the right to associate. This however does not include the right to disassociate
otherwise i would have disassociated long ago from the govt. The same applies to the right to not enslave which is *protected* absolutely. By any definition of the concept slave…. we are all enslaved via an all pervasive tax and legal system that takes money and effort by force and distribute it to others in order to win favour for the ruling elite (read criminals).
Despite the old erroneous aristotelian dictum that the family and the state is by nature prior to the individual…. remains the fact that you cannot remove and individual unit (1) from the sum (10) and retain the sum intact.
The idea that you can (with the help of god or some other unknown metaphysical force in nature) destroy the units without altering the sum is the source of all xenophobia /racism and criminality on the part of *the state*. And “the state” functions from these ideas universally.
Comment by Objective — May 26, 2008 @ 5:37 am |
Renier wrote, “Oh, it’s not as bad as “Christian Rock” though. Brendon, you listen to them Christian rock/heavy metal bands? The dude from Petra has a good voice though (not metal).”
I saw this comment last week and was a bit puzzled by it. I think I have a slightly more liberal view on music than many other conservative Christians. And yes I do listen to Rock, but rarely. I actually enjoy all genres of music from classical to metal, from reggae to rock – not much I don’t enjoy. I am somewhat selective in what I listen to and am rather particular about lyrics.
I am curious by your comment though and would appreciate any insights that I may have missed – and I’ve heard all that stuff about backward masking etc.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 26, 2008 @ 8:43 am |
Oubaas #83
Thanks for that. I haven’t read the whole post as I’ve seen these issues before.
Just a few pointers.
Oubaas wrote, “In fact, I would probably agree with your reading of many other verses… if I read the Bible “vertically” like you seem to do.”
It’s not about reading vertically or horizontally. Paul tells Timothy to rightly divide the word of truth. Bible scholars say you must interpret Scripture with scripture, but also in the context that it was written. It’s amazing that you can find so many contradictions. There is an Islamic document out (or at least a document written by Islamics) pointing out 101 contradictions, but once context and a clear reading is done, no contradictions remain. I can (but wont) answer each and every one of the ones you list.
However, just two things that need to be pointed out. The genealogies – have you ever considered that they are two very different genealogies? Okay. That’s why you raise the point. But ever read that little phrase by Luke “as it was supposed”. Luke’s genealogy is agreed by many to be Mary’s. In Genesis, the crusher is to be “the seed of a woman”, but men provide the seed – not women.
Paul speaks a lot about faith without works. James speaks about faith and works and that appears to be a contradiction. But Paul was speaking into a particular error – that is we are not saved by doing good works – but by God’s free gift. James on the other hand argues that out of that same salvation, flows good works. They flow out of a gratitude for what God has done. Ever wonder why Christians opened their churches to refugees? Why we have soup kitchens. Why we’re involved with AIDS orphans? No other religion does that, except as copycats. It’s all out of gratitude.
Then there are other problems, such as a differing in numbers in Kings and Chronicles. I don’t have a ready answer, but Chronicles is a compilation of writings by various scribes (chroniclers) of the day. If you’re a newspaper reporter, you report the first information that comes to you. If someone later comes with a different report (more dead than first reported) then you write a new article, but the scribe doesn’t. Then years later an editor (Ezra) comes along and compiles the information and places them in different books. Maybe even he uses different sources. What do you do? Lie and just make up figures? You decide. I’m not sure if that was the problem. Some suggest a copyist error, which I think may be valid. The numbers in Hebrew are very similar and I think it is an easy mistake to make. Especially the rituals these scribes did in copying manuscripts and the care they took. Having said that, these errors do not change the overall message of the bible.
So yeah. If take the text out of the context – yes you find problems.
Speaking of context. The first context must be God as creator, ruler and judge. Second context is man’s sin. The third is Jesus redemptive work on the cross. The fourth is the local context – religion and customs of the day.
I’ll try to answer your issues in the next paragraph later.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 26, 2008 @ 9:47 am |
Oubaas wrote, “It wasn’t three days later they started circulating the story; it might have been a year later, maybe two years. Five years later they didn’t know when the stories had started.”
Sheesh. You guys will stop at nothing hey. Firstly, the tomb was empty 3 days later (some say Good Friday should actually be good Wednesday and that Friday was an early fabrication of Rome). The stolen body story was started immediately. If it took a few years to circulate, well so what. But where you get this nonsense from anyway?
Ever consider the cost of lives of that detachment of troops sent to guard that tomb if the body was stolen? Oh and if Jesus swooned, ever consider the piercing in the side and the life of the centurion that gave the report? Or maybe Mary didn’t recognize her own son on the cross? All these arguments are but wishful thinking. Or maybe this God thing will go away and I can live life the way I want to. Maybe I don’t have to worry about sin. Sorry dude.
But then all the evidence is Biblical, so we trash it. Maybe so, but you’re surrounded by so many witness. John or Doctor Luke who researched the facts. Mark who was a companion of Peter and others. Or that pesky tax collector? Can’t trust tax collectors hey?
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 26, 2008 @ 11:43 am |
Brendon wrote: “Sheesh. You guys will stop at nothing hey. Firstly, the tomb was empty 3 days later (some say Good Friday should actually be good Wednesday and that Friday was an early fabrication of Rome). The stolen body story was started immediately. If it took a few years to circulate, well so what. But where you get this nonsense from anyway?”
Perhaps from the same place you get yours…. a badly educated non functional brain unable to think?
Comment by Objective — May 26, 2008 @ 3:19 pm |
McBrollocks (#133), on behalf of all animals (including non-religious humans) I strongly object to your calling those degenerate Texas sex maniacs “f*n animals” — us animals simply don’t do such despicable deeds. You will apologise or we’ll send ten zillion rabid hogs after you, straight from the Scripture…
Comment by Oom Stoffel — May 26, 2008 @ 3:29 pm |
But then all the evidence is Biblical, so we trash it. Maybe so, but you’re surrounded by so many witness. John or Doctor Luke who researched the facts. Mark who was a companion of Peter and others. Or that pesky tax collector? Can’t trust tax collectors hey?
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 26, 2008 @ 11:43 am
you have to give some serious consideration to getting all your pigs in one pen. Do you accept snowhite and the 7 dwarfs, or the three little piglets as gospel too? Or do you trash it as children stories with some warped msg hidden in the text?
As an example: consider the book Job that was written 1500+ years before abraham was even born? Ever consider the fact that the Egyptian book of the dead that is 3000 years older than JFC have similar stories than your revealed wog? It was also copied from persian sources that are even older.
Also read some of the mythologies of the peoples of the middle east and western europe and you will find the stories of your wog repeated there many times prior to the writing of your wog.
See also Tigae’s treatment of the Epic of Gilgamesh and then consider that while the epic is thousands of years older than your wog it contains most of the early stories of the wog. Consider the book of elija that copies its metaphors and images from aristotles work On the heavens.
But you say it is your god’s revealed truth???
i think she was a bit late coming to the party….
Comment by Objective — May 26, 2008 @ 3:31 pm |
Brendon, your book is full of contradictions. And it is clear it was written by men, no holy spirit there. You and your friends say that is all the proof you need. Thats fine with me. But when scientists can’t explain something with science, then you and your friends all say god did it. You expect science to have all the answers, with proof, but when it comes to your book, faith is all you need. That is very hypocritical.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 3:32 pm |
Objective, replying to your post in # 137:
Very funny. Here is a good clip from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 3:36 pm |
McBrolloks, very good. Good thing it does not happen today if you say god, or jehova, or whatever. Where will the fundies get enough rocks?
Comment by Savage — May 26, 2008 @ 3:53 pm |
McBrolloks,
yeh – very good.
But saying god or even gfg is nothing compared to the unforgivable sin: denying that there is a god. These guys will find a way to kill you over a week or so…
Comment by Objective — May 26, 2008 @ 3:59 pm |
Savage wrote (#161 or thereabouts):
Easy-peasy: They just need to use the ones already inside their heads. That way they’ll never, ever be short…
Comment by Con-Tester — May 26, 2008 @ 4:00 pm |
Objective wrote: “These guys will find a way to kill you over a week or so…
Do you mean torture? Surely a jesus fan would never go down to that level. I think they are already working on me, with the help of jesus, and when I die someday, they will say “Ha!!! – Got him!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Rot in hell McBrolloks!!!”
But seriously, if they knew where I lived, I would expect a visit from some maniac.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 4:18 pm |
Never bring a rock to a gun fight!!!!!!!
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 4:19 pm |
Biblical literalism or low IQ: which came first?
http://www.scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/05/biblical_literalism_or_low_iq.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 5:56 pm |
Women found in Greek monastry
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2329465,00.html
Athens – Four female illegal immigrants were detained on the monastic sanctuary of Mount Athos, where women have been forbidden entry for 1 000 years, police said on Monday.
The four women and one man from Moldova were discovered by monks late on Sunday and early on Monday. The monks alerted the authorities, who took the five immigrants to a police station off the peninsula.
The immigrants said they travelled by speedboat from the Turkish coast and did not realise they were taken to the monastic peninsula. They were detained pending an inquiry.
They told police they each paid the equivalent of US$6 300 to two Ukrainian smugglers for the transfer from the Turkish port of Canakkale.
Women were prohibited from entering Mount Athos, an Orthodox Christian monastic community of 20 monasteries, the oldest dating from the 10th century. Even female animals were barred.
The ban was upheld by Greece’s constitution and violations were punishable by up to a year in prison. In the past, female visitors were rumoured to have entered the enclave disguised as men.
Women’s rights organisations campaigned in the past for the right to enter Athos.
In January, a small group of women briefly entered the grounds of the sanctuary during a protest by residents of a village that was in a land-ownership dispute with the Athos monks.
Greece was a busy transit point for illegal immigrants seeking entry into the European Union, with many travelling by boat from the Turkish coast to nearby Greek islands.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 6:39 pm |
“Even female animals were barred.”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 6:40 pm |
Talk about a blue balls epidemic breaking out there. Thats why there are NO FEMALES allowed on the island.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 26, 2008 @ 6:40 pm |
Brendon in #154:
“Luke’s genealogy is agreed by many to be Mary’s.”
Not true, as it’s both Luke and Matthew refer to Joseph as Jesus’ father – and it would sort of defeat the whole purpose.
“…pointing out 101 contradictions, but once context and a clear reading is done, no contradictions remain.”
If only. You really have to massage the text to achieve this. Let’s look at some more:
Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27: We should love God.
Deuteronomy 6:13, Psalm 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, Proverbs 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, Isaiah 8:13, Luke 12:5, 1 Peter 2:17: We should fear God.
1John 4:18 There is no fear in love.
Proverbs 30:5: Every word of God is flawless
1Kings 22:23, 2Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9: Well, God uses deception.
We can go on and on. As you know, the 66 books of your infallible Word were chosen at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. They fought about this for quite some time. That’s more than three hundred years after Jesus.
To put this in perspective – If you and your buddies were to decide that a new Bible must be compiled (some books are “straw”, as Luther said), and if you have the political power to control it’s distribution (as the church had), why would people 300 years from now not believe it to be an event inspired by the Holy Spirit, as I assume you believe the previous event to have been?
That’s why Mormons really believe the story of Joseph Smith, gold plates and all. And they are bright and intelligent people (look at Mr Romney). But they share your blind spot – believing stuff that should not be believed. Your lie is their truth.
You also state that only Christians are truly kind (”No other religion does that, except as copycats.” This shows a remarkable and truly terrifying lack of historical insight on your part. We had kindness in this world long before God arrived on the scene. Much of the “good” in Christian theology are simply rehashed platonic ideas (+- 400BC). And I find much more “moral” wisdom, love, kindness in the works of a Lao Tzu (600BC) or a Lucretius than in most of the sayings of Jesus. Who did they copy?
Lastly, it’s shows a remarkable lack of compassion on your side to imply that only Christians truly understand caritas. You have the freedom to practise your religion because our atheist forefathers shed their blood to separate church and state. When the Church controlled the state (both Protestant and Catholic), no such freedoms existed. It was Atheists that fought for these freedoms. Never forget that.
Comment by Oubaas — May 26, 2008 @ 10:29 pm |
Oubaas #170
“When the Church controlled the state (both Protestant and Catholic), no such freedoms existed. It was Atheists that fought for these freedoms. Never forget that.”
Always the sober well reasoned approach – impressive. You may even convince this man to go read some history and science and avtivate a slumbering brain.
Comment by Objective — May 27, 2008 @ 5:30 am |
Oubaas #170
“Proverbs 30:5: Every word of God is flawless
1Kings 22:23, 2Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9: Well, God uses deception.”
And he succeeds….look at all the christians….
I forget some of the detail (intentionally) but it is written somewhere: These ten/5 (whatever no) of things god hates…. “1,2,3,4″ (cant remeber the detail>
Also somewhere else: “pay me with gold that is purified by fire” Thus even an omnipotent, all knowing god can contradict himself… perhaps the gods were made in man’s image after all.
Comment by Objective — May 27, 2008 @ 5:35 am |
McBrolloks wrote, “I am willing to bet a large sum of money, that there is a christian religious leader behind these brutal killings. Some cult leader who believes he is doing gods good work…”
So Mc? What will it be? A Christian, or a cult leader. Please don’t confuse the two. 1 John 2:19 gives some insight into what a cult is.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 7:34 am |
Renier wrote, “Did it have the desired effect? No? Well then, perhaps Isaiah 55:11 is just a stupid lie?”
The desired effect – is not my desired effect, but God’s. You ignore His word then toughies. Never is a long time, maybe that never includes eternity. Who knows? God is an eternal being.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 7:48 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#173 or thereabouts):
1 John 2:19 (KJV):
That means that if you hold to one particular scriptural interpretation that disagrees fundamentally with someone else’s, then that person is in your view part of a cult and so are you in their view. So who’s right? What objective criteria can be used to decide? And why aren’t both of you each part of different cults?
By the above definition (1.) christianity is clearly a cult because it’s a “a particular system of religious worship” which it practices with assorted “rites and ceremonies”. Also, christianity holds Jeebust – a person – in “great veneration” (2.) and it consists of “a body of admirers”.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 27, 2008 @ 8:00 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#173 or thereabouts):
1 John 2:19 (KJV):
That means that if you hold to one particular scriptural interpretation that disagrees fundamentally with someone else’s, then that person is in your view part of a cult and so are you in their view. So who’s right? What objective criteria can be used to decide? And why aren’t both of you each part of different cults?
By the above definition (1.) christianity is clearly a cult because it’s a “a particular system of religious worship” which it practices with assorted “rites and ceremonies”. Also, christianity holds Jeebust – a person – in “great veneration” (2.) and it consists of “a body of admirers”.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 27, 2008 @ 8:09 am |
Con-tester wrote “The media is even more replete with the inane drivel spouted by religious and other anti-scientific so-called “authorities”.”
Well. You only made reference to news media. What about all those soapies, sitcoms and other TV shows. Not much religious talk there. No. The media is overwhelmingly humanistic. Even when Christians are quoted, they’re inevitably misquoted or edited.
Con-tester wrote, “Also, The Bible appears to be good to make people hate and reject scientific discovery. Was it not just last month that we discussed how parents, reasoning like you prefered the Bible to medication for their child?”
Sorry I must have missed this discussion. However, any human that withholds proper medication to a child deserves to be hanged. I do not claim science to be of no value. On the contrary, it is very valuable. It shows that God ordained not only moral laws, but physical laws too. Besides, I benefit from what Science does such as this computer I’m using.
Con-tester wrote “Science is still examining the question and has some ideas worth examining. “
Sure, but when you come up against it and all the evidence is in – including going to every planet and every galaxy in the universe, would you be honest enough to admit that God actually did it or will you still deny His existence?
Con-tester wrote “Okay, but only if you swear to keep the bible out of schools and out of children’s heads until they’re at least 18 years old.”
Not a chance. I will not play with a child’s eternal destiny like that.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 8:10 am |
Renier wrote, “So you say. Considering Jesus said that “that” generation will not pass before his words and prophesies come to fruitation I think we could say, once again, the Bible simply proves itself wrong.”
A quote from Matthew 24, which I believe did happen. Jesus did come back from the dead. And in fact the events described happened with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 8:36 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#176 or thereabouts):
Well, you obviously haven’t informed yourself adequately about just how many dedicatedly, 24/7 religious TV channels there are available to viewers these days. How many atheistic or purely secular channels are there?
Brendon Schafer wrote (#176 or thereabouts):
That’s very convenient but, if true, would be all the more reason for those people to make a sincere effort of publicly examining the answers offered by secular humanism in their churches. That way, they can minimise the negative effects of being “misquoted or edited”. Otherwise people might be corrupted through seeing that their church studiously ignores these questions and beginning to investigate them off their own bat. That way lies apostasy.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#176 or thereabouts):
That’s a misattribution. Someone else wrote it.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#176 or thereabouts):
I suspect that you think I’d deny, but you’d be wrong. You repeatedly ignore that your so-called “evidence” is much too thin and anaemic to establish anything as singular and important as you profess, and you continue to ignore that the default position is to reject an unsupported proposition, pending the arrival of sufficient evidence. To do otherwise is to be gullible and invite others to take advantage. You wouldn’t, after all, trust much of what is uttered by, say, the Pope on the issue of contraception, would you? Yet, over a billion people ostensibly do.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#176 or thereabouts):
So you’d rather force-feed them fairytales that severely imperil, if not actually impair, their reasoning ability from the earliest age and thereby their ability to function in a modern society. That is why you (and the Pope) are dangerous and must be opposed at every turn.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 27, 2008 @ 9:01 am |
#176
Con-tester wrote “Okay, but only if you swear to keep the bible out of schools and out of children’s heads until they’re at least 18 years old.”
Not a chance. I will not play with a child’s eternal destiny like that.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 8:10 am
No you wont play with the childs destiny> You want to be the one who fucks with his mind – who infuses it with drivel and YOU want to be the one to enjoy his suffering and misery as a result of all the shit to fed him.
To you failure is fullfillment – death is profit – suffering is evidence of god- poverty evidence of god’s hatred of earth, humans and their values. You will sell the child that he is inherently evil, destined to fail to suffer even if he accepts the shit you feed him.
What do you offer him as the result of living? NOThing!!! According to you he has to suspend his judgement, his reason, his mind and accept your vaccuous doctrine of bitter hatred not only of life and of existence but of all that is Good (all that supports and enhances life and more particularly human life). You want children to be like you – hate life, hate all that is required to sustain life (like reason and productive work), hate all that is enjoyable.
When i read the kinda crap you spout i understand the kamakazi and suicide bombers attitude.
Comment by Objective — May 27, 2008 @ 9:10 am |
Renier wrote, “If you have anything of substance to bring to the table, then please do. If not, at least be honest and admit you have faith and no evidence.”
Mmm… Romans 1:20 in the Bible.
Design and Order. If there is a painting, you insult my intelligence to say that the painting just happened by itself. You insult my intelligence to say that a tornado hit a junkyard and a skyscraper happened. If I throw twenty coke cans in the air, they don’t just line up in a straight line, I have to order them.
Our universe speaks of order and design. Even our Earth is precise in every way to support life, from the water, to the moon providing our tides, to the tilt of the Earth and our atmosphere. To the precise distance from the Sun. To the very intricate design of our DNA.
Prophecy. The following are taken from Mark Cahill’s book “One Heartbeat Away – Your Journey into Eternity” but it is common knowledge so I could have used any simple book on apologetics.
God said he’d bring forth a son (Isaiah 7:14) and he did. Matthew 1:18-25
God said his son would be called “Mighty God… etc” (Isaiah 9:6) and he did (Acts 1:8-11, John 8:58 etc).
God said his son would be born in Bethlehem and he was (Micah 5:2), Matthew 2:1.
God said his son pre-existed all things (Micah and John 1:1)
God said his son would be a prophet (Deut 18:18 and Matthew 21:11, but many verses.
God said his son would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:6) and he did many miracles.
God says that Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10) and he did.
We’re told that Messiah would be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9) and he was (John 13:21-22, 25-26)
We’re told the price of the betrayal as being 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12, Matthew 26:15).
Psalm 22:14-20 described how Jesus would die.
Psalm 22:1 describes Jesus cry at his death – recorded in Matthew 27:46.
We read that Messiah would be pierced (Zechariah 12:10) and he was (John 19:33-37).
Many, many other prophecies (over 300) all recorded at least 400 years before the events even took place, with the Septuagint having been translated at least 100 years before these things happened.
The chance of one of these happening is minute. The chances of eight prophecies being fulfilled in one person is compared to building fence around Texas. Fill it with silver dollars 2 feet deep. Paint one read. Mix them up then walk across Texas blindfolded until you think you have the painted dollar. Now I’ve shown you only 12 prophecies. The rest of the prophecies about Jesus will occur at His second coming.
The Jews missed the events of his first coming, even though they would have been prompted to recite Psalm 22 when Jesus uttered those words “My God, My God…”
Oh. There are so many other valid reasons why my faith is calculated as opposed to blind. But you reject all of them even though the facts in the Bible speak for themselves, the eye witnesses you reject, even though you only need two or three reliable witnesses for a conviction in a court of law.
Your God-given conscience is a pointer.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 9:29 am |
#180
And you are really childish and ignorent to think that i would accept your claim that some god ordered the universe offering as proof stories in a book the accuracy for which you have no proof.
Using your logic any claim i make is absolutely true if i can substantiate it by reference to some book and thus the mormons are presenting the truth (they do after all have a holy book to substantiate their claims) and the Muslims also propagate the truth because they have a holy book too to substantiate their claims.
You say theirs is crap and yours is true! They say yours is crap and theirs is true! The mormons reckon that you are both wrong and they have an exclusive truth in their holy book.
how shall we decide who is right and who is wrong? or are you all correct in your claims?
I think yuou are all equally dense and delusional – that is a fact derived from empirical observation on your regurgitations on these pages.
Have you ever thought that if your parents didnt teach you about religion and theirs didnt teach them ad infinitum ….how you would have known about gods and gremlins and any other godbot would have known about his/her ghost?
Just image, you may even have been a functional human being instead of a lump of meat wasting good resources spouting your hatred and venom at the world in general and children in particular.
To my eternal sorrow i have to confes that i have people as dense as you in my own family …
Comment by Objective — May 27, 2008 @ 10:08 am |
Renier wrote, “So, if you turn Atheist than god will not take back his “gift”? He gave it to you after all. Or are there strings attached? You god really does operate like a human, does he not? Perhaps you should consider why.”
Well repentance (which is also a gift) means to turn back. It’s saying to God, I am wrong, you are right. Now I want to live by your standard. Besides that, you actually want to live by His standards anyway.
Renier wrote, “I know you don’t like hearing this, but the very fact that you reject reality and observation and shoose to believe in a 6000 year old earth is in fact blind faith.”
It’s only blind if I refuse to investigate both sides of the arguments. I see the creationist view as more viable and trustworthy than you arguments. Blind faith is when you say ‘in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing exploded and now we have everything.
I have chosen to believe in a young earth only after I looked evolution – not before.
Renier wrote, “You Bible says you should have faith like a child. A child’s faith is blind. The type of faith your Bible does encourage is in fact the blind variety.”
No. A child’s faith is simple. In Isaiah, God says, “come let us reason.” A belief in God (or a god) isn’t blind either, it’s natural – God-given. The faith to have sins forgiven is like going to your dad and saying sorry for doing something wrong and believing that he will forgive you.
Renier wrote, “Or will you once again move the goalsposts and claim those churches have false teachings, even if they do justify thier actions from the Bible?”
Justifying something from the Bible, and obeying the summary of the commandments may be two very different things. Love for neighbour and spitting on a person – you must have a good imagination to justify that??? Problem is many people – you atheists included – ignore the context of the Old Testament. The it is very easy to justify anything.
Renier wrote, “in your religious world means people who have thrown off superstition and made a serious effort to start thinking for themselves.
Actually it includes every single person that has not bowed his knee to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. By lost I mean going to hell ultimately.
Renier wrote, “I’m sorry? When did they start teaching Atheism in public shools?”
Well. Atheism? No. Atheistic evolution. Atheistic Humanism. Yes. Last I checked Christianity isn’t welcome in many schools.
Renier wrote, “You ever wonder at the fact that every single argument you make here starts with an assumption and continues from there?”
Sure.
Renier wrote, “You checked, right?”
There is a report in America of Christian giving conducted by a person who was surprised by the outcome. If I find a link I’ll let you know. Having said that, I’m not talking about the Benny Hinns who have enriched themselves only by usually preying on the poor.
Renier wrote, “Funny, the JW over here ALWAYS want’s to talk,discuss and teach the Bible. But wait, there is more. If you buy one Wathctower booklet then you get 10% discount on the hardcover book about “God’s true name is Jehova” or whatever other trash they sell.”
It appears our experiences are different. Besides in inviting them in, I get an opportunity to speak the truth to them. But the important point is, I may offer coffee or something, but after an hour they’re outa there. I know there are many Christians that hold a different view (similar to what you’re suggesting) and will never let them in, but until I’m convinced otherwise, I’ll welcome them in. Bible doesn’t say I’m perfect when I become a Christian.
Renier wrote, “Personally I don’t understand why the Bible is so harsh on “confused” people inside the church and kisses the buts of “confused” people outside of the church.”
It’s often not confused people, but people that have an agenda. The examples I used such, Charles Taze Russel, Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy and many others all grew up in the church. They knew the truth, but somewhere they decided to take another route by staying in the church. That’s where the problem is. You’re at least honest enough to leave the church, that’s why I see you as not being the enemy as quoted in 2 John or 1 John 2.
People outside the church still need to hear the gospel and respond – even if that response is no.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 27, 2008 @ 10:40 am |
Brendon wrote: “No. A child’s faith is simple. In Isaiah, God says, “come let us reason.” A belief in God (or a god) isn’t blind either, it’s natural – God-given. The faith to have sins forgiven is like going to your dad and saying sorry for doing something wrong and believing that he will forgive you.”
I like this part: “A belief in God (or a god) isn’t blind either, it’s natural – God-given.” Especially this part : “…in God (or a god)…”
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
Richard Dawkins also believes this. He calls it the Meme.
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Basically, you will believe in the god your parents, or community, or culture believes in, it is NOT god given Brendon. Basically, it all depends on where you are born. If you were born in India, chances are greater than 80% you would be a hindu. It’s all about geography Brendon. Not god-given, or a god-given.
Watch this link please Brendon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg
Comment by McBrolloks — May 27, 2008 @ 11:37 am |
Brendon wrote: “No. A child’s faith is simple. In Isaiah, God says, “come let us reason.” A belief in God (or a god) isn’t blind either, it’s natural – God-given. The faith to have sins forgiven is like going to your dad and saying sorry for doing something wrong and believing that he will forgive you.”
I like this part: “A belief in God (or a god) isn’t blind either, it’s natural – God-given.” Especially this part : “…in God (or a god)…”
Hallelujah!!!!!!!!
Richard Dawkins also believes this. He calls it the Meme.
“http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme”
Basically, you will believe in the god your parents, or community, or culture believes in, it is NOT god given Brendon. Basically, it all depends on where you are born. If you were born in India, chances are greater than 80% you would be a hindu. It’s all about geography Brendon. Not god-given, or a god-given.
Watch this link please Brendon:
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg”
Comment by McBrolloks — May 27, 2008 @ 11:38 am |
Brendon wrote: “People outside the church still need to hear the gospel and respond – even if that response is no.”
No Brendon, you are so wrong. Just like people from other faiths than yours do not want to hear your gospel, neither does any atheist want to hear it either. Frankly, it is insulting to me when people like you want to “tell me the good news”. Shove it up your arse. You see, atheists don’t mind going to barmitzphas, christenings, weddings in churches etc. But we don’t believe, or care much for the ceremonies involved. We do this to be social, to support friends, family etc. But we don’t want to hear your “good news”. That would not be the reason we go to these things. It is even more insulting when some wanker knocks on my door, with a twinkle in his eye, and a bible in his hand, and wants to tell me “the good news”.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 27, 2008 @ 11:50 am |
There is a great song by Kevin Bloody Wilson.
It goes something like this:
It’s about a guy who sits at home one Sunday afternoon, watching cricket, waiting for his friends to arrive for a braai.
“Well here they are already, I just heard the car door slam,
You wet yourself right out off your chair, got to get up and let them in,
But it some wanker that you never met with a briefcase in his hand,
Some prick fresh out of bible school, who thinks his god’s right hand!
Hallelujah,Hallelujah,Hallelujah,Hallelujah!!!!!
So anyway, this bible thumper introduces himself, bla, bla, bla, and the guy says to him:
“Well I’d like to invite you in you know, but the joints a fucking mess,
And there’s an orgy raging in the lounge, and every cunt’s undressed,
And I’d like you to meet the misses, yes sure, but she’s a bit crook in bed,
She says she’s got a real sore throat, from giving too much head!!!!
I will find this song and post a link to it, it is hilarious.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 27, 2008 @ 12:01 pm |
The suggestion that religion is a product of evolution may shock people like Brendon out of his wits, sounding like a contradiction in terms as it does. But it’s nevertheless a serious suggestion — for the full story go to:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news4_head_dn13983.
Comment by Oom Stoffel — May 27, 2008 @ 3:58 pm |
Very interesting, Oom Stoffel.
“ … a small number of people have a genetic predisposition to communicate unverifiable information to others. They passed on that trait to their children, but they also interacted with people who didn’t spread unreal information.”
Brendon Shafer and his brethren come to mind.
“ … the forces that maintain religion in modern humans could be very different from those that promoted its emergence, thousands of years ago.”
This, I think is fairly obvious, but to the detriment of Brendon Shafer and his brethren.
An interesting article in American Scientist last year about a poll taken amongst scientist; link below.
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55593;jsessionid=baahH8j1mBekEp
Evolution, Religion and Free Will
Conclusion
“Only 10 percent of the eminent evolutionary scientists who answered the poll saw an inevitable conflict between religion and evolution. The great majority see no conflict between religion and evolution, not because they occupy different, noncompeting magisteria, but because they see religion as a natural product of human evolution. Sociologists and cultural anthropologists, in contrast, tend toward the hypothesis that cultural change alone produced religions, minus evolutionary change in humans. The eminent evolutionists who participated in this poll reject the basic tenets of religion, such as gods, life after death, incorporeal spirits or the supernatural. Yet they still hold a compatible view of religion and evolution.”
Comment by Savage — May 27, 2008 @ 8:23 pm |
Here is a link to an interview with Daniel Dennett regarding his book “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/50317
It is clear that a great deal of research is taking place to explain why all the religions were formed. So it is just a matter of time and the evolution of religion will be dissected and revealed so that the fundies will have to accept the inexorable power of evolution. Or will they?
Comment by Savage — May 27, 2008 @ 8:57 pm |
Here is a link to an interview with Daniel Dennett regarding his book “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/50317
It is clear that a great deal of research is taking place to explain why all the religions were formed. So it is just a matter of time and the evolution of religion will be dissected and revealed so that the fundies will have to accept the inexorable power of evolution. Or will they?
Comment by Savage — May 27, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
George wrote in the main post: “Pepler recently referred me to that wonderful chapter/episode in Jacob Bronowski’s book and television series The Ascent of Man. In the chapter “Knowledge or Certainty” Bronowski writes about the greatest strength of science, that it never believes in certainty. ”
While i understand the principle of claims for uncertainty i am always confused at these claims because the tentative nature of very specific scientific claims depend most certainly on certainty. Prior to loading the boosters of a space rocket with hydrogen i wonder if the physicists gather around to have a meditation session to contemplate IF this time round the principles of combustion will work.
The claim itself is, furthermore, one of certainty or is even that uncertain? If we should find a molecule called DNA, for example, do we claim to have established a working mechanism or is the claim that at the moment DNA seems to be the primary structural mechanism of physiological structures BUT hey who knows….perhaps tomorrow it wont work cause we will find that we were disillusioned and in fact we have tentative certainty that there is some other mechanism for structural change in organisms…something like a jahwe molecule?
So at the moment evolution is the best working hypothesis available to science but the uncertainty principle would predict that there could possibly be some other mechanism that drives change… such as GOD for example. If you are uncertain with Dennett about the nature of human knowledge then surely you should cut the godbots some slack…they may after all have a working hypothesis.
Science has succeeded in expanding our knowledge of the world and the mechanisms that drive the universe. It did so by assuming that man can know…while acknowledging that all claims to knowledge need to be verified empirically. Of course a premise of uncertainty is not subject to empirical verification and thus to falsification because to falsify you require some “more acceptable evidence”…iow truth is always tentative…. and always subject to better *evidence*…uhmmm yah well no fine. Need i spell out the contradiction?
RE Dennets claim for an evolutionary source of religion: considered from the perspective of my (assumption) of certainty…for a biological structure (or any structure) to work you need to identify some empirical element/s, whether it be in the form of an electromagnetic field or some structural object such as a molecule or a combination of molecules. Structures in biology that are not *usefull* to the organism are simply “ignored” by the physiology of he organism and will eventually be lost due to non selection.
Now lets consider for a moment some G protein that provides a sensory mechanism for G’s – unless g’s are present and provide some survival advantage for the organism it will *die out*. Since there is no evidence out there for molecules to which the g-structure is sensitive and which could provide it with a functional advantage…how would it have been conserved and why would it have been conserved?
ARRGGGGG….i know the evidence and even my logic is only tentative…as the facts from which i induce it are only tentative….someone may still discover this *ecotome* that interacts with the g-protein to provide output for cognitive behaviour: after all …while it is impossible (tentatively of course) to observe religious behaviour in birds and chimps at present… there is some incling of it in the behaviour of some mammals…just watch how the Giraffe takes a praying posture when it drinks…he is thanking G for the water i suppose.
Comment by Objective — May 28, 2008 @ 7:02 am |
UK Guardian, Humans ‘hardwired for religion’, 4 September 2006:
Much of our day-to-day thinking is such that we can get away with intellectual sloppiness. It doesn’t much matter whether I believe that the fire will burn me because of an interaction among the high thermal gradient between the flame and my hand, its thermal capacity and nerve damage resulting from highly energetic particles, or because the fire god “bites” when touched because he hates it. In either case, the nett effect is the same, namely that I am careful around fire.
So while science, through its methods, aims to transcend such purely functional/utilitarian mode of thinking by attempting to trace back to the real or actual nature of things, individual humans are generally quite happy to accept as valid without further question those ideas that usually seem to work and which they have learnt from authority and experience.
In some respects, it seems that this same basic approach can be discerned in science: When a method or recipe or theory has been refined and battletested so often, always coming up trumps, it becomes accepted and used to the point where it seems to an outsider as though it is an article of faith. But what is often lost sight of is that such a thing does not stand in isolation. It is underpinned by other, similarly empirical and trustworthy elements, and our entire corpus of scientific knowledge is much more like a huge interwoven, even a self-supporting, web than a collection of marbles. So, for example, we continue to make internal combustion engines because not only do we have a history of several hundred million prior examples, almost all of which worked correctly, but we also have a sound mechanistic account of how the various operating principles combine to produce the desired effect, i.e. turning chemical potential energy into mechanical kinetic energy. There is thus no need for meditation or prayer when embarking on some technological excursion to develop a new idea or direction, just plenty of exhaustive testing against reality in order to identify, analyse, understand and address any deficiencies in terms of all the other dependable stuff we already know.
It is of course a source of great vexation to philosophers of science that they have yet to provide a coherent explication of science’s modus operandi and epistemological foundations. Some have responded by saying that science is ultimately circular; others that it is ultimately a faith-based enterprise no better in essence than any other (e.g. the problem of induction); others still by pointing to science’s manifest success as a refutation of the prior arguments. It seems to me that, since science tests ideas against reality and those ideas are usually tested as a body rather than in isolation even though the focus may be on just one or two of them, it is legitimate to test science as a body in its entirety against reality. It would merely be a much more comprehensive test. But such tests are done every day, whenever some or other piece of technology proves itself reliable. And if the edges of science are here and there a bit fuzzy, one is not then justified in denying that science has a very substantial, substantiated and, above all, an extremely resilient core.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 28, 2008 @ 8:22 am |
Brendon wrote: ” I saw this comment last week and was a bit puzzled by it. I think I have a slightly more liberal view on music than many other conservative Christians. And yes I do listen to Rock, but rarely. I actually enjoy all genres of music from classical to metal, from reggae to rock – not much I don’t enjoy. I am somewhat selective in what I listen to and am rather particular about lyrics.”
Hmmm. What Metal bands do you fancy? As for the lyrics, I also used to be paranoid about lyrics while a was a Christian. Always the threat of leaving a “back door” open for the Devil.
Brendon wrote: “I am curious by your comment though and would appreciate any insights that I may have missed – and I’ve heard all that stuff about backward masking etc.”
Backward masking is a myth, it’s false. Do some research on it, don’t just take my word for it. As for my comment, I was trying to say that Christian rock bands are like wannabee poofters when compared to the real thing. However, the Christian rock (soft rock) band Petra has (had?) a lead vocalist called, uhm, John Shlitt, I think. Anyway, he had a good voice, in my opinion. You can search for “Petra” and “Fools Gold” to get an idea. You might even relate to the song…
Brendon wrote: “But then all the evidence is Biblical, so we trash it. Maybe so, but you’re surrounded by so many witness. ”
You fail to see that the stories in old myth books do not count for evidence. Claims must be researched and verified before you can claim proof. Proving Hittites lived is one thing, proving a 6000 year old universe is another. Another thing you fail to understand… When you read “The Gospel according to John” at the heading of John, you assume John wrote it. The fact is we don’t know who wrote it. How many years after the life of Jesus was the gospels written? Do you assume the authors as indicated in the Bible are in fact the authors? You need to try and reason without all the assumptions.
Objective wrote: “See also Tigae’s treatment of the Epic of Gilgamesh and then consider that while the epic is thousands of years older than your wog it contains most of the early stories of the wog. Consider the book of elija that copies its metaphors and images from aristotles work On the heavens.”
Brendon, please consider looking into the ancient Sumarian myths and why we know parts of the Bible was based on the old Sumarian myths. Your understanding of the origin of Judaism will be greatly enhanced.
Brendon wrote: “Even when Christians are quoted, they’re inevitably misquoted or edited.”
Any reference for you claim?
Brendon wrote: “However, any human that withholds proper medication to a child deserves to be hanged.”
I thought prayer was so powerful? Those parents followed the Bible’s advice on prayer and so their child died. Human medicine works, prayer does not.
Brendon wrote: “Besides, I benefit from what Science does such as this computer I’m using.”
You benefit a lot more from science than from your god. Yet, when science tells you the Universe is way older than 6000 years you reject the data. Science works. The scientific method is working very well and we reap the harvest everywhere we look. Jesus fed 5000 people, science feeds a whole world (GM, machines, etc). The results of science are closer to the word “miracle” than anything Jesus ever did. If it was not for science many more people would be dying from disease, hunger and thirst, just like it was in the time when all people could turn to was prayer and trust their chosen god. Science has revealed a Universe that is much, much more wonderous and awe inspiring than any creation myth ever dreamt of.
Brendon wrote: “Con-tester wrote “Okay, but only if you swear to keep the bible out of schools and out of children’s heads until they’re at least 18 years old.”
Not a chance. I will not play with a child’s eternal destiny like that.”
Sometimes people do harm when they think they are doing good. Sometimes people are bigots and unfair without even realizing it. Indoctrinate you own children if your memes force you to, but leave other kids alone. Be fair. You don’t want your kids taught Buddhism is schools so why do you want your religion crammed down the throats of Buddhist parents? It’s a figgen pity the Bible is not so hot on teaching fairness instead of bigotry.
Brendon wrote: “And in fact the events described happened with the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD.”
Yet you never even consider that such prophesies might have been written into the books after the actual event?
Brendon wrote: “Design and Order. If there is a painting, you insult my intelligence to say that the painting just happened by itself. You insult my intelligence to say that a tornado hit a junkyard and a skyscraper happened. If I throw twenty coke cans in the air, they don’t just line up in a straight line, I have to order them.”
Who the FK says a painting happens by itself or that a tornado in a junkyard should create a sky scraper? You are picking up on the thinking of fools again. Random mutation and Natural selection is not like a tornado in a junkyard. Does the junk replicate? Does it replicate with errors? Is there a selection process that favours certain errors over other ones? No? Then start thinking a bit man. An utterly crap analogy like the tornado in the junkyard has no relation to evolution at all. Replicate, mutate, select. These are the three factors driving evolution and not one of them are taken into account with the idiotic junkyard analogy. It’s utter bullshit and whoever thought of it was ignorant or dishonest. Same goes for your painting. Does it replicate? Does it mutate? Is there a selection process? No? Then what the hell has it got to do with evolution?
Brendon wrote: “Our universe speaks of order and design. Even our Earth is precise in every way to support life, from the water, to the moon providing our tides, to the tilt of the Earth and our atmosphere. To the precise distance from the Sun. To the very intricate design of our DNA.”
“Precise distance from the Sun”? How precise? Would 5000 km make such a difference that life cannot exist? The universe does not speak of design. You see design in complexity and order but we see the outcome of natural forces. We already explained that gravity leads to order, like how it clumps matter into spheres, ignites new stars etc. No god involved, all natural. Why do you think our DNA is designed? Too complex for you to understand how it evolved therefore goddidit? Oh right, evolution only within the same kind. Small steps will only take you to Pretoria but never to Botswana.
Brendon wrote: “God said his son would be born in Bethlehem and he was (Micah 5:2), Matthew 2:1.”
You have been refuted on this before. And yet, lo and behold, you crow it again. Bethlehem Eufrata was a person, not a place. The idiot that wrote Matthew was so stupid that he thought it was a prophesy about Jesus and so he botched it.
Brendon wrote: “God said his son pre-existed all things (Micah and John 1:1)”
The old Greek religion says the Titans were the first to exist. Your Bilbe quotes are becoming pathetic dude. Why is your Bible more authoritive on gods and holy spooks than any other old religious text? It’s not, that’s why.
Brendon wrote: “with the Septuagint having been translated at least 100 years before these things happened”
And yet you never consider that perhaps things in the New Testament was written *so that* it alligned with prophesies? There is no evidence that a historical Jesus was the son of god, yet you have to assume this in order to point to old prophesies. Is there any other verses among those “prophesies” that has no relation to Jesus? If so, do you smell the cherries? Picking parts that could relate to Jesus and things he did from hundreds of pages is not proof that those parts were divine inspired revelations. Are there any “prophesies” about the Messiah that you ignore perhaps? Perhpas there is a good reason wht the Jews does not accept Jesus, such that he does not fit the profile of the Messiah as found in *their* holy scriptures.
Brendon wrote: “But you reject all of them even though the facts in the Bible speak for themselves”
The facts in the Bible? The FACTS? The stories Brendon, the stories. I reject the stories untill *you* prove them to be facts. You don’t get to claim they are facts without proof.
Brendon wrote: “Your God-given conscience is a pointer.”
Your delusion is your pointer.
Brendon wrote: “Blind faith is when you say ‘in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing exploded and now we have everything.”
You think it silly eh? Apply it to yourself. In the beginning there was a god. How is it different from “nothing”? God made everything is the same as “nothing” exploded and now we have everything. See your god bleeding in the corner? Old Occam cut the useless tumour but some people feel sorry for the sad lump of cancer. Besides, I don’t think we would agree that “nothing” exploded. Energy must have existed in the first place. Where did the energy come from? I’ll tell you when you tell me where your god came from. We don’t know.
Brendon wrote: ” I have chosen to believe in a young earth only after I looked evolution – not before.”
Oh, I thought it was when you decided to believe the Bible rather than science? After all, the Young-Earth theory is not a scientific one.
Brendon wrote: “In Isaiah, God says, “come let us reason.”
Easy to do with ignorant desert people that assume there is a god eh? Try that “reason” with science and all of a sudden reality is not what people thought it was.
Brendon wrote: “Problem is many people – you atheists included – ignore the context of the Old Testament.”
How do we ignore it? Because Peter ate mushrooms and saw a big OMO add for white sheets and all of a sudden the Old Testamanet is out of context because there was pork on the sheet? God was really adicted to blood but after he killed Jesus he joined the BTA (Blood Thirsters Anon) and concluded that blood sacrifice was a crappy system? God was mean and angry and hateful in the Old Testament and then he got reborn into a fluffy nice, cute and cuddly New Testament god. Only thing is, he now invented hell. The Bible says God does not change, you should consider it next time you read the Old Testament. But the glaring flashing red light that the Old Testament god and the New Testament god are two totally different deities is ignored by claiming “context”.”Context” does not change the stories about god, that the god in the Old Testament was a mean pshycotic murderous racist piece of crap.
Brendon wrote: “Actually it includes every single person that has not bowed his knee to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.”
Then we agree since I wrote: “in your religious world means people who have thrown off superstition and made a serious effort to start thinking for themselves”. Its the same thing. Atheists who reject your god are people who reject superstition.
Brendon wrote: “Well. Atheism? No. Atheistic evolution. Atheistic Humanism. Yes. Last I checked Christianity isn’t welcome in many schools.”
You checked? Where did you check? Could you name a couple of schools perhaps or is this one of those “Brendon Made-Up Original Hogwash”?
Brendon wrote: “It’s often not confused people, but people that have an agenda.”
Like the creationists claiming they are “scientific” but they only have one agenda and that is to spread their religion is schools?
Comment by Renier — May 28, 2008 @ 9:37 am |
Objective wrote: “while it is impossible (tentatively of course) to observe religious behaviour in birds and chimps at present… ”
I read Dennette’s book, Breaking the Spell. He has an example of pigeons that starts acting in a superstitious way. Dawkins also referes to this experiment. From my understanding the problem starts with random events. The pigeons were given a snack if they performed a certain task, like flap the wings or whatever. Then, the system changed into randomly distributing snacks. The poor pigeons tried to figure out what they did to get the snack. Bob the head and turn around. Cool, a snack! Bob the head and turn around. No snack. Crap. How about bobbing the head and stepping backwards. Snack! Yay, I mean, koer koer.
Perhaps humans are a lot like the pigeons. What did we do to get rain? We danced last year, so lets do a rain dance this year. The crops failed. What did we do to cause the crops to fail? Did we perhaps neglect to do something therefore the crops failed? Two children had fever. One lived and one died. What did we do different for the one who lived than or the one who did not make it?
Trying to find order, reason and intent behind random factors are what caused religion in the first place, in my opinion. Once the memes of superstition got started they evolved to all the different species of religion that we see today.
Comment by Renier — May 28, 2008 @ 10:34 am |
Renier’s (#191) mention of the rain dance: Even as a young (and God-fearing) child I could never understand why the farming community had to hold a “prayer day” for rain –– I mean, if God was going to let it rain only a month or a year later, would prayers persuade him to change his mind and his rain programme? And how many prayers would be needed to bring the rain date forward — ten prayers for one week, a hundred for one month, etc? And if nobody prayed for rain, would it never rain again? Perhaps Brendon Shafer could enlighten me on this one.
I like the story of the Jewish platteland shopkeeper who, when told by one of his farmer customers that he was in town to attend a “biddag” for rain, replied philosophically: “You may pray all you like, but let me tell you — the wind is blowing from the west.”
Comment by Oom Stoffel — May 28, 2008 @ 4:43 pm |
Renier #191
Behaviour is a long way from showing a gene predisposed to code for religion…
of a number of them… there are after all numerous religions. I think the word was derived from the latin : re legio at a time when there were gods for every thing and every idea.
I made some enquiries today to see if i can get a copy of his book “Breaking the spell” to have a closer look at the argument … looks as if i will have to go to amazon
Comment by Objective — May 28, 2008 @ 5:05 pm |
Oom Stoffel, I always wondered about that saying. “……maar die wind waai wes.”
“You may pray all you like, but let me tell you — the wind is blowing from the west.”
Thanks for that.
Comment by McBrolloks — May 28, 2008 @ 9:28 pm |
This P Z Myers really writes good stuff. Just read “We happy hooligans” below. Prometheus is not the only blog burning blisters on the fundies’ skins!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/we_happy_hooligans.php
Comment by Savage — May 29, 2008 @ 6:38 am |
Objective, here is some more on the topic of where religion started.
“http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=specrt11_head_The%20God%20program”
Comment by Renier — May 29, 2008 @ 7:39 am |
Objective wrote: #188
“Science has succeeded in expanding our knowledge of the world and the mechanisms that drive the universe. It did so by assuming that man can know…while acknowledging that all claims to knowledge need to be verified empirically.”
Con Tester wrote: #189
“It is of course a source of great vexation to philosophers of science that they have yet to provide a coherent explication of science’s modus operandi and epistemological foundations. Some have responded by saying that science is ultimately circular; others that it is ultimately a faith-based enterprise no better in essence than any other. (e.g. the problem of induction);”
“And if the edges of science are here and there a bit fuzzy, one is not then justified in denying that science has a very substantial, substantiated and, above all, an extremely resilient core.”
Con Tester: Thank you – I note your choice of words in the last part of the second paragraph that I quoted: they are extremely well chosen. Is that diplomatic enough? I am useless at diplomacy, particularly when it comes to these issues.
I must point out that all conclusions follow a logical structure as you are no doubt aware. Conclusions result from arguments that are premised somewhere. Most if not all scientists and philosophers (and of course the intuitive dross) function from premises that were presented by philosophers (plus of course intuitive philosophers in the form of parents, teachers and friends) who were the fad of the day when these people were in their formative years (0-25). These ideas now form the basis of all claims regarding knowledge and scientists fail insofar as they accept a dualistic epistemology and succeed to the extent that they reject it. The same applies to all people and while godbots make some extraordinary claims for the power of faith (the Cartesian idea that mind creates reality) all of them realise, that they cannot apply such ideas in terms of their lives – thus they can make idiotic claims for some other reality and for rotting flesh and bone being resurrected but at the end of the day they have to bend their backs or steal if they wish to sustain their lives.
It is always interesting for me to note how we use language to make claims that knowledge is not possible as if words have no meaning and no empirical foundation.
The reason people do so, must be ascribed to Descartes and Kant (although their roots go way back to the sceptics). Descartes, however is generally taken to be the father of modern science – perhaps because he formalised the mind/body dichotomy in the modern idiom. Kant synthesized the Cartesian mind with obvious reality but retained the mind/body duality in his ‘categories’.
Theoretical postulations on the functioning of consciousness for example more often than not postulates some form of Cartesian dualism and include mostly implicitly some structural aspect of Kantian dualism.
How do we even know that absolute knowledge is not possible? What aspect of our knowledge leads us to such a conclusion? The fact that we make errors? Is the fact that we can know that we make errors not an acknowledgement of the fact that we can know things absolutely? Is our knowledge of an error an absolute piece of knowledge or is even that merely tentative?
Thus if people are “hard wired” for religion then the dualism of many scientists, a predisposion towards science, and the atheism of others, must also be hard wired. But again the fact that so many of the people posting here have admitted getting rid of such wiring puts a spanner in the wheel of the argument – even Darwin who aspired at some stage of his life to the pulpit and who grew up religiously had to reject all his earlier beliefs in the face of his newly acquired knowledge, and he succeeded in doing so. J
Induction: ..aka The twa Corbies.. J
The “problem” of induction was first formulated by the sceptics of the first school (Pyrrho of Elis) but it has a long and continious history with a short break during the middle age when it was virtually unknown – mostly because the godbots were certain of their knowledge of god, ghouls, gremlins and other fairies. The sceptical argument was revived in around 1450/60 by Mirandola and a translation of the work of Sextus was translated in the 1500’s as an answer to Calvinism. If nothing could be known with certainty then Calvinism couldn’t be known to be true with certain: thus all judgements had to be suspended.
Descarte’s attempt at truth was essentially an attempt to overcome the problems presented by the sceptical argument – the only problem was his premise namely that truth is derived from the mind and that the truth of thinking determines the fact of existence: Cogito ero sum.
The “problem” is often formulated in formal logical terms but its best know form is in the form of an analogy that goes as follows:
Crow A = black
Crow B = Black
Crow n = Black
Therefor: All crows are black.
We haven’t seen all crows and the possibility exists that there could be a white crow.
Therefor the conclusion does not follow from the premises and THEREFOR we cannot draw a general inference from the particulars.
Popper (I think) argued: the sun will rise tomorrow (a general inference) is based on past experience which may not hold true for the future because it is possible that something could happen that would shatter the earth or extinguish the sun in which case the general inference wont hold true.
Let us however alter the premises of the first argument as follows:
Crow A = a bird
Crow B = a bird
Crow n = a bird
Therefor all crows are birds.
Could it be possible that there may be a crow that isn’t a bird? Of course it could be possible linguistically meaning: an apple may be called pomme. Is pomme an apple?
According to the French it is – but according to us it isn’t (linguistically). If we compare physical instances of appel and pomme we find that they are the same thing.
If Colour is the definitive characteristic of all birds called crows or swans then all black birds would be crows or swans and there is no problem inferring the general from the particular. Ie not all black things are crows nor are all black things swans and apples remain apples no matter what we call them. The analogy therefor is invalid.
In terms of Popper’s example re the sun: in terms of untuitive observation the general prediction of the sun rising tomorrow will hold true IF and only IF no implied or otherwise imagined variable is introduced. If the sun hasn’t been subject to sudden extinctions in the past and nothing has destroyed the earth inexplicably then it is valid and true to infer that the sun will rise tomorrow based on past experience (past experience does not include variables or possible catastrophies even though these were possible in the past as they are in the present…but these possibilities do not form part of the untuitive assertion. IF catastrophies formed part of our experience we will qualify the assertion that ‘the sun will rise tomorrow’ based on past experience with “given no variable enters the picture’.
Deduction on the other hand, it is claimed, is more valid than induction – it does not present a problem because it starts from the general and postulates the particulars. It is assumed that all particulars are available and no variables are present in this process except the possibility that some variable may be discovered or an alternative particular that would explain/predict some failure of the general. Thus we may postulate the existence of a god or other mystical (cognitive construct) and find particulars that support our generalisation, for example “the perfect nature of physics, the perfect formation of processes in biological organisms, the existence of good, evil etc…..ad nauseum” Until we can find some evidence that the particulars do not predict the generalisation or that something else does, the generalisation remains valid and true. IF however we are offered evidence we may simply deny its validity on thegrounds that it does not violate the possiblity of some unknown evidence that may be discovered in the future.
From a biological perspective (mine and a few others) the biological structure obtains information for its functional states from the environment via the senses.
This information (if we follow Kant) is partly present in the brain (as general instances) from which we deduce the particulars. No evidence for such categories of understanding has ever been produced yet millions accept the dogma and argue for it because it is after all possible that some presently unknown instances of such generalisation may be discovered. Some such as those who support the idea of selective neurology follows this type of thinking.
The other alternative is to view biology as a system that is instructured from he environment. Thus the general functional units of the brain is instructed from the environment and the brain is tabula rasa to start with.
In the first scenario the neurons are somehow able to extract meaning from the environment while in the second scenarion the environment imposes meaning via the senses. According to the first scenario particulars (the elements of meaning) are distilled by the brain – according to the second the environment imposes the particulars on the brain and the brain constructs the general from the particular.
Thus to present a knowledge argument, one can approach from the Kantian perspective (general to particular – deductive) or the rational perspective (particular to general – inductive) of the brain.
Any analytical cognitive process from the first persepctive will fail to produce certain knowledge since there may always be a particular (outside there…) that the brain hasn’t been able to distil. (Neurons and evolution is clever and can predict the future faultlessly…hahahahahah ).
Yet from the second perspective the particulars inform the brain of the general and therefor any analytical process must, of necessity, be one that attempts to find the particulars from which its generalisations were constructed in the brain. Crows are general instances – colour is a specfici instance in terms of crows orany other composite structure but a general instance in terms of neurology. If black was the definitive instance of crowness then the argument of induction will still hold true because any white crow will be disqualified from being a crow.
I wrote this for those who may be interested in thinking critically about their premises (they may start with a critical evaluation of my argument). The use of deduction in argument is clearly evident in the arguments presented by the godbot Brendon Shofar to which Renier is replying in detail, and it will continue indefinitely, as long as both contestants accept it and function from it. What is being challenged is the argument of induction as a valid means to knowledge – the use of deduction to support unsustainable and false arguments. Ie that argument is essentially about whether things can be known or not and how knowledge is possible.
My argument is not with you because I think that you agree with me in principle. Contact me sometime and we can have a beer/coffee somewhere and I may get an impartial hearing from a mind not predisposed to deduction.
Comment by Objective — May 29, 2008 @ 7:53 am |
Oubaas #170.
““Luke’s genealogy is agreed by many to be Mary’s.”
Not true, as it’s both Luke and Matthew refer to Joseph as Jesus’ father – and it would sort of defeat the whole purpose.
From Luke 3:23 “being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph”
What do suggest that “supposed” means, considering Jesus did not have an earthly father?
“We can go on and on.”
I will answer your Love vs Fear argument and supposed contradictions when I’ve had a chance to review all the verses quoted in the context which I’ll do the weekend. I suspect a red herring though. Before I do, please do go on and on. I’m curious.
As you know, the 66 books of your infallible Word were chosen at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. They fought about this for quite some time.
Not really. The epistles in the Bible (and others) were copied by hand and read out at churches around the known world. There was specific criteria to meet for the epistles to be in scripture. The only thing that was done in Carthage was agree on the canon. There was little argument or disagreement, except in the case of Jude who quotes from difficult secular sources.
The Jewish canon was just accepted (the Talmud wasn’t accepted as scripture even by the Jews). The Jews had completed their writings at least 400 years before Christ and translated at least 100 years before – a long time for them to not add anything I’d say. I’d say Carthage just rubber stamped the already agreed upon canon.
If you and your buddies were to decide that a new Bible must be compiled
That will never happen. Revelation 22 the last few verses…
political power to control it’s distribution (as the church had)
Ummm…. When?
That’s why Mormons really believe the story of Joseph Smith, gold plates and all. And they are bright and intelligent people (look at Mr Romney). But they share your blind spot – believing stuff that should not be believed. Your lie is their truth.
Show me the gold plates. I’ve heard it said that “When people take their eye’s off God, it’s not that they don’t believe anything, it’s that they will be believe anything.” Don’t remember who said it. Besides archaeologically there is far more evidence for the Bible and well, nothing for Joseph Smith.
It was Atheists that fought for these freedoms. Never forget that.
Like who? Protestants were at the forefront of the fight against the Catholic church. Its true that in England that there was constant fighting between to two parties, and rightly so, Protestants wanted to be free from the yoke of the Catholic church. France may have been the exception. But you really are talking America aren’t you. Well. Claim some people for your side if you want, quote them even, but make sure you don’t misquote them. But some atheists that have given true freedom are who? Stalin, Lenin and other notorious commies. South Africa is heading that way. If you’re alive still, you may see the fruit in your own backyard in a few years time – unless we wake up.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 29, 2008 @ 9:25 am |
Con-tester wrote, “By the above definition (1.) christianity is clearly a cult because it’s a “a particular system of religious worship” which it practices with assorted “rites and ceremonies”. Also, christianity holds Jeebust – a person – in “great veneration” (2.) and it consists of “a body of admirers”.”
1) System of religious worship, lemme see. Communion and baptism. What are they? Communion is a meal where people specifically remember Jesus death. Baptism is a once off outward witness of what has happened in your heart. You dunk the guy in water and and say I baptise you… Both may be ceremonies, especially as most churches perform these sacraments, but I wouldn’t call them rites nor ceremonies. Although some churches use baptism as a form of welcoming the baptised into the congregation. Having said that, many people go to our congregations to be baptised, so I still won’t call it a right. Communion in most Bible believing churches is open to all who claim to be Christian.
2) Body of admirers. Lemme see. Admire defined here http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=admire does not even come close to the same thing as worship. At least not biblical worship. I agree admire must be one of the attributes in worship, but I think we go a lot further, it doesn’t come even close to the word ‘Love’. Worship isn’t what I do on Sunday. Worship is my way of live. Oh. And Jesus isn’t a person in the sense of Him being human, he is God. great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing Jesus doesn’t fit into either of these categories.
See. Christianity is a Relationship. Not a Religion.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am |
Actually, my purpose with #189 (or thereabouts) was neither to be diplomatic (as will shortly be clear!) nor to rouse the induction-zombie, but thanks nonetheless.
My purpose was much more to point out that science is a body of knowledge. One can’t go and alter or amputate haphazardly, hither and yon those bits one doesn’t like without affecting that body as a whole, usually deleteriously. This is what those of an anti-scientific bent – à la Brendon Schafer and, elsewhere in these pages, User Unknown/Aijo (or whatever new sock puppet this moron is skulking behind) – want more than anything to arrogate a licence for themselves to do. In effect, they seek to pervert and cripple a large part of our hard-won scientific knowledge for the simple reason that it clashes with their puerile notions of how they want the world to be. In doing so, they start from a point – nay, a pinnacle – of the utmost arrogance and conceit: that all those great many mind-hours dedicated over many centuries by those individuals who were over so many centuries open-minded enough to agree to go where the evidence led, were wasted because these swollen heads simply assert that they know better. And the only defence they can offer for such an egregious disrespect (of which they are clearly proud) is some tatty book, the only purpose of which is to stop people thinking by scaring the wits out of them, preferably at the youngest possible age.
As for the induction problem, I myself do not by any means consider it a deal breaker; it’s more of a bit of sophistry emerging from incomplete knowledge, but that’s not to say my view is correct. Let me explain. In mathematics, induction is a valid (and invaluable) method of proof. One starts with a series of mathematical objects X1, X2, X3, … , Xn , Xn+1, … where one suspects that each has a certain property P. If one can show (i) that whenever for a general n-value some Xn has property P, then so must Xn+1, and (ii) that X1 has that property P, then one has in effect proved that all Xn have property P. Why? Well, if by (ii) X1 has P, then by (i) so does X2; if X2 has it, then so does X3; if X3 has it, then so does X4; and so on for all Xn.
Now the philosopher will argue that in mathematics we are dealing within the rigid logical framework of an axiomatic formal system, and therefore induction rules cannot be broken. But such talk of a “rigid logical framework of an axiomatic formal system” is just a fancy way of saying that we artificially restrict what counts as valid inference and what doesn’t in such a system. Now suppose we knew exactly every single law of nature that governs a particular phenomenon. Any given instance of such a phenomenon would then appear to us no different from the expression of a “theorem” arrived at in some axiomatic formal system because we could flawlessly derive its occurrence from that body of knowledge – in fact, that area where our knowledge can be said to be complete would actually be indistinguishable from an axiomatic formal system, and we would have no qualms about applying inductive reasoning. (I will refrain from complicating matters by introducing Gödel incompletenesses – these operate at a meta-level.)
Perhaps an example will clarify what I mean. Suppose we knew exactly and completely the mechanisms of gene expression, the viable mutation space and the genome space of crows. With such total knowledge we could establish once and for all whether non-black crows are not only possible, but have arisen in the past or will arise in the future. In other words, there may be a certain factor acting at the gene or gene expression level that renders non-black crows either infeasible or inevitable, and it should be noted that in this view the crow’s colour is a contingent property, not a defining one, even though it could aid in definitive identification.
The point is that the “problem of induction” pretty much evaporates when we consider that its status as a “problem” rests (mostly) on the current incompleteness of our knowledge. Plus, the scientific method uses induction consistently when testing hypotheses. A hypothesis that implies some observable effect which is never seen in actuality will inevitably be rejected at some later date because the inductive process has, in effect, come adrift, but again because of wrong assumptions and/or incomplete knowledge. As long as we do not observe some sudden mass failure of induction, we are after a fashion justified in persisting in our habitual mode of accumulating knowledge because inductive reasoning in science is, in the aforesaid sense, self-adjusting.
The long and short of what I mean to say is that without offering that “coherent explication of science’s modus operandi and epistemological foundations”, philosophers are being obtuse and obstructive when they harp on about “the problem of induction”, especially in the face of science’s undeniable and astonishing range of successes. That is not to say, however, that we shouldn’t pursue a sound basis on which induction can be predicated, only that philosophers (and other critics) should let scientists get on unimpeded with the business of doing science.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 29, 2008 @ 10:15 am |
Brendon Schafer wrote (#199 or thereabouts):
Brendon Schafer, we could no doubt argue back and forth over the semantics and subtle shades of words’ meanings until doomsday and beyond without you acknowledging any discomfort over torturing the language. I’ll just point out how odd it is that virtually all knowledgeable sources, with yourself as one exception, consistently classify christianity as a “religion”. You should take that up with the editors of various encyclopædias and journals. Maybe they’ll find merit in what you’re trying to sell here.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#199 or thereabouts):
But if you agree that admiration is an essential attribute of worship, then it is verbal dishonesty on your part to deny that a body of worshippers is also a body of admirers (though not necessarily vice versa), and so the definition still applies. Also, if you deny that your god is encompassed by the phrase “a person, ideal, or thing” you need to define your god in such a way that shows why the phrase doesn’t apply.
Brendon Schafer wrote (#199 or thereabouts):
No, I don’t see because you haven’t supplied any logically, evidentially and/or semantically sound differentiation between what you label “a relationship with god” and “a religion”.
Comment by Con-Tester — May 29, 2008 @ 10:49 am |
Objective wrote, “You want children to be like you – hate life, hate all that is required to sustain life (like reason and productive work), hate all that is enjoyable.”
I didn’t want to quote the rest of your post, but I think this phrase sums it up.
You seem to think that being a Christian is some kind of sick, anaemic religion that hides in a monastery (cocoon) all day. Nothing could be further from the truth. I and most Christians have that abundant life Jesus spoke about. And no He isn’t speak prosperity in a monetary sense.
I probably do all the things you do. Go to movies, go to other performances, drink wine or whatever, eat out if I can afford it, get together with friends. I’ve never enjoyed discos so I don’t go there. What I’m saying is that I’m no different to you. The only difference is that my sins are forgiven and Jesus is now Lord of my life, so I don’t indulge in sin – at least try not to. Not only do I do the same things you do, I probably do far more. And far less.
Reason and productive work? Well. Productive in what sense. I’m fortunate that I work at Christian Mission. Going to foreign lands to teach people how to read and write, sometimes even creating an alphabet for that language, is useful even so they can read your science books and documents. Although, I am office bound and not on the field. Teaching the people God’s word so they can choose what to do with it is also productive. Reason? Well reason everything from nothing if you want. I’ll choose reason from “In the beginning God…” the science doesn’t change – only interpreting some of the data. Your arguments are silly.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am |
Objective #181 “And you are really childish and ignorent to think that i would accept your claim that some god ordered the universe offering as proof stories in a book the accuracy for which you have no proof.”
And I guess that making up stories about how there is order, design and beauty in the universe isn’t committing intellectual suicide then? As far as proof is concerned. You will never accept any proof I’d bring to the table anyway, because you’d want to carry on living whatever debauched lifestyle you do and don’t want to be held accountable to it. Trouble is, you will be held accountable and your sins will find you out.
Using your logic any claim i make is absolutely true if i can substantiate it by reference to some book and thus the mormons are presenting the truth (they do after all have a holy book to substantiate their claims) and the Muslims also propagate the truth because they have a holy book too to substantiate their claims.
Prophecy and fulfilled prophecy is completely missing in both the Koran and the Mormons books as well as every other religious book out there. Oh. Of course, Islam does have one prophecy. That Mohammed would return to Mecca – a simple self-fulfilling prophecy. Like me prophesying that I’ll go to Durban next month. A God who is omniscient also knows the future.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 29, 2008 @ 12:11 pm |
Renier “Hmmm. What Metal bands do you fancy? As for the lyrics, I also used to be paranoid about lyrics while a was a Christian. Always the threat of leaving a “back door” open for the Devil.”
I’m not paranoid. I’m cautious. My metal bands? To be honest, I just listen. I don’t think I have and metal albums. If I like it I’ll keep listening, if not… Leave. If I can’t make out the lyrics – trash it. We had a colleague who was a ’screamer’ in a metal band. He told us a bit about that world.
Renier “Backward masking is a myth, it’s false. Do some research on it, don’t just take my word for it.”
Ex-colleague said the same. But he did point out that these screamers do actually scream real words. I can’t make them out though.
Renier “You fail to see that the stories in old myth books do not count for evidence. Claims must be researched and verified before you can claim proof. Proving Hittites lived is one thing, proving a 6000 year old universe is another. Another thing you fail to understand… When you read “The Gospel according to John” at the heading of John, you assume John wrote it. The fact is we don’t know who wrote it. How many years after the life of Jesus was the gospels written? Do you assume the authors as indicated in the Bible are in fact the authors? You need to try and reason without all the assumptions.”
And bible commentaries do not hide these arguments. In fact they are brutally honest sometimes.
Renier “Brendon, please consider looking into the ancient Sumarian myths and why we know parts of the Bible was based on the old Sumarian myths.”
I’ll be reading up on African myths first, but if you know a good book, I’d love to. I haven’t come across anything other than the occasional coffee table sized book.
Renier wrote, “I thought prayer was so powerful? Those parents followed the Bible’s advice on prayer and so their child died. Human medicine works, prayer does not.”
It’s not that prayer isn’t powerful. God also gave us doctors. If all we do is pray and not seek the advice of a doctor, then we’re a fool. That king – forget what his name was now – that sought medical advise in the bible was condemned for not seeking God’s advise and for seeking the advise of the physician.
Renier “Yet, when science tells you the Universe is way older than 6000 years you reject the data. “
Well. Inconsistent data maybe? It’s that inconsistent data that bugs me. Why not use carbon dating? But you seem to think that 6000 years is important to me… It’s not. God could very well have stepped in at different stages and taken billions of years to create everything, but there was no death before sin. A God that has to use evolution (death) to do what he did, is not a very clever god. Quite useless actually.
Renier “Same goes for your painting. Does it replicate? Does it mutate? Is there a selection process? No? Then what the hell has it got to do with evolution?”
And the universe replicates, it mutates, it selects?
Renier “Perhpas there is a good reason wht the Jews does not accept Jesus, such that he does not fit the profile of the Messiah as found in *their* holy scriptures.”
No. Jesus fit the profile perfectly. What they didn’t see is that there would be two appearances of Jesus. The first one happened already. We await is return.
Renier “In the beginning there was a god. “
Ha ha. When was the beginning Renier? What was before the beginning? Beginning of what? A beginning suggests an ending too. I think an eternal Creator is a better explanation for the beginning of time, space and matter.
Renier “Oh, I thought it was when you decided to believe the Bible rather than science? After all, the Young-Earth theory is not a scientific one.”
Yes I did. But only after I’d looked at some of the science. I also understood that 1+1 did not = 2 when I looked at all the evidence. It was only then that I came across Creation Science (which is still relatively new and small). It’s true I may have been influenced by the Bible somewhere along the line though.
Renier “You checked? Where did you check? Could you name a couple of schools perhaps or is this one of those “Brendon Made-Up Original Hogwash”?”
Sure. Do you mind if I speak to some friends first. People who work in these schools and I’ll confirm which schools they work or have worked at. Inevitably it is usually up to the head master though.
Comment by Brendon Schafer — May 29, 2008 @ 1:03 pm |
Brendon Schafer