Warning! The War on Christmas Has Begun

This atheist, jeffperado, and his girlfriend may have begun putting up our CHRISTMAS decorations; but don't let that fool you Christians! For I am really at the forefront of the battle of Santa Claus/Baby Jesus. While we may celebrate Christmas, all you Christians know that in our hearts, the Jesus myth just isn't present, therefore even though we may say "Merry Christmas" you know we don't mean it. You know that merely saying "Merry Christmas" and not meaning the birth of the (fictional) baby Jesus is exactly the same as actually saying "Happy Holidays." (/end snark)

But seriously. How crazy must one become to claim that the "peace" symbol is an affront to the Prince of Peace (for those of you who are Christian, Jesus is called the prince of peace)? Apparently, the lack of oxygen has severely affected Coloradan Christian's brains.

Update: Someone must have led them to an Oxygen bar, they relented...

The question remains, but for how long?

Their Motto: "Do Absolutely Nothing"

I have mentioned Christian Exodus before. Believe it or not, I actually kinda, sorta like that organization. Why would you like them, O loyal atheist, jeffperado? Well, the reason is that no matter what, I know that at any time I can go there read up on them, and learn that they have done absolutely nothing in the intervening timespan. They put up new "news," update their timeline, try to sell fake coins, etc. But they never do anything. And that is always good for a hearty laugh.

I thought I'd trot over to their site and see what was new with them after the elections, considering that South Carolina was one of a handful of states which suffered few Republican losses. I thought they'd be ecstatic over that and singing of their triumphs over evil.

But, alas, no such mentions. It seems that even in the wins in South Carolina, they still managed to do nothing at all. I did, however, come across this lovely nugget of comedy gold..

Is It Time For a 3rd Party? (Posted November 11, 2006)

The total implosion of the "Republican" Congress on Tuesday and the GOP sprint toward getting out of Iraq by 2008 to retain the White House raise two more important questions. Will the Republican nominee for president in 2008 be nominally "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" (not like any of them actually are, but their claims allow Religious Right leaders to hide behind lies)? And if the candidate is NOT, what will Falwell, Dobson and Robertson do?

I read this and my heart almost skipped a beat.. I say almost because in the very next instant I remembered this was the Christian equivalent of a chronic pot smoker -- Do nothing all day long but eat and crap. So let's read between the lines and see what was really said:

"Republican" Congress -- God doesn't support losers, and God loves Republicans, so these assclowns must be RINOs. Just because Santorum voted against gays does not make him a real "Republican", he has to be a winner as well.

Will the Republican nominee for president in 2008 be nominally "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" -- Will the "Republican" nominee jettison all this "compassionate" junk and treat women and gays with all the disrespect they deserve?

(not like any of them actually are, but their claims allow Religious Right leaders to hide behind lies)? -- Stoopid Religious Right leaders, they are not real Christians because they support politicians who do exactly what we want, except win.

what will Falwell, Dobson and Robertson do? -- Vote Constitution Party!

I've seen some calls for the leaders of the Religious Right to create a national 3rd party for social conservatives, and I want to register my dissent for such an idea... sort of! Their version of a national 3rd party will involve spending money and resources in all 50 States of the Union (including MA, CA, VT, NY, etc.), a surefire recipe for failure and waste. Furthermore, their party would likely call for compliance with unconstitutional, illegal acts from Washington until such a time as we finally win at the national level - a day never to be seen. Christians, those who actually live, act and believe like true Christians, are outnumbered in America and we'll lose at the national level abysmally.

I've seen some calls for the leaders of the Religious Right to create a national 3rd party for social conservatives, and I want to register my dissent for such an idea... sort of! -- I want to do nothing and then whine about it!

Furthermore, their party would likely call for compliance with unconstitutional, illegal acts from Washington -- Furthermore, their party would likely call for obeying the established law of the land, and we can't have that.

a day never to be seen -- ...because we never do anything.

Christians, those who actually live, act and believe like true Christians, are outnumbered in America -- ...because none of us actually live that way. We just want all our neighbors to live as we tell them to live.

we'll lose at the national level abysmally -- ...because we are infested with them there gays! That, and we never do nuthin'. Damn gay agenda!

Any political party raised up by Christians for defense of Christian principles must be regional and must be built upon Acts 5:29. Any other effort is doomed to failure.

Any political party raised up by Christians for defense of Christian principles must be regional -- Yeah, like regional down to my very single Church.

and must be built upon Acts 5:29 -- Yeah, so I can bang 14 year old girls and them claim that "God told me to do it, so you with your mere human rules can't touch me (I dare you to prove that God didn't tell me this)."

And that is today's edition of Fun with Christian Whining; the "Do Nothing" Organization.

Postscript: On a serious note, Acts 5:29 (which the president of Christian Exodus wants to base the entire rule of law upon) actually says: But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men." This is what Christian Exodus wants to base their entire (new) constitution on. Rule of God, not man. That seems to be a rather risky position, given that Jesus, himself, had this to say about government: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" [Matthew 22:21 - NKJV]. More proof of the Flanders Effect... Obeying the entire Bible, even the contradictory parts. Although if I were a Christian, I would much rather base my government on Jesus' words, and not those of some Christ Denyin' flunkie like Peter. Whom I might add, was also shot down by Paul as well -- [Galatians 2:9 NKJV] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, and [Galatians 2:11 NKJV] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. It seems that this Cephas/Peter fellow was wrong quite often. Is his word the best CE can come up with (outside of the obvious, it would let the leaders do anything they wanted and then get away with it because God told them to do it, and no man can speak to God's commands).


If you want a real good laugh, check out their timeline and plan. Looks like its time for another revision.

Pat Robertson Prophecy Redux

[Update: Pat's 2007 Predictions commented on here]

This past spring I wrote a post regarding Pat Robertson's insane prediction of the Earth having weather:

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest." [Link here.]

It's now November, and how has the hurricane/tsunami weather situation progressed? Any day now, I expect Pat to come out and say that he did, in fact, hear the Lord wrong. My guess (prediction??) is, he will say something like, "Oops. No harm, no foul. All that Democrat electin' didn't arouse God's anger after all...." Although, in all fairness, Pat never did say when "God's Tsunami" would actually strike the great Northwest. So all you Seattleans keep your eyes peeled..

But I digress. My real reason for bringing this back up is that I just today received an anonymous comment regarding this very post. As it is anon, I have no qualms about bringing it out to the forefront and picking it apart for all (all 2 of you out there that is) to see.

Anonymous wrote:

I see your point. But where in Jesus' statement does he say that Jonas' experience was prophecy? He simply says that, just as Jonas was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the fish, so he would be that long in the grave. I could likewise say that, just as Martin Luther was born on November 10, I was also born on November 10. I wouldn't be implying that ML's birth date was prophetic of my own, just citing a similarity.

If anyone cannot see the glaring logical flaw in this line of argumentation, then I do not know what to say. First let me requote Matthew 12:40 here:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" [NKJV]

Notice how Jesus is saying something about his future, not his past. That makes this a prediction. Now, I do recognize that we are mixing apples and oranges here; that Jesus' words are a prophesy, but that does not suggest that Jonah's events were a prophecy. The problem here is how one (a Christian) goes about using statements from the bible as prophecies. There have been many fundamental Christians who claim (as Matthew did in the first chapter of his gospel) that Old Testament passages were really prophecies of Jesus. So your beef, dear anonymous reader, is not with me, but with other fundamental Christians. Take that issue up with them. I am more than happy to wrote off all biblical prophesy as utter nonsense and totally unfulfilled.

The second part of your rebuttal is even more off the mark. To make any sort of comparison to this situation of Jesus in Matthew, you would need to draw a comparison to the death date of Martin Luther, and your (presumably future -- you are still alive I take it) death date. To call it a prophesy that you were born on the same day as someone means nothing, it has just as much value as saying you were not born on the same day as Charles Darwin. But to say that you will die on the same day as Martin Luther, is a very clear sign of prophesy.

Moving on:

Now, as to whether Jesus actually said that, I guess the question is whether you believe that Matthew was a liar. I don't. He was a Levite and a scribe, and I believe that he probably even took notes when Jesus spoke. And, as was the scribal tradition among Jews of his day, he would have been careful to be accurate. Or maybe you're one of those people who doesn't believe Matthew wrote his gospel at all. But then you'd be substituting the guesswork of "scholars" in the 18th century, who second-guessed the witness of history. I personally believe Irenaeus, who wrote at a time when people died for their faith, who studied under a disciple of John's, who had literally a life and death reason to ascertain the source and reliability of these testaments. And he wrote that Matthew wrote his gospel, Mark wrote the gospel taught by Peter, Luke wrote his, after careful investigation, and John, the last, wrote his while imprisoned at Patmos. I believe the scriptures contain internal evidence to that effect, and I seriously question the reliability of later "scholarship" by open skeptics bent on making a name for themselves by tearing down the faith.

Anon, drifts quite a bit here, into territory not addressed by my original post. I made no arguments for or against the scholarship of Matthew, or relating to any other theologian's views regarding it (I merely pointed out that it was written decades after the fact). The reason is clear, it makes no difference at all whether I believe there really was a Jesus who said these things or not. What does matter (and in fact, all that matters here) is that Christians do believe this. They do believe that Jesus was real and did say these things. Or else they would not be Christian (in the conservative sense of the meaning of "Christian" not the liberal sense -- Mormons consider themselves Christian, as do Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, but fundamental/evangelical Christians do not consider them Christian at all). But let us go ahead and address his concerns anyway, just for the entertainment value.

He claims Matthew was a scribe. He then goes on to state his personal belief, that "[Matthew] probably even took notes when Jesus spoke" Fine. Where is even one shred of proof. I could retort to Anon by saying that I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster personally guided the hand of Matthew to write such falsehoods. Whose claim has more validation in evidence? To anyone with any faculties of reason, they would say neither.

Further, my opinions on who wrote Matthew and when add nothing to the debate. For I am merely agruing from what is actually written in the bible. I simply use what is present in the bible, and believed by fundamental Christians as the foundation for our common discourse. It is a seperate debate altogether who wrote the Bible and when. To say nothing about the use and value of prophesy in the New Testament.

His next claim is, "I personally believe Irenaeus". Here is some information on who Irenaeus was, and when he lived (from the Catholic Encyclopedia online)

Information as to his life is scarce, and in some measure inexact. He was born in Proconsular Asia, or at least in some province bordering thereon, in the first half of the second century; the exact date is controverted, between the years 115 and 125, according to some, or, according to others, between 130 and 142. It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard the holy Bishop Polycarp (d. 155) at Smyrna. During the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was a priest of the Church of Lyons. The clergy of that city, many of whom were suffering imprisonment for the Faith, sent him (177 or 178) to Rome with a letter to Pope Eleutherius concerning Montanism, and on that occasion bore emphatic testimony to his merits.

Notice the very first sentence, little is known of him, and his time of birth was sometime around 115 to 125. This puts hims roughly 100 years after the time of Jesus (taking into account the time to become old enough to study and write on the subject). To put this into modern context. This would be the equivalent of me going around saying that Joe Blow personally witnessed Joseph Smith's receipt of the golden texts from the angel Moroni, therefore, Mormonisn is indeniably true. In other words, Irenaeus offers us exactly zero proof of the validity of Matthew's claims. (Also please take strong notice once again that this claim is thoroughly pinned to Anon's own personal beliefs, not any actual evidence.)

Anon's final comment, though, is the most outrageous (even over and above all this, thus far):

Finally, if you are a Christian, then you must believe Jesus is deity incarnate. Why wouldn't he know what was about to happen? To doubt that would be rather silly, IMO.

Two words, Jesus Seminar.


Silly. Funny, that is the very word I would use as well. I guess, it takes on a whole new meaning for the unknowing Christian masses, than it does for those who study up on the material all easily at hand.

Postscript: Let's reexamine Matthew 12:40. Jonas was in the fish's belly for "three days and three nights." How about Jesus? How long was he in the "heart" of the Earth? He died Friday morning, spent Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day, Saturday night, and Sunday morning in the grave. Is that three days and three nights? Add it up yourself. You will see for yourself that even the all-knowing deity Jesus couldn't count and was flat out wrong.

Fun with absurdities

You know, any time I quote the bible to these truly screwed up Chrisatians, their response is not, as one would expect, civilized debate. Instead, I get slapped with a label -- stalker, obsessed, etc. This from blogs which offer public commenting. Go figure. Just go ask AnnieAngel or Josh Bozeman.

Well, none of their labels matters one whit to me. Let them call me names if that helps them sleep better at night, because I still beat them at their own game; the Bible of their "god". We all know that knowledge and proficiency of the Bible does not make one a good Christian, rather blind adherance to what their leaders/ministers/priests/reverands tell them to think is all that matters.

Unless it comes to their fallen leaders. Then they are totally silent. Ted Haggard? Who's that guy, he must be one of them atheists or worse yet, Catholics....

So let's see what Josh has to say about Jesus' mouthpiece, the Rev. Haggard.

[none]

Annie's mention.

[none]

Annie can't even seem to get past the idea that liberals are allowed to speak their minds. (Just out of curiosity, where is there more "preaching"? From liberals, or from self-righteous Christians and other conservatives?? Churches.. Churches.. Churches..)

So, as there is nothing of value in Annie's whine, I mean blog, let's jump back to sanity's worst nightmare; Josh. (Sorry, I am listening to Alice Cooper's "Welcome to my nightmare," and couldn't help using the apropos imagery.)

Anyway, while searching in vain for something, anything about Ted Haggard Josh had blogged about, I came across this jewel of utter inanity.

In America- a 12 year old girl cannot even go on a school field trip to a petting zoo without her parents consent. Yet, thanks to ultra-liberals, these same girls can kill their unborn babies without any permission or even mere notification of the pattern.

Notice, first of all, that there is no link, no shred of evidence that this is anything other than the fever dream of an addled brain. Where in this country can a 12 year old girl go and legally get an abortion? Which "liberals" are proposing this? I know of no one (NARAL, ACLU, etc.). But I do have this to offer, Kansas (defeated) Attourney General Phil Kline who wanted to get abortion records of minors who had legally obtained abortions so he could prosecute. (You know, Kansas, that middle-America bastion of San Francisco liberalism.)

"As attorney general, Kline sought to require Kansas health workers to report sexual activity of girls younger than 16, the age of consent. The workers filed suit, and a federal judge blocked the request. Kline then persuaded a state judge to back the subpoena for records of more than 80 women and girls who received abortions in 2003 at two clinics. He described it as a search for evidence of illegal late-term abortions and child rape." (emphasis mine)

I will stress this point one time for everyone to grasp. Minors all need "permission" for an abortion. Some states it is a doctor or judge, others it is an adult, but every state has that requirement. Josh is dreaming of some fantasy world in which his hate is totally justified.

Thanks to the “tolerant” liberals. They’re fine with a girl killing her baby and not telling her parents. That’s all good and well…now if that girl wanted to pray in school or write a paper and mention the word “Jesus”- the ACLU goons would be after her in a heartbeat. Too many Americans have their priorities all screwed up.

This is the best example of Josh merely conjouring up imaginary boogeymen to hate and vilify. I challenge any Christian child to read from their bible or pray with their friends during free time in school. If even one gets into any sort of trouble at all, anywhere in the country, I will publicly eat my words. The truth is, and I mean truth with a capital "T" is that there is nothing wrong or illegal about that anywhere. It only becomes a problem when Christian Children try to use public resources to try to convert non-Christian children to their beliefs, or that the school itself is used as a platform for proselytization.

Here's another nugget of reality which puts Josh firmly in the realm of fantasyland: The ACLU has defended Christian children in their right to wear Christian garb and speak on their own behalfs to their beliefs. Josh is wrong, and lives a lie so pervasive that one has to wonder what color his sky is.

On the one hand I am saddened that reality escapes Josh so, but on the other, he does offer concrete, up-close proof that Christianity and reality are not synonymous, and that accepting Christianity means denying reality.

Note: I really wanted to write a post about how Christians handled Ted Haggard, but it seems that the only person willing to say anything about him are those who either hung him out to dry (his power structure -- Dobson, Swank, et. al.) or his own ministry.

So I have but one question to ask all Christians (ok, two):

If God wouldn't/couldn't heal the heart of a leader/Christian/God-fearer like Haggard, then what chance does any low level Christian have of getting God's healing attention? How can you expect other gays to heal via prayer/putting their hearts in God's hands, if it didn't help Haggard??

Clearly, the answer to homosexuality is not the loving/healing power of trust in Jesus...

Gay Bashing, The New Creationism

I have a question for you, if you are a conservative evangelical/fundamental Christian what is more important to you, educating your own children in Christianity, or bashing gays?

Apparently, if you are a Southern Baptist, teaching your children is a clear second. Beating down gays and not allowing them their humanity (not to mention American rights) is of the utmost importance. Forget all that nonsense about "being a celebant gay" hogwash they used to push in the media. No, today's fundamental Christians don't even like gays who try to be (their twisted strain of) Christian.

So the next time you run across a fundamental Christian who (lies and) says that they have no problems with gays, as long as they don't act on their sinful impulses, remind them of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Mercer College.

Convention members were disturbed last year by a National Coming Out Day program on campus -- called the Mercer Triangle Symposium -- sponsored by a gay student group and supported by faculty and staff.

"The waters had been troubled for some time over a number of issues, but that seemed to be the straw that broke the camel's back," said Wayne Robertson, chairman of the convention's administration committee and pastor at Morningside Baptist Church in Valdosta, Georgia.

Isn't it about time these Christians just came clean, and stated plainly what they really want to do; round up all gays, put them in Concentration Camps, and...

Brownshirts do still exist.


P.S. In case you're wondering about the title; here's the story. For so long now, those who took up the mantle of creationism pretended to like/be scientists. But as the years wore on, this became harder and harder to do, so now we have groups like Coral Ridge, Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute who just flat out hate real science, and call all that is science nothing but the dogma of atheism. Also, as we have been witnessing in the last years/decade or so, homosexuality is being proven by scientists to be more genetically linked than ever thought before, placing homosexuality in the exact same realms of science that evolution has long since been a member.

I'm Back

Well, I am back from the pit of hell. Actually I would not call it that, it was a great experience in all, but we did fail to turn Nevada from a red state to a blue state. Anyway, as always, there is plenty of religious nonsense and creationist BS to contend with, that I will be attending to soon enough.

It is just today, and for some days forward, I will still be sleeping off the rigors of the last 6 weeks. But I will return to all things absurd/Christian... I mean, could there have been anything more devastating to the whole Christian ideal than the revelations of Ted Haggard??

Comment..