Creationism's simplistic lies

Once again, I have to thank PZ for this link. Go check out this video of Dr. Ron Carlson on Worldview Tube. It would be funny as a parody of creationists like Ken Ham and Ron Comfort if it wasn't for the fact that this guy is serious.

His entire point isn't just wrong because he is ignorant of the truth and facts, it is wrong because he lies about the truth and facts. He is egregariously lying about the truth of science. He leaves out all the significant details which completely destroys his entire argument.

So what is his argument? It is that there is circular logic (solely) being employed in dating fossils and geologic strata. And that circular logic has its end in wrongfully substantiating evolution and the age of the earth. His argument is based on only one aspect, that fossils are used to date geologic strata and geologic strata are used to date fossils. This is plainly a lie. But then again I can almost understand why he would use such a blatant and easily falsifiable lie. The bible tells him he can lie about anything if it furthers the cause for Christ:

"For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" [Romans 3:7 NKJV]

At least we know why he lied so willfully and easily. But let us consider the nature of the lie and its sheer magnitude.

1. This is false first and foremost because this is not the only way things are dated. If he had taken the time to read those encyclopedia passages he cited, he would know this. I am sure he did because he had to in order to find those quotes he was looking for.

The truth is there are many ways of dating fossils and the geologic strata. Radiometric dating (and not just radio-carbon dating) all are used to date both rocks and fossils. Now here is the proof. We have roughly 10,000 years of human history where we made a non-natural mark on nature; cave-paintings, buildings, pottery, tools for hunting, etc. We can date those things using history and physical evidence. But further when we turn around and independantly date those things using science -- radiometric dating -- we come up with the same ages. So we know the methods are accurate. Thus we can date almost anything within a relative range of accuracy and trust that those ages are both real and fact. Dr Carlson never tells you this because it destroys his entire argument. He prefers to lie.

2. Dr Carlson's logic is internally flawed, he knows it and ignores that glaring flaw. His entire "circular logic" argument of the geologic strata and fossils would -- by definition -- be entirely relative. In other words, if what he were saying was true, then there would be no way at all, to put specific dates on anything in the strata or the fossils. For if the only way to date strata is by the fossils, and the only way to date fossils is by the strata they are in, then there would be no method to put a numbered age to either.

Either one or the other, or both, must somehow be able to be dated using an independant method which does provide a numbered age in order to provide an age scale for the entire geologic column and fossils. That is done by radio-dating the samples.

So when Dr Carlson says the Jurassic period was 65 million years ago, or the earth is 4.5 billion years old, he is admitting that there is another method to date things, one that is more objective than the subjective method of comparing fossils to strata to fossils.

3. When Dr Carlson is discussing the geologic column and evolution, he fails to mention one very important fact which completely invalidates his entire argument. That the reason fossils have been used to relatively date strata is that complex organisms all appear late in the column and simple organisms all appear early in the column and that has never been found to be untrue in all of the research ever done.

That fact that horses, humans, chimps dinosaurs, etc, have never been found in the earliest strata and only in the most recent strata shows that organisms grew in complexity as time passed.

4. Speaking of the geologic column, Dr Carlson indulges in some tiresome chicanery. He makes the claim that the "entire" geologic column has never been found in one place. What he fails to mention is twofold; one, that the earth is an active body, full of energy and motion, constantly churning up the surface via such methods as plate techtonics and magma discharge, and second that all the layers have been found in various places around the world, proving that they all exist and existed.

Failing to mention that makes his argument dishonest at best.

5. Finally he claims that the world is only 6,000 years old. Not only is there verifiable proof that humans have been around in modern "civilized" form for at least 10,000 years, but his only evidence to the contrary is a book. I don't even trust my science books that much to unequivacably accept them, I like to reproduce the experiments they explain, and find outside proof that their claims are correct. But this guy trusts implicitly a book written by superstitious goat herders written three thousand years ago.

Not to mention that this particular claim, that the world is only 6,000 years old runs into problems with exactly every single area of science, thus by making it, Dr Carlson is saying that all science is wrong, and nothing valid can come out of it. Quantum physics, wrong because the world is only 6,000 years old and thus radioactivity is false. Astrophysics, wrong, becuase the world is only 6,000 years old and thus all light from all stars can only be at most 6,000 years old. So that nuclear reactor and that computer and that microwave oven you have? Those are all delusions in your mind because they cannot exist because the science they are founded upon is false because the earth is really 6,000 years old.

5. Oh, and did I mention that PZ Myers also wrote about this, and picked apart his claims about Charles Lyell? It seems that Dr Carlson cannot help but tell lies and mislead and hide the obvious truth.

Who knew that the "Truth" was maintained by so many lies and deceptions? I guess that is why I prefer the truth, which is comprised of, well, the truth, facts and reality.

[Update:] P.S. At least Answers in Genesis and Ken Ham are --shall we say-- thorough enough to acknowledge that there are other methods of dating; namely radiometric dating. Their excuse turns out to be that we cannot know if radioactivity, that is the radioactive decay constants, are actually constant throughout time (e.g. here). They are and we have proof of that as well. But they use as proof the fact that science while determining another constant, the speed of light, changed the value many times meaning the actual speed of light must have changed. Of course the fact that instruments moved from a state of crudity to a state of sophistication over that same period makes no difference. Again, this is an example of just how horrid their excuses and feeble lies really are to someone who knows the truth.

Dobson and Obama: Biblical Christianity

I have to say, I am amused by James Dobson. But not so much that I can just ignore him and his power in this great country. He is, by any terms, a silly person. He claims that he cannot be compared to the Rev. Al Sharpton, because he is not a reverend. He claims he is not a theologian. Yet despite being neither of these things, he can claim:

"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said

And that makes him silly.

Notice how he is an evangelical, but not a reverend or theologian.. That makes it all ok to say ministerial and theological things with authority and then claim not to have that authority.

But the real core; the real meat of the issue is not what Obama said, or what Dobson claims. It is that there is this perception among the Christian Right that only their views on Christianity matter, and those of all the other millions of Christians out there are ignorant or unimportant. And most importantly, this great nation should only be controlled by those Christian views approved by the Christian right. Thus making this country a theocracy, even though it isn't because other Christians and non-Christians can have their views, only that they are not important or useful in governing.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dobson.

Acts of God in Nature: The Latest Chapter

When a major hurricane hits New Orleans, it is an act of God -- He is punishing a city for hosting a gay pride event. But what about tornadoes? Are they acts of God as well? They can be every bit as disastrous and deadly as a hurricane but only to a smaller area -- say a boy scout camp.

Currently, it is known that four scouts have died. That is tragic to say the least.

But what I have to wonder; actually the thing that I have to wonder about is, is this an act of God? I mean we know why so many of these fundamental/Charismatic Christians claimed that Katrina was an act of God; God hates gays and wanted to destroy them -- taking all of New Orleans with them. So why would God hit the Scouts? They deny entry of gays and atheists into their midst, they profess God. So why would God so specifically target them?

I cannot say. And, I know, that we will not hear an explanation from that very same gang of Christian goons who laud Katrina (and 9/11) as punishment for gays and American secularism (i.e. stark atheism). I almost expect to hear some nonsense about this tragedy being some part of "God's plan" whatever that is.

"Acts of God" indeed. Nature is blind but God is not (if you subscribe to the notion of the Christian's God). Thus everything happens for a reason. Making sense of killing young Boy Scouts via an act of nature can only make Christian rationality look inane. Unless these Christians come out and say God was extremely unhappy (at the same level He is with gays and atheists) with the Scouts expelling gay children and non-religious children from the scouts. Maybe that is God's latest and greatest plan -- secularism, equality and inclusiveness.

Yeah right. Now pull my finger, it plays "Jingle Bells."

The only thing this shows is that nature is real and God is imaginary. And children suffer and die.

Dishonesty and 'T'ruth vs real truth

For decades (possibly even centuries) Christians have been champions of possessing Truth -- capital T -- which clashes with truth -- little t -- the knowledge of humans and their real world around them. The story told by Christians regarding evolution and creationism is the perfect and most clear example of this. Just look at the NYT article about the "strengths and weaknesses" debate in Texas. Much has been written about this article in science realms, so I need not go into that. I merely wish to point out this dualism of truth. The line in the article which shows this most starkly is this:

"Dr. McLeroy, the board chairman, sees the debate as being between “two systems of science.”
“You've got a creationist system and a naturalist system,” he said."

That is the reality of the difference of 'T'ruth and truth. Paul wrote in Romans, "For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" [Rom 3:7 NKJV]. So we see that dishonesty is part and staple of furthering Truth. This is because the Truth of God's kingdom may mean lying about the truth of this material world. This is an ingrained belief of Christianity since the days the New Testament was written. It is exactly why the reality of this world can be so easily discarded by fundamental Christians, because what is true in reality has no value in God's realm. Just look at the only source of evidence of this Truth; the bible. It was written and interpreted by humans, living in the material realm. Yet it is the only source of God's realm where Truth exists. Thus the contradiction, the only source of God's realm of truth is via a materialistic, humanistic, realm of truth. If Truth can only be learned via the material (the bible), and the material has no value when compared to the Truth of God's realm, then there can be no way to know the Truth. That is where faith steps in, in God's realm of Truth.

This contradiction means that the only thing in the material realm -- that realm which we all know and experience on a daily basis -- that can be True is the bible. All else can neither be trusted or even called true. We see this to be fact in relation to evolution and the stance of people like Dr McElroy. If this obvious contradiction were to be lived out to its fullest by believing Christians, then they should be even more reactionary than the Amish or Mennonites who reject modern technology. For all that is built upon the backs of science and materialistic fact. Yet they do not reject the reality of modern technology. That contradiction of Truth vs truth is laid bare and completely ignored.

If only Christians could step back and look at themselves; their beliefs and real world practices, then they would be ashamed. They would all move to reject literalism because of its disasterous realities and all embrace a more liberal form of Christianity. Not that I see that happening any time soon though. The blinders that keep the strictly materialistic Bible firmly ensconced in this supernatural ether of God's realm cannot be lifted by logic, reality or truth. The lie of Paul has already cemented that.

When it comes down to it, the real difference between fundamental Christians and atheists is simple, These Christians want to accept as true something which they cannot know in a materialistic sense, and atheists only accept those things which are knowable in the materialistic sense. This total lack of understanding between the two groups is founded on this basic lack of fundamental cooperation.

Christians will never take a step back and look at their beliefs from a fact-based and true perspective, and atheists will never give in to the idea that the completely unknowable (i.e. faith) has any merit whatsoever to determine what is True and what is true only in the material realm.

It becomes obvious that 'T'ruth is inherantly dishonest, in that it relies on materialism and humanity but claims to be the pure extraction of the exact opposite; the Godly realm. Paul and his 'lies for God' and the constant lying about the truth of this material world are inherant staples of the fundamental Christian psyche. There is no distinction between dishonesty about the real world and professed faith in the 'T'ruth of the bible. Anyone, even every single Christian, can know the truth of this world via our amassed knowledge, but no one, no even one single solitary Christian can know anything about the Truth of God's realm, without faith -- the simple act of merely believing it is true without any way to know it is true.

I am sure we will return to this philosophical and theological discussion again in the future.

God, Satan and Armageddon

I freely admit that there are many varying doctrines of Christian belief. The more fundamentalist and literal-minded they are, the more silly, and easily refuted. Thus it is not within the scope of this blog to debate the more liberal or figurative flavors of Christianity, merely because they require more in-depth argumentation and much more nuance. (It is easier to refute any and all known versions of "God" as being nonsensical.) So I stick with the straightforward fundie Christians. With that in mind, here is one lone paragraph from Joseph Chambers of Rapture Ready; "Hell is rehearsing for Armageddon." (Note, I really have no use for the rest of his essay, for it is absurd. This is the one single idea that really has any impact on Christianity in a general sense, the rest is cultist uber-belief .)

The entire “One World Government” and “One World Religion” that Satan will promote and control is his grand scheme to create such a world power and spiritual (evil) force that he can finally succeed in defeating God and take his seat as the “Supreme Authority.” You may say it is crazy to believe that Satan is expecting to win. How can you read his grand design for world control, economic mastery (by his controlling all buying and selling), and the entire religious harlotry of Biblical prophecy, and not believe Satan plans to win? Satan is preparing the ultimate effort to remove God from His throne, to defeat the Lord Jesus as the Savior of men and to defile the Holy Spirit, God’s Spirit of Holiness. Believe the Word of God; Satan will lose.

I guess the most obvious is this, why would any supernatural being be obsessed with material things like wealth and power? It makes no sense whatsoever. Seriously, just look at how the supernatural is described by Christians. It is the realm of miracles, a total nonvalue of the material, timeless infinity, no cause and effect, unlimited pure knowledge and power beyond everything in the material realm. I would also add that the supernatural is wholly unaffected by the laws of physics or even nature as a whole.

So his own realm why then, would a supernatural being care in the least for the riches and materialisticness of the real world? Why would Satan care about money, gold, or wealth. For in

his own realm he can generate, out of nothing, an infinitely larger amount of gold and diamonds and money, etc.

The obvious answer is that Satan does this to entice us humans over to him with dreams of wealth untold. But just how realistic is that? Why the need to accumulate natural supplies of gold when miracles can produce so much more?

Now we've pondered the obvious, now let us consider the less obvious. why would Satan want to control this world? It is material, natural, after all. The Bible says that this world will not last forever, only the supernatural realm lasts forever, so why would Satan want to limit himself to something that is quite temporary? If his battle is against God, then this makes no sense whatsoever. In analogy, it would be like an enemy commander saying to his troops and the superior battle force, that he has no intention of winning the war, all he wants is to win some small, insignificant battle which in repect to the entire war is utterly meaningless. This is true because no matter how you slice Christianity, it teaches that this natural material realm is utterly meaningless in the scope of the Godly supernatural realm. Just look at these New Testament passages:
"Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things" [Col 3:2 NIV]
"There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another" [1 Cor 15:40 NIV]
"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands" [2 Cor 5:1 NIV]
"So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." [2 Cor 4:18 NIV]
"those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away" [1 Cor 7:31 NIV]

All of this really has to do with this passage, quite possibly my favorite:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [1 Cor 1:20 NIV]

And yet it is the foolish knowledge of this world that has made everyone as happy and prosperous as we are. Cell phones, microwaves, medicine, medicine, medicine, and can I also mention medical technology... All foolish knowledge in God's realm.

And in Satan's realm as well, since it is all in passing. I guess the really foolish are those who buy into this nonsense of God and his arch-nemesis, the devil.

Faith, Prayer and Humanity

CNN has an update on the story about the parents of a girl with diabetes who died because they decided to pray for her rather than send her to the doctor.

As always, PZ Myers has more on this tragic event.

I would point (maybe wag...) my finger at any believing Christian (I have Rhology, in particular, in mind) and ask them point blank whether they would take cold hard, fact-based, tested, secular, humanistic, agnostic science and medicine over the fantastical sky-fairy god of their very own religion when it comes to health and well-being of their children. If they say science and medicine, then I have to wonder just how much they really do believe in their magical sky daddy they call Jesus/God. If they say faith and prayer, then I have to wonder how much they really love their own children, since they could so easily be cured via human knowledge and ingenuity but are assigned certain death if faith and prayer is used.

Let us go back to the CNN article and look at a few statements of the Jesus-believing parents and friends. I really am curious as to just how out of the mainstream of Christian thought they really are:

Family and friends had urged Dale and Leilani Neumann to get help for their daughter, but the father considered the illness "a test of faith" and the mother never considered taking the girl to the doctor because she thought her daughter was under a "spiritual attack," the criminal complaint said.

Test of faith. Sounds reasonable enough from a Christian perspective. But we are presented with a tangible proof of just why it is not. A girl -- a young daughter -- needlessly died from an easily treatable and controllable disease simpy because the parents chose to trust God over trusting humans and human knowledge. Just look at what that faith in God got the girl; death. If this does not make you feel bad then I can only say that you are hollow and rotten inside. If you have faith in God them you have to side with the parents. That makes you a horrible person as well. If you trust in faith in God, but still would take your very own child to see a doctor, then you are admitting that faith in God is fantasy, and mere shadow in the light of reality. The whole "spiritual attack" is but icing on the cake. For if you are Christian, then you have to accept evil forces at work. And denying faith or prayer in lieu of human ingenuity and humanistic healing, then you have to deny the whole dark side of your belief. And in doing so, then you cannot accept Jesus, for his act was one of fighting an evil force, and not one of making an empty gesture in the face of only one being -- God (no devil).

According to court documents, Leilani Neumann said in a written statement to police that she never considered taking the girl, who was being home-schooled, to a doctor.
"We just thought it was a spiritual attack and we prayed for her. My husband Dale was crying and mentioned taking Kara to the doctor and I said, 'The Lord's going to heal her,' and we continued to pray," she wrote.

So how did all that praying work out? One dead little girl. Look at it this way: With medical help and friends and family praying, many children are healed and live. With praying alone, all children die. What is the random variable there? Medicine and science. Those things create healing. Prayer never does.

I wish the moral to this story was that faith and prayer are useless and superstitious wastes of effort and only through human knowledge and ingenuity can people live better lives. But you and I know that this will not be the real case. For all Christians will simply say that there was not enough faith or prayer present, or that it "was not God's plan" or some other fantastical baloney. They will never get it. They will never see that religion harms, it never helps. Especially in cases where simple human intervention and reality-based knowledge would help.

I do this, I write and I stomp my feet, because if I can get get even a few Christians to realize the absurdity of their beliefs (even if they are liberal Christians) and reject that, and accept real-world and truthful knowledge, then so many of our little tragedies (like this one) could be avoided. For accepting personal responsibility for ones own actions makes those actions much more personal, over attributing them to some magical sky fairy and absolving oneself of all personal responsibility. That is why atheistic morality is now and always will be far superior to any religious-based morality; because it is solely and uniquely based in the personally responsible category. No atheist can claim they did what they did because some sky daddy wrote it down in some musty old book.

Still Waiting for that Fabled Christian Love of Enemies

Jesus said:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighborand hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [Matthew 5:43-45 NKJV]

As an atheist I only guessed that I was an "enemy"... But I have to wonder now. For I have gotten no love from any Christian at all. Not one person took the trouble to send me any of the pro-Christian apologetics materials I requested in this post. I can only guess that either spreading the gospel of Jesus is a false canard for Christianity, or virtually all of today's Christians are not actually Christ-like and all are just as hell-bound as I am.

But as I am a kindly soul, I am willing to offer second chances. You can make up for your sins against Jesus' teachings here and now. Here is the list of Christian materials I desire to read and learn from:

First up is this tome from Coral Ridge Ministries. Who Is This Jesus; Is He Risen?- Book and DVD

Next is the book by Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback)

Otherwise I would love to have copies of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Both of which I have read before but were not my copies and I had to give them back.

Please email me for my mailing address. If you have ideas for some other books in the apologetics vein which you think would be useful, please let me know in comments.

P.S. I certainly appreciate more comments along the vein of Rhology's as they just do more to show how hollow, deceitful, and hypocritical many Christians truly (or should I say 'T'ruly) are. Rhology makes me proud to have given up Christianity and in its place embraced humanism.

Rapture Ready pt II -- Heathen Rapture Debunked

In my last post, I identified a two part series of posts by Wilfred Hahn over at Rapture Ready. I will focus on part II in this post. We have already seen how he ignores fact and reality to twist current world events into "proof" that rapture is imminent. Only he showed that in reality it is nothing more than a self-generated series of events that have no relation to anything supernatural -- i.e. God. In spite of this plain and simple fact, he proceded to expound on his thesis that somehow, someway, nonChristians can see these events and recognize that the coming of Jesus is indeed a certainty in short order. In his opening paragraphs of part II he writes:

Therefore, the simple question we pose is this: If Christians, who supposedly possess the Bible and therefore are without excuse to hear what God says and means, would at least non-Christians have a legitimate excuse for their blindness? The Bible answers this question clearly in the negative. Unbelieving humanity will have no excuse.
While Christians also “have the word of the prophets made more certain” (2 Peter 1:19) the entire rest of the world still remains without excuse. This indictment is even more valid today. Why? The first verified appearance of the prophesied Christ has already occurred. If He “[…] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.“ (John 15:22) Moreover, God “has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

Any time a fundamentalist Christian uses a Bible quote in their argument, I know that I can easily defeat their argument. For there is not one single quote in the entire Bible that proves anything at all. even the moralistic quotes only show that the Bible writers were aware of moral tenets that others had also learned through non-God-revalatory methods (trial and error). But lets look at this passage from Wilfred.

The first verified appearance of the prophesied Christ has already occurred. If He “[…] had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin.“ (John 15:22)
Well then, wouldn't we all be better off if we had never heard anything of God, Jesus or his message, because then we would be free of all guilt! But we know that is false. Even the Bible denies this. For look at the very first book of the Bible. The story of Noah should be enough to prove this false. Innocents who had never heard of God were all summarily killed off, even animals. So this is a lie. It is certainly not a good start to convince non-Christians of the accuracy and supremacy of the Bible. and if this blatant falsehood is protrayed as proof of Jesus, then there is no reason to believe at all. (or maybe telling lies is how proof is given; See Paul in his epistles to the Romans, "For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?" [Romans 3:7 NKJV] )

Moreover, God “has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
Excuse me, but no proof of anything is not the same as proof of something. Prove that Jesus was raised from the dead first. That is a pretty extraordinary claim, and somebody merely saying it happened is not enough. If it were, then all Christians should be Mormons, since the claim of Joseph Smith should be enough proof that it really happened (The visit by the angel Moroni). Besides we have already seen that the founding Christians, like Paul, were willing to lie to further their evangelical goals, so how can we take a statement by another "Paul" as truth, if it is established that they lie?

So let us continue and examine just what the next five end-times signs Wilfred has lined up to prove to us heathens that the rapture is real.

6. World Energy Supplies

At first you may wonder just what our world energy supplies has to do with rapture and the Bible.. That is an easy one to answer; nothing at all. But, as I am sure you could have guessed by now, the obvious is not what Wilfred wants to discuss:

In recent times, energy prices have been soaring. What could this have to do with the endtimes? It certainly speaks of an eventual end at least of one type — the end of the Oil Age. Our secular observer of this development — whether an energy expert or geopolitical strategist — would agree that oil assuredly will run out some day based upon present-day trends. Moreover, they will also surmise that this will have a destabilizing effect upon the world. But, from the evidence, could they also conclude something more apocalyptic even without reading the Bible?

The answer to his question is: No. Of course everyone agrees that oil will run out. It is a finite quantity after all. But science and almost everyone who is not an insane conservative also knows that new alternatives to oil are possible and should be researched. Science wants to solve the Oil problem -- the energy problem -- by finding new sources of energy, but that requires money. Liberals and heathens want to give them this money, conservatives want to invest in finding new places to drill for oil. ANWR anyone? So no, there is no evidence of "something apocalyptic" coming in terms of energy except that Cheney and Republicans do not want to change from oil. So the problem is the stubbornness of conservatives, not the supply of energy. So, again, conservatives cause the problem and then these end-of-the-world religious nutjobs claim this means something that it does not. What they fail to realize isthat they are only setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Consider these facts: Roughly three-quarters of world oil reserves are found in countries that are either predominantly Islamic or members of the 57-country member Organization of the Islamic Conference. Muslim nations have 3.4 times as much oil per person than the world average and almost 7.7 times as much as major Christian nations — what I call the Top-10-X countries

So what? Oil is found in a region that has also traditionally been Islamic. Let's see what Wilfred says:

These facts and many improbable others relating to the world’s hydrocarbon situation today, beg incredulity and statistical probabilities. Observing all of these improbable facts (For a full list of more than 20, please see the article series in Midnight Call, Final Combustion: Oil, Islam and the Christian West — April to July 2006), a geopolitical analyst today would be alerted to a cosmic time plan that is indeed headed for a flash point.

Improbable? How is it improbable that a valuable resource winds up being discovered in a region that nothing else at all to offer -- thus making that region poor and backward. I would counter with the example of diamonds in South Africa. That region contains many resources other than diamonds, and yet it is still poor. The injection of diamond wealth still did not affect the overall population. And their predominant religion? Christianity. So Wilfred is just chasing a logical fallacy here, trying to equivocate two unrelated facts into one cause and effect.

And that "cosmic time plan"? Well it seems to be that nothing here on earth in terms of resources is infinite and will run out. It is up to humans to either conserve that resource or find alternatives to it when it runs out. Wilfred is an idiot.

7. Populations and Pensions

Can I just skip this with merely the observation that Wilfred is an idiot? No? Ok. I guess it is true that ad hominins do not suffice as logical argument. So the world's population is growing. I can only reiterate that all the world's resources are limited, not just oil. Food and land are limited as well. But increasing the world's population is solely within the religious doctrine of conservative Christianity. Abortion and contraception are bad things to them. They are the ones pushing for a larger population. The problem is of their making. But guess who has the solutions? That's right, the non-Christian heathens, the liberals, and science.

But the obvoius is not where Wilfred goes:

What kind of crisis is expected? Not a population explosion as has been feared in recent decades, but rather an implosion. Where it once was feared that the world would soon be overburdened by too many people, world population growth has since slowed dramatically from the peak rates of the 1960s. Demographic experts are already predicting that the world’s population may actually decline 25 to 50 years from now. Crucially, world population trends have moved from one extreme to another in less than one century — a relatively short span on the human timeline.

What?? I don't know what dope this guy is smoking but I want some. We have added almost a billion people since 2000. And what experts are predicting a decline? All I can find is that there are some who think that we have already overtaxed our resources and thus we cannot sustain our current population. But that is an unproven hypothesis. Other --equally as valid -- experts say that the earth can sustain a human population of 10 billion if our resources are properly managed. The problem with their estimate is that it requires liberal leaders willing to exploit new ideas and new resources instead of conservatives who want the same ol' same ol'.

As it stands today, all our problems are fixable, but only if a new, progressive, leadership is in place to push for it. The environment will not survive if tired old conservative ideals are continued. The oceans, our energy, our farmland all will collapse unless new ideas are used. So the conservatives that Christians push to lead us are the source of the problem facing us all as a population. This means Christianity is the problem, not the actual sustainability of our planet. (I realize I am oversimplifying here, it is religion in general, in other regions of the world the religion for the same attitudes is different, but the general attitudes proffered by religion is the same no matter what the religion or where it is.)

8. Geopolitics and Human Conflict

Ah yes, the war and complete nuclear annhilihation argument. We certainly have that power now in this point of human history. It would also be nice if we had cooler heads prevailing when it comes to war. But as always it is the ultra-conservatives who push for war. Liberals always are on the side of peace. Haven't we had this argument now here in the U.S. since 2003 when Bush and his hawks invaded Iraq? I can only guess that Wilfred was hibernating in his religious cavern during this time.

To some, it appears certain that it will be “religious fundamentalism” that brings the world to this state. Or, it could simply be the warlike characteristic of man in an age of advanced weaponry and geopolitics that must lead to such an outcome. Recently, comments about a possible World War III have been popularized in relation to Iran’s purported nuclear build-up. World wars are a modern invention, the first two of which have only occurred in the last 100 years. Whatever the case or the cause for a WW III, the secular analyst must conclude that it could soon hold dire implications for the world.

Well he has me there. I certainly think it will be religious extremism that ends us as a race. Be that religion Christianity or Islam it does not matter. Religion, as a whole, is the most likely source of our demise. That means religion is the evil among us. So how is this an argument for believing that religion is our savior?

Oh, and for what its worth, Wilfred is completely ignorant of actual world history. There have been a number of world wars before WWI and WWII. They just weren't labeled "world war". The Romans, the Huns, they were warring parties that engulfed the entire known world (at theor respective times) in war. Technology changed but that is about all.

9. Environmental Concerns

Haven't we already covered this many times? Does Wilfred not realize that these things are all intimately connected? Oh, that's right the "environment" to the right means nothing more than "glabal warming."

Is the earth wearing out? Despite the fact that there is a contested debate about global warming and various other environmental issues today, the Bible says that the world will run down. “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, look at the earth beneath; the heavens will vanish like smoke, the earth will wear out like a garment and its inhabitants die like flies.” (Isaiah 51:6) No matter that globalists might want to use such issues as global warming to further their humanist agenda, it is factual that the world is being indelibly changed in our day. Pollution has had an indisputable impact in many ways. Forests are disappearing at a rate that is not sustainable. Fish stocks in the world’s oceans are being gradually depleted. There are a large number of similar developments that are observable in the world, as the wearing out of a garment. Indeed, some effects can be reversed. But all the same, the logical analyst
would still be faced with this question: How long can such trends continue before deeper crises impact the world?

Whoa! What else if left for me to say. I could write something very similar to this to prove Wilfred wrong. "Humanist agenda." Yeah, that is the agenda where we humans want to protect and preserve our world and our environment so that it endures well beyond our own meager lifetimes. It is the religionist agenda that selfishly abuses every single resource we have with no thought for tomorrow or much less a century from now. It is the religionist agenda that craves war and conflict. It is the religionist agenda that sucks up all the wealth from every other sector of humanity. And in answer to Wilfred's question, those trends can only last until religion as a whole is dropped from the human collective. Then things can begin to improve. The end-times that Wilfred envisions is one solely and wholly created by religion. "Humanism" is the only rational and reasonable solution.
10. Technology Signs
One would expect that this would be a diatribe railing against all modern technology which has caused as much harm as good. But you would be wrong. In fact Wilfred goes in the exact opposite direction. His claim is that all our modern technology should be seen as showing even more proof that God created everything. How this fits in with his main thesis -- that these are the top ten things a heathen would recognize as being signs of the end-times is beyond me. This seems to prove the exact opposite..

But there is a paradox in all this. Consider that two thousand years ago Apostle Paul could write this: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
If Paul at that time — pre-technology and pre-modern-science — could deduce that God must exist based upon knowledge about the physical universe known then, why not more so today? That should be the logical conclusion. Yet, modern man has taken the opposite posture. He chooses to worship mankind itself rather that the original Creator of all this know-how in the first place.

I think that today's known human knowledge shows the exact opposite of what he claims. The size and nature of the universe is the exact opposite of what the bible teaches. The age of the universe contradicts what the bible claims. And these are simply facts, we are not even considering the theories which arise from these facts.

Oh and just what knowledge of the universe did Paul possess? That the sun revolved around the earth, that the earth was flat, that the stars could fall to the earth, that demons caused disease and prayer could cure said disease. There is no knowledge at all in that which could be said to be useful in understanding the universe, or even God, for it was all wrong. If the knowledge used at that time to create a god was wrong then there could have been no god at all, if the knowledge we have today shows there is no god then this is not somehow tristed proof that there really is a god, as Wilfred claims.

From there he has a few closing comments. Here is one:

Christians have even less excuse. There are 2500-year old Bible prophecies that can only take place in an advanced technological age such as today. For example, the statement about the two witness that “for three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial” (Revelation 11:9) has obvious implications. This could only occur as of this last half-century — the era of communications satellites. What nation, language or kindred people’s today would not have access to the internet or television over a 3 and ½ day period?

Could there possibly be any more of a ridiculuous statement? The inclusion of three and a half days proves that the Bible writers knew of satellites and the internet? How absurd is that? I guess the fact that the known world at that time was all contained within a small area, and the other areas, Africa and Asia were considered off-limits and not-essential. (consider this statement regarding Paul: "Now when they had gone through Phrygia and the region of Galatia, they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia." Here is the quote in context: Acts 16:5-7 [New King James Version]. ) Ignoring huge chunks of the world certainly makes it a smaller place don't you think?

But even more importantly, look at that passage again. What does it have to do at all with all tribes knowing about all other tribes at all? What does it saying about knowing anything at all about everything going on in the world at all? It takes a warped mind to read the internet and satellite communication into that passage.

But I have to say this, and I cannot stress this strongly enough. I have to thank our good friend Wilfred. For he has proven to me that without a doubt Christian thought and the foundations of current Christian thought are fully without any merit or validity at all. Wilfred has done more to strengthen my disbelief than all the atheist writers I have read, combined.

Time To Pick on Rapture Ready Again

This is a post I'd been thinking about for a while. Rapture Ready has two articles up showing that even us heathens can recognize the signs of this imminent rapture by famed global economist/strategist, Wilfred J. Hahn. Here is part I and here is part II. In this series, he outlines ten points that even a heathen like me should be able to recognize as being the signs of Jesus' coming (I would have to agree with the Apostle Paul and say first coming -- but that is a different story).

This situation is really more incredible than it seems. Why? Because one doesn’t have to be a Bible-reading Christian to recognize that the world is heading for troubles and that many of today’s trends are simply not sustainable. If Christians stand accused of ignoring the Bible and obvious world trends and events today, would then a non-Christian have any excuse for ignorance? No.

At first I would have to say, "Well no duh!" Yes the world is headed for troubles. But I would ask the obvious question, who is causing those troubles? On the one hand it is conservative Christians causing all our problems here at home and our problems abroad. On the other hand it is conservative Muslims causing problems elsewhere. In any sense it is religion that is making this world a worse place. Even in the smaller sense of Hinduism and Islam in India and Pakistan, or the provokative message of peace of Buddhism. I would even say the philosophy of China, some sort of pseudo-religion of supremacy-of-state over the individual prefectly matches the message of all religions, albeit cloaked in some faux-atheism sheepskin.

Secondly, it seems patently obvious that these trends cannot be sustained. But again who is pushing to keep these trends going and who is trying to reverse them? Environmentalists want to reverse the unsustainable ewnvironmental damage we are doing to our planet. And guess who argues against global warming and other environmentally destructive things we are doing? If you said Christains you would be correct. Energy? Again it is the Christians who block the scientists efforts to move us forward towards a more responsible sustainable energy policy. War? Christians want it. Torture? Again Christians. And what about overpopulation? Oh, yeah, Christians say have more (white) babies, no abortions or same-sex marriages, no education for safe-sex, no contraception, no access to morning-after pills. No to Christians, more people and less food is good (it is also the christians who want this to be an "ownership society" where everyone owns their own home on a piece of land.. Just where is that land going to come from? Farms.. Farms.. Farmland.

Now I am not saying that we atheists and scientists are perfect and only provide the "right" answers, but one thing we always have done is to provide the solutions to the problems that have been created by distinctly religious sources.

This is only a thumbnail sketch of this "sustainability problem." To really look into it, we need to see what Wilfred identifies as the ten sustainability issues, and compare them to their sources, and the sources of their solutions. (oddly enough -- or should I say understandably enough -- he never identifies population and food supply as an issue. That is one I'd list as number one, religious wars being number two, and rich-centered energy supply as number three... But that's just me.)

He lists them in no particular order. While I find that particularly odd, I will run with it and respond one-by-one. His number one:

1. Skewing of Wealth Between Rich and Poor

That is certainly a valid concern. Oddly enough it seems to be a distinctly liberal issue. Liberals want to fight this skewing but conservatives want to broaden it. Again is it any shock that Christians who want to make this chasm wider are wildly conservative? Maybe we have an opening here to turn many Christians into bleeding-heart liberals so that this unsustainibility problem could be aleved.

Wilfred seems to concur:

Secular analysts would surely wonder where these trends are heading. At the present rate of this development, any one of two outcomes, or both, could occur — either a world controlled by small cabal of rich overlords or anarchy and societal breakdown. It would not be overstating the case to say that today’s wealth imbalances in the world exceed that during the late stages of the past Roman Empire. It is not a positive outlook.

That settles it, vote progressive and save the world from destruction!

2. Islam, Europe and the Catholic Church

Remove religion and things would improve. Funny how a fundie Christian and some lowly atheist like me are in total agreement. The money quote:

Some prophecy scholars in fact think that Islam will be part of a world-wide religious ecumenicism at some point in the future. This, however, seems unlikely. True Islam does not compromise and never has, other than for short-term advantage. In fact, Arabs (Islam, after all is an Arab religion) cannot even agree amongst themselves, a characteristic that the Bible itself documents.

Sound familiar? It you thought that the exact same thing could be said for Christianity then you get a point. Why are all Christians not Catholic?? Does not the Bible not also document that as well? Oh, and ask a fundamentalist Christian to compromise on same-sex marraige or abortion and see what answer you get. I think it is obvious at this point that ol' Wilfred has his head up his ass.

3. Materialism and Financial Pyramiding

Oh and I guess Christians, say all those who control gorvernment thanks to Bush and the Republicans, are not personally responsible for this? Isn't it liberals who want to spread the wealth (through "socialism") and conservatives who want an ownership society where each person keeps what they earn to detriment of all others (unless they default on their home loans, then those same conservatives want all other Americans no matter how poor to help them pay for their McMansions via a public bailout. The same goes for the bailout of Wall Street who made this happen.

But let's see what Wilfred has to say:

However, none of these factors are more vulnerable than the last two of the 5P list — Productivity and Pyramiding. These relate to the economic and financial explosion over this period, involving globalization, technology, the increasingly invasive role of money, and the unstable system of monetarism. It has created a lustrous, intoxicating apparition of wealth … albeit mostly false wealth. While the advance of technology itself likely will not be lost, the huge financial colossus that has emerged in recent years is extremely vulnerable to collapse. Even secular analysts can see this. One does not need the Bible to understand this, though the Scriptures surely are in line with this view. Given the greed, corruption and rapaciousness that are part of this trend, it is only a matter of time. In fact, this collapse may already have started. It can happen quickly and suddenly.

Again, tell me who is responsible for this? Ah, yes, conservative Republicans who are wholly supported by conservative Christians. Yes, they have created the very problems they now proclaim as proof of their vision. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy. The money:

Actually, of all the 10 Endtime Signs for Heathens, this one is the most imminent. While it is possible that the world monetary authorities and governments can buy some time by way of temporary manipulations, it remains very possible that the worldwide financial problems that began to unravel as of July 2007 are in fact, the start of the deteriorating conditions that will culminate in the final disasters in the Tribulation period. The sad truth, however, is that while many non-Christian analysts can see the writing on the wall, a large part of North American Christianity remains deluded, clinging on to their prosperity theology and the idea that God will not judge the materialism and greed that are the very underpinnings of our society.

Has Wilfred actually sat down and read about who and what caused all this? Bush and Co are the root. But even before that it was the Newt Revolution contained within the "Contract with America" that was the root. All us heathens look at this and shake our heads and say to ourselves you guys (conservative Christians) caused all these problems, but don't you worry, for we progressives (and atheists included) will come up with solutions to all the problems you caused. For we want to save the world and all you guys want is to bring about its end so that you can (in your wildest desires) bring about the presence of your mythical sky-god.

4. Diseases, Pandemics, Biodiversity

Again, Conservative Christianity despises science because it includes evolution and other evidences that require proof. All science has its root in fact and theory, theory is built upon fact. Science offers the possibility to cure diseases. But religion and Christianity in particular puts up a huge barricade: Do not teach evolution, do not do research on stem cells. Do not go in the directions that the facts lead, if those facts lead away from God. Who is it that limits research dollars for science and medicine that could lead to cures? Oh yeah, conservative Republicans based on the opposition of fundamentalist Christians.

There are some disturbing developments that suggest that the advances of medicine with respect to germs and microbes may only be temporary. One of these is the emergence of the superbug — bacterium that have mutated to become resistant to multiple types of antibiotics. Infectious disease physicians are becoming increasingly alarmed that the development of new antibiotics will lose pace with this threat. They have good reason for their concerns. For one, pharmaceutical companies are falling behind in the development of new antibiotics. Secondly, antibiotic resistance spreads fast.

Can anyone say evolution? And who fights evolution? Oh that's right, conservative Christians. Science can stay ahead of the curve as long as science is not hampered by Christian dogma stating that evolution is not to be taught and science can only proceed if it is God-supporting. Maybe if religion kept its perverse worldview out of the purview of science, then sciece could continue to cure disease. But that will not happen as long as there are fundamentalist Christians out there protesting evolution and science discovery, if it may disprove their limited views of "God."

Ouch! This may be the most painful point Wilfred brings up:

5. Israel & Jews in the World

His point is totally muddied, but it seemsto be:

For one, it would have been noticed that for the first time in over 2500 years, the world’s largest population of Jews now live in Israel. That is a recent bellwether. Up until 2006 or so, the US held this distinction. (See Midnight Call issues of November and December 2007 for a broader discussion of this condition.) An understanding of probabilities and world history would further highlight the significance of Jewish developments in the world today. What people has ever been restored to their homeland after 2500 years? In fact, what people has ever survived that long with their identity intact once they have lost their country? What probabilities are defied by the fact that Hebrew, a language that fell out of common usage, would again become a spoken language?.

So just a quick question, why does the concentration of Jews in any part of the world, not just Israel, matter to anyone? How is that a distinctly secular concern? The only possible explanation I can come up with is another religious excuse. More Jews in Israel means more reason for Muslims to attack. But that is not secular at all, it is religious. If religion went by the wayside, then there would be no problem at all with this "Jewish buildup". Again, it is religion that is the source of the problem. And speaking of Jews and persecution, who is it that have killed more Jews... Oh yeah, Christians; Christians hate the Jews for "killing their God." P.S. Can I mention the "dead" language of Latin which has survived in both science and the Religion of Catholicism. Does that count??

We have covered the first five points that are to be found in part I of Wilfred bizarre screed. In my next post I will cover the second five points.

Oh -- and they do not get any better. Our friend Wilfred seems to prove that what passes for Christian thought is not that at all

Shameless Grovelling before all you Christians who want to convert me to Christ

Well, my birthday recently passed (I share it with such luminaries as Lincoln and Darwin) and we are headed full speed into the Easter season.. So what better time than to ask all you Christians out there who visit my humble blog and debate with me the "facts" and "truths" of Christianity in order to prove that Christianity is true (or is it, True??) or bring me back to Christ or whatever. Now is the time to pony up for your cause.

There are a number of Christian apologetics resources that I have either read but do not own, or have not read and want to. If you believe in your mission to spread the message of Christ to everyone, then here is your chance to bring it to my front door, literally. Below is a list of some of the books and other materials I would like to read but cannot bring myself to spend my hard-earned money on:

First up is this tome from Coral Ridge Ministries. Who Is This Jesus; Is He Risen?- Book and DVD

Next is the book by Norman Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback)

Otherwise I would love to have copies of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. Both of which I have read before but were not my copies and I had to give them back.

Please email me for my mailing address. If you have ideas for some other books in the apologetics vein which you think would be useful, please let me know in comments.

And let the love and evangelical power of Jesus flow through you to bring me around to Jesus...

Update: In comments I have been having a discussion with Rhology (again). He seems to be concerned with pigs and jewelry. This quote seems to be his focal point:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you [Matthew 7:6 KJV]

His message here seems to be that Christians everywhere should ignore and cast out anyone who is not a believer. Why? Because if you offer the non-believer the knowledge of Jesus, then they will use it against you to destroy you. This one simple quote completely destroys the entire evangelical movement and the need to spread the loving message of Jesus, if Christians are banned from spreading it to those who may be unwilling to accept it at face value.

But I really want to focus in on the imagery here. We have two elements here to work with, pigs and jewelry. Let us look and see what else the New Testament has to say about those:

30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding. 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, “If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine.” 32 And He said to them, “Go.” So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. [Matthew 8:30-32]

Here we have Jesus taking orders from demons. But what really disturbs me is that this herd of pigs could have fed many hungry people. And Jesus, as God, had the power to simply cast the demons out into nothingness. So why allow hungry people to go hungry just to satisfy the desires of some demons? Wouldn't the magical depositing of those pigs upon the plates of the hungry have been a much greater and humane miracle than simply destroying them? But I guess thus is the message of Jesus: Let the hungry go hungry if it will increase the comfort of some demons. (After all, Jesus fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes, twice)

But what about jewelry? Paul tells us this:

8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. [1 Timothy 2:8-10 NKJV]

So good Christian women should not wear gold wedding bands in church, or pearls, or costly clothing. I have to wonder just how many goodly Christian women take off their wedding bands when they go to church, or even refuse to put them on at their wedding in church, in order to remain within the God/Jesus commands found in the New Testament?

Rhology has a problem with sending me any of the requested Christian texts on the grounds that I am not Christian. But I wonder just what his grounds really are if Christianity is as contradictory as I just sketched out? The bible has many flaws that make it unpalatable to people like me (rational beings), and the only way that Christianity can therefore be acceptable is if today's Christian apologists explain all those contradictions. But Rhology disagrees. He just wants to follow the lone swine/pearl doctrine and laugh at the entire evangelical movement simply to save himself from sending me Christian works. So all you other Christians out there, how does this strike you? What would you all rather do, follow Jesus' dictates and spread the gospel, or follow Rhology's personal worldview, and simply cast off all current non-Christians into the pit of fire for nothing more than entertainment's purpose?

The message I take away from Rhology is simple and clear: If you are not Christian, you don't deserve to become Christian; and if you refuse Christian teachings, then you should never receive them. Heh, Rhology and brotherly love go together like oil and water.. Or should I say like torture and Jesus? (Who knew that the answer to "would Jesus torture?" is a Rhology-approved "YES!!!1!!!1!1!!") Peace and torture all the same to Rhology. Only us Jesus-hating types would hate torture and love actual peace (no war) and freedom (the right and priveledge to believe what one wants and act upon it as long as it does not harm others).

Flash! Chaplain knows God's Mind

Apparently, Pat Robertson is not the only conservative Christan who knows for a fact what God is thinking:

An evangelical chaplain who leads Bible studies for California lawmakers says God is disgusted with a rival fellowship group that includes people of all faiths.

My first thought is God is "disgusted" with people worshipping Him? My second thought is how can anyone know the mind of God and therefore know how to worship Him "properly"? MY third thought is the rather more esoteric question of using the bible as any sort of guide to worship, considering it is completely disjointed in its teachings; Jesus' compassion and forgiveness for sinners, and Paul's firey condemnation of the same classes of sinners, etc.

Drollinger said "progressive religious tolerance" is an offense against God and causes harm to its practitioners.
He said the other Bible study group was perpetrating a "deadly lie" by presenting Jesus as "a good moral teacher who loves everyone without distinction."

So then I take it that Jesus was not a good moral teacher? How stupid is this?? One can talk about the good moral teachings of Jesus completely seperate from his supposed divinity. I can only presume that stupidity is a prerequisite for being a conservative evangelical chaplain. I mean even the most casual glancing of the gospels shows that Jesus loved an adulterer, a prostitute (if Mary Magdaline was actually a prostitute) but He hates non-evangelical Christians? Where do you draw the line on who Jesus loves and hates. He himself said to love your enemies [Matthew 5:43-44 NKJV] and hate your family [Luke 14:26 NKJV]. Am I to take it then that if Jesus does not love this "other" bible study group, they are His family, and if he loves Drollinger, then he is Jesus' enemy? Again, the logic here has to be astounding (and not in the good way). Of course, only in fundamentalist Christianity could loving your enemy and hating your family make any sense at all to begin with. But then turn around and ignore that to simply condemn another Christian group is just as absurd.

But to be honest, I still cannot get past the notion that this chaplain, Drollinger, thinks he knows the mind of God. Because no matter how you rationalize it, as a Christian, to claim you know what God really thinks is to put yourself into the same knowledge category as God and that is elevating yourself to diety levels. And I do believe there is a commandment against that, if I'm not mistaken.

Olde Time Christian Morals (and logic)

I have to give thanks to the good folks at Sadly, No! for bringing this one up. It is truly a marvel to behold in its dishonesty and lack of logic. I am referring to this piece by Christian trial lawyer, Reed R. Heustis, Jr. Even Ray Comfort's banana debacle seems rational next to it. (Well that may be stretching a bit too far -- Ray, shall we say, has serious problems...) The pro-Jeezus, anti-gay and anti-freedom screed was written back in 2006, so it is not new. But as you read, you can see nothing has changed from then to now. The same innanity still exists, only today it is in the mouths of Republican presidential candidates.

It is ironic that those flaunting the rainbow flag view it as a "freedom flag" that somehow promotes liberty. According to the Word of God, there can only be liberty where the Spirit of the Lord is (2 Cor 3:17), and the Spirit of the Lord will never be found in partnership with sin.

Yes Liberty.. Everyone knows that actual liberty really means servitude. That the only true Americans to possess "liberty" were the slaves. Let's see what else the bible has to say about liberty and Christians..

casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of
Christ [2 Cor 10:5 NKJV]

Sounds like liberty to me, ignoring everything that comes from humanity, and making one's thoughts entirely captive to Christ. That certainly cannot be called slavery... Oh no. But being captive to Christ is considered "liberty". Didn't the slave owners say the same thing to, and about, their slaves? Why I do believe so.

But I want to be a bit broader here. If you were to read the Bible quote given by Mr. Heustis, it is this: "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" Notice that it does not say that the only source of liberty is Jesus.

But what is most interesting (and most detrimental to his argument) is what else Paul had to say in that very same passage:

12 Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— 13 unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. 15 But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. 16 Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. [2 Cor 3:12-16 NKJV]

Amazing! Paul is saying that the dictates of Moses are superceded by Jesus' teachings. But what does Jesus teach about homosexuality? Absolutely nothing! Leviticus teaches that eating shellfish is an abomination to God. Leviticus also teaches that homosexuality is an abomination to God. Yet Jesus teaches in the Gospels that no food is an abomination, and says nothing about homosexuality at all. In fact, when you read the epistles of Paul, he gives a laundry list of sins (homosexuality among them) that are wrong, but here he is saying that none of this matters.

This is what is known as a contradiction. Homosexuality as a sin is plainly found in Paul's epistles. It cannot be found anywhere in the Gospels of Jesus, because he never mentioned it. Yet here, in the very same passage Mr. Heustis is using to prove his pro-slavery-is-liberty point is the evidence that he is profoundly wrong.

Summarized, it is this: If one thing is found in the Old Testament to be an abomination to God (eating shellfish) as is another thing (homosexuality). Then later, Jesus says that nothing you eat is an abomination to God, but says nothing about homosexuality. And finally, even later Paul says that the entire works of Moses was just a veil and that only belief in Jesus is the way, but even later says, "oh, not so much, these things are still wrong...(including homosexuality)"

Furthermore, if Jesus himself even said that the only way to follow Him was to forsake your family, then how can the concept of family, that being man, woman, and children be held in high esteem?

Mr Heustis goes even farther though. His next paragraph is:

Contrary to a truly free people, unrepentant homosexuals live in a state of bondage and slavery. They act upon the deluded notion that their licentiousness is liberty and they foolishly wave their flag to communicate their folly. By promoting Gay Pride, homosexuals promote the antithesis of freedom.

Yes, because living your own life as you see fit is the "antithesis of freedom" whereas living your life as these conservative Christians want to force you into living it is "actual" freedom.

I have to wonder though, if this is what liberty and freedom are actually defined as: slavery and repression; then what about the actual dictates of Jesus? Jesus said that the rich will never enter heaven. Jesus said that his true followers would never own anything more than a pair of sandals, one cloak and one walking stick. He also specifically said that their purses were to be empty.

Poverty and Christianity were foretold by Jesus to be one and the same. Reconsidering the words of Mr Heustis, "the Spirit of the Lord will never be found in partnership with sin" and the sins recounted by the words of Christ; valuing your family above God, and possessing anything other than the clothes on your back, then in the words of Jesus when he said this are more appropriate today:

13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. [Matthew 7:13-14 NKJV]

Words more true were never spoken. When the Bible is taken as a guide, that few is weeded down to almost zero. (I think Ned Flanders is the only human going to heaven).

I Haven't Beat Up On Ray Comfort In A while, So...

Poor Ray, for someone who claims to be absolutely guided by an infinitely powerful and all-knowing force; his scribblings are amazingly amateurish. Simply comparing one to the other makes him out to be a cartoon. And if his knowledge/intelligence is that of the model Christian, then he proves Christianity is doomed to extinction, with no help from us "evil" atheists...

First check out this post from his new blog.

On December 8, 2008, the Omaha Police Department released a three-page suicide note left by Robert A. Hawkins, the 19-year-old who fatally shot eight people at an Omaha shopping mall before turning the gun on himself. In the telling note, it’s clear that Hawkins wasn’t the “loner” he was first made out to be. He didn’t lack friends. He said, “You guys are the best friends anyone could ever ask for.” Rather, the note says exactly why he “snapped.” It said, “I've just snapped I can't take this meaningless existence anymore . . . ” If the secular world insists on saying that there is no God and that we are the products of evolutionary chance, they are saying that they have no idea where we came from, what we are doing here, or where we are going after death. Robert A. Hawkins is the tragic result of that meaningless existence. [Emphasis mine]

Then peruse this post....

There was another “senseless” mass killing this week. This one was in Colorado. I’m hesitant to talk about it because I may sound simplistic and repetitive. I don’t think the killings were senseless at all. Something is not senseless when there’s a predictable pattern. Here was another disillusioned and bitter ‘backslider” (a false convert), who no doubt gave his heart to Jesus because of a promise of a wonderful new life in Christ, and when the promises didn’t deliver the goods, he was angry enough to kill.

It seems Ray has placed himself in the "nothing can touch me, no matter how silly I sound" category. If someone random shoots up some people, it is the secularists who are to blame. If it is a Christian who kills, then they were not a real Christian at all. Heads I win, Tails you lose.

Ray Comfort seems to live in a world where no Christian does anything wrong. They must somehow be flawed or otherwise "seperated from God." The problem is that this is Comfort's Achilles' heel. If no Christian can do any wrong, then what can be said about a non-Christian, even ((gasp!)) an atheist, who lives their entire life fully within the confines of Comfort's definition of morality?

Is that decidedly non-Christian who manages to live up to all Comfort's moral standards actually a Christian?

I don't know. Ray Comfort can never lay claim to being a strong logician, but he can at least come up with something which makes sense to those who would be willing to believe in God. But to give good ol' Ray the benefit of the doubt here, he does have a solid point about not being a Christian. Just look to all the hub-bub about Mike Huckabee's slam against Mitt Romney and his Mormon beliefs. Who really is a Christian? Are Catholics Christians? If their beliefs and rituals contradict those of Baptists, are Baptists really Christians? ...And so on. If merely accepting Jesus and some interpretation of the bible makes one Christian, then the field is opened up wide to gays being both gay and Christian, women who have abortions (and think it is acceptable in the eyes of God and Jesus) being Christian, Christians who oppose the death penalty, and Christians who support gun control. If all these are considered Christians, then how can a person who believes in Christianity suddenly be called a "backslider" because they sinned? The point here is that some many who consider themselves Christian sin in ways that other Christians call sin, but they, themselves do not think is a sin.

Ray has no answer for that. All he has is his own personal ideas as to what makes up sin and what makes up a Christian.

But then outside of "Christianity" it is the effects of "secularism" according to our intellectual mentor, Ray Comfort. Now, in line with this is this horrible article by Pat Boone at WorldNetDaily. (But I will examine this in more detail in a later post.)

I am reminded of the words of Jesus regarding sins:

And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. [Matthew 19:24 NKJV]

Jesus certainly seems to be railing against the rich here. But how much do you hear about Ray Comfort condemning the rich Christians as "backsliders" and sinners? And what about Ray Comfort (and Pat Boone for this matter) condemning women for wearing gold and fancy clothes into Church? Or women talking and singing in Church? Or women teaching men? All of these things are condemned in the bible and all Christian women who sin in this way are "backsliders". But Ray does not write any articles about the evils of women in church choirs, or women wearing their gold wedding bands into church. These are sins according to God. See the writings of Paul:

"Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says." I Cor 14:34,35

"in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing" I Tim 2:9

"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors herhead, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved" I Cor 11:5 (see also I cor 11:13 or I Cor 11:15 for why long hair can be considered a"covering")

"And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to bein silence." I Tim 2:12

All verses are the NKJV.

If all these are "backsliders" then who is left of the actual Christians? I guess only Ray Comfort (as his trusty sidekick, Kirk Cameron, is guilty of being rich)..

Things I am Tired Of, But Appreciate Anyway

One of the biggest traffic attractions to my blog is... Pat Robertson and his prophecies for this year. I have to admit that I hate that the topic which brings the most people to my blog is also the most absurd. I have yet to find one single Christian who thinks Pat is in any way a messenger of God or even simply sane. But that stands in stark contradiction to the fact that he remains a very popular and influential televangelist.

However, my rather silly insights into the whole Pat Robertson annual tete-a-tete with God is exactly what brings the most traffic to my blog. People want to know what he says and and what others (like me) think about it. That is fine. I think he is nuts, as do many Christians. But that is not what I want to be as my main message to the world. I intend to show how Christianity is a damaging worldview (much like Christopher Hitchens in his book) along with all other diety-based religions/worldviews. I continually show how those very religions who claim to 'save' humanity are the very same groups who harm it most. I also use morality as a tool for this end. Morality is something which is common to all peoples. But it is not the same for all peoples and is continually changing throughout time. The 'absolute morality' of Christians is no different. The only thing which can be said when it comes to morality is that it is merely a set of guidelines for a civilization to survive. And the more effective those guidelines are, the longer that civilization exists. In other words, it is purely human-based. Even in religious circles, their morality is only valid as long as it propagates their community. No God involved -- Only human survival.

This has been the goal of my blog since its inception. But I guess I'll have to live with the fact that this is no longer relevant, only what Pat Robertson has to say as far as what he 'hears' from God. As that seems to be the only attractor to my blog.

Some Heavy Philosophical Thought on Christian Morals

Christianity Today has up an article discussing racial slurs, character questions and the issue of morality. Obviously all those issues are related. But can you guess how they are related from a distinctly Christian perspective?

Surprise! They are not related in the way any normal --sane-- person would say. A person who lies, cheats and steals cannot be described as a liar, cheater or thief by anyone and they be moral for making that accusation according to Christian theology; so says Mark Galli. Whereas, it is moral to call a dark-skinned person of recent-times African descent (we are all of African descent if we go back to the origins of humanity) a 'nigger', 'darkie', 'colored', etc. The reason why, according to Mark, will surprise you.

Mark opens with this (try and spot the obvious error(s)):

A thought experiment: Is it worse to call former secretary of state Colin Powell a racial slur, or to call him a liar?

Let's see, being born black or choosing to mislead a nation into an unnecessary war which has caused the deaths of more Americans than 9-11...

Hmm. Woooo Boy. That is a tough one. Calling Powell a 'nigger' for being born black, or calling him a liar for causing the deaths of thousands of Americans. I think I'll have to go with door number one here. That is certainly more immoral. He can no more change his heritage than the moon can change its composition to swiss cheese. But lying?? He did that, and the blood of thousands of Americans is on his head (along with many others, of course). Powell committed a huge immoral act, and calling it such is in no way itself immoral.

But racial slurs, that is entirely different in nature. It does not become a slur if it is simply a description. 'Black' is still acceptable as it is merely a differentiation between 'White'. 'Black' is only a slur if it is used in place of 'nigger'. So why then, is it a slur? Because it suggests more than simply heritage. It suggests many negative general qualities. Intelligence, untrustworthyness, conniving are but some of the other attributes that accompany 'nigger' outside of skin color. If 'nigger' only meant 'black' then it would be as harmless as calling someone tall or short or fat or skinny, or Asian, or African or European. But 'nigger' has nothing to do with inherant traits such as these. It has everything to do with characteristics. And those characteristics are not ones that are earned --i.e. the individual may never have stolen or killed-- but are generalities unrightly bestowed upon an entire group because of prejudice. Undeserved characteristics are the bedrock of racial slurs. This is the the most glaring distinction between slurs and labelling Colin Powell a 'liar'. He lied. He has admitted he lied.

But Mark does not see it that way. He thinks it is worse to identify a person by what they are according to their actions than to misidentify an entire race according to qualities for which they are innocent of.

Let us see how he puts it:

Most people would agree that to call Colin Powell a racial slur reflects nothing on Colin Powell as much as it says something about the person using the word. But if one calls Colin Powell a liar, (as some are now doing regarding his role leading up to the Iraq war) then that is a direct attack on his very character. While many would not believe for a second that Powell is a liar, it raises in other minds the possibility that maybe he is—and thus his character is smirched.

Ok, Colin Powell isn't a liar. He was given false information and turned around and spread it around the entire planet even though he personally had strong reservations about the authenticity of the information. But he went ahead and told the world Iraq had WMDs when reality said they didn't -- i.e. He told a lie. But he is not a liar.

It is really simple. He told the world Iraq had WMDs. They did not. He lied. It does not require any sort of logical gymnastics to call him a liar. He lied, that makes him a liar. He could have done something about it at the time, like refusing to tell the lie. But he didn't. What about the other side of the coin? Can he do something about the color of his skin? So if someone demonizes him with generalized characteristics based solely on the color of his skin, that is more moral? According to Mark it is.

If that wasn't enough, then read this:

Many were aghast recently when they learned that reality show star Dog the Bounty Hunter used the n-word to describe some blacks, and earlier we were disturbed that shock jock Don Imus implied that certain black athletes were prostitutes—both comments manifestly silly that reflected nothing about the character of the people they were talking about. Yet when bloggers and pundits—and even leading Christians who describe themselves as "social prophets"—call their current political leaders "liars" and "murderers"—well, we hardly blink.

Maybe because the direct and specific accusation fits their willful crimes. Why is it wrong, in Mark's view, to call a person who lies a liar? And please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Christians call abortion doctors 'murderers'? So are those Christians less moral than white supremicists who call blacks 'niggers'?

If a person is guilty of the willful committal of the crime, be it lying or murdering, then calling by that title seems appropriate. We now know Powell told the world something he knew to be untrue. He admits that now. That makes him a liar.

But then, the very next paragraph goes off the rails, he completely changes subject. It almost is as if he accidentally spliced two seperate posts together...

We are appalled when men treat women like sex objects, when they use sexually demeaning terms to talk about and to them. But we as a society wink and smile when we hear jokes on sitcoms that imply that a sexually healthy person will—of course! —look at pornography now and then. If there were ever a world where women are really demeaned and abused, it would be pornography. While we've
created workplace laws to prevent verbally demeaning talk, we have no political
will to create laws that will stop the pornographic degradation of women.

I get it, this isn't about calling a black person a 'nigger' at all... It is about pornography! Because women the world over are all demeaned when some women make money off their bodies. Of course the men making money off their bodies in the same movies is not demeaning to men everywhere. And sex... Whoa! No one should ever admit to liking or even having sex because it is just too dirty. That peeping tom sky fairy is watching all of us even in the shower when we may possibly be --gasp-- masturbating. So sex and porn is worse than racial degradation and racial slander. As is calling a liar a liar.

Then he jumps into probably the only coherent statement he makes in the entire post:

In the church, examples abound. Take just one: I've noted how some members are shocked, just shocked, if their minister uses an occasional swear word in conversation, yet they don't seem to worry much if he rarely preaches about bringing justice to the poor.

He is completely correct here. If you actually read the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, you will find that social justice and caring for the poor is the primary teaching of Jesus. Yet only the liberal pro-gay Christian churches teach this aspect of Jesus. All other more conservative churches teach hellfire and forced dominionism on the masses. If all Christian churches focused on justice for the poor instead of electing conservative politicians who lie rape and murder, then not only would this be a strongly Democratic nation, the poor would not be so poor. Why is the occasional swear word more important than starving children? You would have to ask a Christian to get that answer.

He draws all this together in his final point:

Jesus talked about the nature of our spoken words in a larger context. He told a story about a father with two sons. One son says the socially correct thing to a command of his father: "Yes, Father, I will go work in the fields." The other son says the socially scandalous thing: "No, Father, I will not go work in the fields." Yet later, the socially incorrect son actually went into the field to work, and the socially correct son did not.

Jesus said the socially incorrect son was the righteous one. The words we use to talk about others, and the promises we make to others—that is, how we use language—seems secondary to Jesus. It's what we do with our lives that counts. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" (or avoids swearing or slurs), will enter the kingdom of
heaven.

So the 'socially correct' son lied. The "socially incorrect" son did not lie. The socially incorrect son made no promise that he didn't think he could keep. And he in fact went against his statement because he was concerned with more important things, namely doing the right thing -- helping his father in the fields. The other son, the 'socially correct' son, lied. He said he would help and then did not. This story proves that Mark is completely 'talking out of his ass'. For he admits that lying and thus being labeled a liar is less moral than being called something that has no relation to who you really are. For in this analogy, the 'socially incorrect' son is innocent of his label. But the 'socially correct' son is properly labeled a liar. Calling a liar a liar is more moral than calling someone who is innocent of the accusation, a 'nigger', things he is innocent of. Thus Mark disproves his entire thesis here.. Ironically enough with the very words of the God he believes in.


My personal observation is this: Lying is one of the Ten Commandments no no's... But forget about all that according to Mark. Calling someone a liar because they lie is wrong. Throw those commandments out the window. From now on, the new laws of Christians is to be racial, commit whatever crime you feel like, but never ever expose wrongdoing, for that is the one true immoral act.