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

Saint Patty's Day Ruined this Year?

In case you are unaware, St. Patrick's Day falls on Monday of Holy Week this year. Within the Catholic Church there is a moldy old rule that says that this holy day, therefore, cannot be celebrated; Holy Monday precedes in importance. See this CNN article for more. The money quote:

For the first time since 1940, St. Patrick's Day will fall during Holy Week, the sacred seven days preceding Easter.
Because of the overlap, liturgical rules dictate that no Mass in honor of the saint can be celebrated on Monday, March 17, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
But a few Roman Catholic leaders are asking for even more moderation in their dioceses: They want parades and other festivities kept out of Holy Week as well.

Maybe its just that cynical streak in me, but does this strike you as odd as well? I mean God, in all his perfection, couldn't come up with a way to honor a saint, a man who did His bidding, every year? Was God snoozing at the time He should have been guiding the paths of men who made up the rules for Holy Week and for when St. Patrick's Day would be celebrated? And could a slip-up in perpetual scheduling of the celebration of a man of God be considered a flaw in the character of God?

Simply food for thought..

Henry Rollins and Anger

Atheists are almost always described as "angry" by Christians. In reality, that is about as true as atheists describing all Christians as "deluded" because of their magical sky-god beliefs. However, there is a grain of truth to both perceptions. I don't think I need to go into my reasons for accusing Christians of any form magical delusion; they are enumerated throughout my blog. But I will consider the Christian claim of angry atheists. Henry Rollins is angry:


Penn & Teller and their "Bullshit" series also shows flashes of "anger."


But what is atheist anger really?

Christians may desire to portray it as anger against God; thus "proving" that atheists actually do believe in God but simply want to deny him. What we see in reality is that atheists are angry because there is nothing to religion outside ritual and tradition. Atheists are angry because religion causes as much misery in the world as it does good (if not more). And atheists are angry because they (we) cannot fathom how religion still exists and is trumpeted as superior to human trial and knowledge. (The bible is after all nothing but ancient human trial and knowledge.)

Atheists are angry because we are told that we are inferior because we lack faith in magical sky-god beliefs.

God Delusion Index

I saw this on PZ Myers' blog and thought it would be fun to show here... I should point out that this test is not aimed at any one religion, rather only the degree and type of belief in a god.


You probably already guessed that my score was a big fat zero.

Interesting Bible Trivia

Here is a quick quiz for everyone: What is the one Commandment (out of the 'traditional' Ten Commentments) That Jesus Christ Himself did not break? Please consider the four gospels and the Acts in your answer.

If you guessed "graven image" then you are correct. Jesus lied, murdered, coveted, dishonored his parents, blasphemed, failed to keep holy the Sabbath, stole, held up other gods besides God, and committed adultery through lust.

So go check this post out by Ed Brayton. 'Relative' and 'Absolute'? I think someone needs to go to someone more logical than Christianity to define those terms.

I mean if both eating shellfish (like lobster, crab and shrimp) and homosexuality were both 'abominations' to God in Leviticus, but suddenly in the time of Jesus, eating anything was now acceptable but being gay was still wrong proves that 'relative' is in the eye of the religious beholder... as is slavery and a black man marrying a white woman.

I guess killing falls in the same category: It is morally acceptable to kill ala war and the death penalty, but wrong to kill otherwise is absolute, but killing due to only justifiable war, and no death penalty is relative. Who would have guessed?

Discuss the absurdities.

[Update: In comments, Rhology challenged me on my claim that Jesus violated 9 of the 10 Commandments. He wanted me to cite references. So the following addition to this post is my response to that request.]

Rhology, you are correct, I should have given references to all this, but I was feeling lazy and figured it was all known and simply accepted. I had been explained all this when I grew up in private Christian schools. It is all in the gospels clear to see, and required explanation. Of course the reasons given then make no sense to me now because I am older and more rational. In fact the only broken commandment that is not explicitly stated as such is the lust/adultery and that dealt with Jesus and Mary Magdaline. (This was well before Da Vinci Code, Last Temptation of Christ and even Holy Blood/Holy Grail). So let's look at them one at a time and I will mention the specific Gospel verses which show Jesus breaking the given rule.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Jesus claimed that he was God as a man. But Jewish law (i.e. the Old Testament) said there was only one God, Yahweh; and Jesus was not claiming to be Yahweh, but rather another version or entity of him. See John 5:24-26
Jews at that time believed that there would be a messiah, but they did not believe it would be God Himself in human form, and they certainly did not believe in any such notion as a "trinity" They believed in One God, not Three Gods in One.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
Jesus did once stoop to write in the dirt, using symbols known to no one. If they were the "writing" of heavenly bodies, then that could be considered graven images, but since it also could have been doodles in the dirt, then it cannot be considered a violation. Jesus is free and clear on this commandment. Anyone else, however who has a picture of Jesus, or of angels, or devils, or fish or whales or sharks is currently breaking this commandment willfully. See: John 8:5-7

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
Jesus was crucified for blasphemy. I thought this would be completely self-evident. A man calling himself God is blasphemy. And Remember Jesus' last words upon the Cross:"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" See Matthew 27:46
Does that sound like a person talking to himself? At best, Christianity can claim this should be in the context of the "trinity" but no such concept was ever spelled out in the Old Testament. Only One God. So blasphemy it is.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
This is another one that I thought would be blatantly obvious. It is a story told in all three synoptic Gospels. See It here in Mark 2:23-28.
Note the implications of blasphemy here as well.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee
Again, this is another famous story out of the gospels mentioned in the synoptics. Jesus comes across his family; mother and brothers and sisters. He shuns them (rebukes is a better word) Telling your own mother to 'shove off' is anything but honoring her. See: Matthew 12:46-50
Also see this tale of Jesus rebuking his mother. It is the famous story of turning water into wine in John 2:1-4
Then check out his speech about family: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" See Luke 14:26
Does this sound at all like "honoring your mother and father"?

6. Thou shalt not kill
Another really obvious one here. Jesus died on the cross. He had the power to save himself. He chose to die instead. That is known as suicide. And suicide is killing. I leave it to you to find the appropriate references here.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
As I said before this is the only murky one here. There are a number of heretical sources which reference Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene, or just sleeping with her. But what I really find interesting are the not-so-veiled references to Jesus' homosexual activities. Only in the Gospel of John do you find references to a disciple, "the one whom Jesus loved". Now how creepy is that? You would think, that as his disciples, he loved them all. And furthermore, as a godhead, he would love all humanity -- equally. Yet there are these specific references to a specific person that he loved in a specific way. And that can only mean in a carnal sense -- sex. (Oh, and it was not Peter, either). See: John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2 -- this one is particularly creepy, John 21:7, and John 21:20

8. Thou shalt not steal
Jesus stole an ass. Stealing is stealing. Again this is another famous story. See: Matthew 21:1-3

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
Again, very well known. How many times in the gospels did Jesus refuse to tell the truth to the public, but said it in private to his disciples? He even went so far as to "shut up" some pesky demons who wanted to tell the truth to the people. Lying is lying no matter how its done. See for one example:
John 8:14 "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true"
and John 5:31 "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true"

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's
Clearly Jesus never coveted any material things (except possibly Mary Magdalene), but he did covet one thing and that is the one thing he knew he couldn't keep; his life. Jesus pleaded with his Father that the crucifixion would "pass him by." Now considering everything that was at stake, according to the gospels, that was probably the most selfish act ever in the entire bible. "He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me" Matthew 26:39
And, "Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”" Matthew 26:42
That is the biggie, but I can also present here as evidence the desire to steal that donkey that Jesus stole as coveting as well, but that really is not as grievous a sin as this one. Desiring another's donkey is nowhere near as selfish as desiring one's own life over that of all of humanity's souls. Now I understand that this also points out the absurd flaw inherent in this commandment; that desiring something is not really bad at all, especially if you don't follow through with that desire, but it is still listed as a sin against God greater than rape (which is not adultery) and abortion (which is not killing) or homosexuality or stem cell research. Oh, and what else is "coveting"? Today coveting is called "Keeping up with the Joneses". In other words, Capitalism. That is correct, The American Way, is anti-Tenth-Commandment.

Sometimes I really am saddened that I am so far ahead in biblical knowledge than those who profess to believe in the bible. I honestly thought all this was common knowledge..

Post Christmas mockery of Rapture Ready

I have written about RaptureReady.com before. ButI have to admit, that this particular article takes the cake. Britt Gillette writes how Jesus' birth was an actual fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. He gives 10 examples. The obvious problem is that they are either wrong flat out, or refer to something totally unrelated to Jesus. This is the classic example of midrash, the retelling of an old story to remake it into something new. Use an out-of-context Bible verse to make it mean something it has no possibility of meaning. And this is done by biblical literalists? Irony, it seems, has no limit.

This is the list of Ten prophecies:
1. The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.
2. The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah.
3. Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah.
4. The Messiah will be a descendant of David.
5. The Messiah will be born of a virgin.
6. Children will be killed in an effort to kill the Messiah.
7. The Messiah will be taken to Egypt.
8. The Messiah will be the Son of God.
9. The Messiah will be anointed by the Holy Spirit.
10. The Messiah will bring light to Galilee.

Just looking at this list, does anything jump out at you? Anything at all? If I only looked at this list, I would say that an ironclad picture of a very specific person was depicted. I mean, THE Son of God, will be born of a virgin, be the descendant of Judah and David (even though Judad is a place and David is a person) in Bethlehem, be honored by kings who travelled far, go to Egypt to escape the massacre of ALL male children, only to return and be consecrated by the holy spirit and be the light of Galilee. That certainly seems very specific, don't you think?

I would have to say that it only refers to exactly one person, and that person is described in the Gospels as Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus Christ.

Here is another narrative. What if I were a writer in the first century, trying to propagate my new religion. I had a wealth of knowledge and lore at my fingertips in the holy writings of the Hebrews, and I was myself a Hebrew fighting for the freedom of my own people. I could easily fabricate a hero that fit all that, and write about him in a manner that would inspire my fellow Hebrews.

So which is correct?

Well, so much has been written about these so-called prophesies, that it makes little sense to repeat it all here. Dan Barker has written about this is in concise way in his book "Losing Faith in Faith"

I have debated within my mind how best to show just how flawed this entire prophesy story really is. The truth is that the Bible itself proves this whole prophesy wrong, all ten points. But I ask you, I ask all believing Christians, just how many of these prophecies must be shown to be wrong, before the story of Jesus is demonstrated to be nothing more than a made-up retelling and recycling of old biblical passages? Britt seems to think that ten is enough to prove that the story of Jesus is real. So is refuting these ten enough?

I hope so:
1: Britt writes: "The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem". This seems like a clear enough prophesy. And clearly when you read the Gospels it is fulfilled. But look at Britt's citation. He uses the NLT (New Living Translation) a modern language translation (rather like the bible claiming Jesus actually said to his disciples, "hey, dudes, listen to your bra... I know what I'm talking about") Britt's quote:

“But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, are only a small village in Judah. Yet a
ruler of Israel will come from you, one whose origins are from the distant
past.” Micah 5:2 (NLT) [actual link to NLT added by me]

Here it is in the KJV:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting [Micah 5:2 KJV]

Notice the difference? We went from thousands of Judah in the KJV to a "small village" in the NLT. Now do you really think that there were thousands of small villages in Judah? Certainly thousands of people makes more sense. And Bethlehem Ephratah was a person in the Old Testament, not a place. He is listed in the Chronology of Kings even. So how does a person in the Old Testament become a town after the time of Jesus, and this be considered prophesy?

2: "“The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from his descendants, until the coming of the one to whom it belongs, the one whom all nations will obey.” Genesis 49:10 (NLT)" [Again I add the link to the NLT because Britt fails to do so]. So what about KJV?

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people [Gen 49:10 KJV]

Shiloh? Why is King James talking about a specific person, Shiloh, and not Jesus? Only by removing the specific reference to a very specific person, not Jesus, can this verse be made into a prophesy of Jesus. I guess here we have proof that lying for the benefit of Jesus is good and holy.

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? [Rom 3:7 KJV]

Paul says that lying for the sake of God is good. Here we see that ignoring that this was a specific passage written about a specific person, Shiloh, is twisted and recast as a prophesy of Jesus. Maybe Jesus' middle name didn't start with the initial 'H' and was actually 'Shiloh'.

3. Even Britt's quote for this shows him to be wrong:

“The western kings of Tarshish and the islands will bring him tribute. The
eastern kings of Sheba and Seba will bring him gifts.” Psalm 72:10-11 (NLT)
[again, I added the link]

Does the Gospel mention anyone from the west bringing gifts? No. Only from the east.
Wrong is wrong, and if the west did not bring gifts then it is wrong. I don't even need to show why the quote is skewed and how it talks of something specific other than the Son of God. And I don't need to show the KJV quote either. This one speaks for itself as to its flaw. (Post Script: see Matthew 2:1-2) If east and west actually means east, then anything can mean anything: atheist means God-worshipper and Christian means Satanist. Sorry but making this fit the story is simply a lie, plain and simple.

4: “He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!” Luke 1:32-33 (NLT) [Again I add the missing link...]

Who knew that Israel calls Jesus Christ the king of Israel? (oh, and here is KJV of that passage)

5. The Messiah will be born of a virgin.

“All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel – ‘God is with us.’” Isaiah 7:14 (NLT)

And KJV:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Unfortunately, this was fulfilled in Isaiah's time, by Isaiah himself. At least according to him.

6. Children will be killed in an effort to kill the Messiah.

“This is what the Lord says: ‘A cry of anguish is heard in Ramah – mourning and weeping unrestrained. Rachel weeps for her children, refusing to be comforted – for her children are dead.” Jeremiah 31:15 (NLT) [I added the link, surprised?]

This passage is a bit different. It clearly refers to something in its current time period. But more importantly, in the time of Jesus, nothing outside the Gospel is ever mentioned of any killing of Hebrew children, not in any historical source at all, be it Roman, Jewish, or Christian.

If even the early Christians ignore this as significant, then what value can it have as historical proof of prophecy? Especially given that the original Old Testament passage refers to a specific event that transpired.

7: “When Israel was a child, I loved him as a son, and I called my son out of Egypt.” Hosea 11:1 (NLT) [The obvious, I produced the link]

I guess the fact that this passage refers to Moses and the exodus means nothing. The fact that only Matthew mentions Jesus being in Egypt and all the other New Testament writers ignoring this seemingly important fact also means nothing. Funny how a reference to a specific thing can much later be picked up by a lone writer and reinterpreted to not be about what it was specifically written about, but actually be about something that no one else guessed it was about, and that makes it factual and real.

Amazing. Amazing how prophecy works. I guess Isaac Newton when he wrote about gravity, was actually prophesying about the current Iraq war. He was a great seer after all.

I don't even need to go to other translations to show how wrong this is.

8. The Messiah will be the Son of God.

The second psalm, recorded approximately 1,000 years before Jesus, prophesied that the Messiah would be the Son of God:
“The king proclaims the Lord’s decree: ‘The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son. Today, I have become your Father. Only ask, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your possession.” Psalm 2:7-8 (NLT) [surprise! I gave the link]

King James again makes it a bit clearer:

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Apparently, Jesus only became the inheritor at this point in time, and before this he wasnot in possession of all. But I guess then agian, it is entirely logical for a god to be all-powerful and the source of creation, but yet not actually possess that which he created. But as I am not a theologian, I guess that explains why I cannot understand how one can be perfect and all-powerful at the same time as not even possessing one's own creation.

9. The Messiah will be anointed by the Holy Spirit.

“And the Spirit of the Lord will rest on him – the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.” Isaiah 11:2 (NLT) [my link really]

Notice any changes?:

2And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; [KJV]

First I linked to the entire chapter of Isaiah. But more importantly notice how "spirit" is not capitalized? Isn't it odd that the third "person" of the Trinity is not even honored with having His (Its?) name capitalized? After all, the LORD is completely capitalized.

Secondly, the entire chapter speaks of something other than the life and times of Jesus. Since all those other things did not happen, then what can be said about this lone "prophecy" in verse 2? Not to mention that if I were one third of the Most Holy Trinity of The Godhead, the Holy Spirit, I would want at least the first letter of my name capitalized. Then again, the Holy Ghost was always the most unassuming member of the Trinity, not appearing in the story until the New Testament.

10. The Messiah will bring light to Galilee.

“Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will soon be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory. The people who walk in darkness will see a great light – a light that will shine on all who live in the land where death casts its shadow.” Isaiah 9:1-2 (NLT) [You guessed it]

This one is probably the most egregarious. The light of Galilee? What does Jesus himself say in the gospels?:

But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. [Mark 6:4 KJV]

Double negative aside, Jesus is saying that a prophet is shunned in his own countryside, Galilee. So what sense does it make to say that Jesus was the light of Galilee and was shunned by Galilee?

The two passages are congruent, they both speak of light. But they diverge critically. With Jesus, they see the light and reject it. But in Isaiah, they see the light and... multiply.

6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

7Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and
with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

I just wonder, is Israel a Christian Nation? If not, then Jesus is not promised ruler of Israel. But I suppose I am not looking at the bigger picture; that Jesus was not intended to be the ruler of Israel, but the ruler of the the world, and only in the sense that He was to be the Ruler of Christendom. I guess that puts me into the failed company of all the Old Testament Prophets who called for a new King of Israel.

No matter how you spin it. No matter what translation you claim. No matter how much you lie for Jesus. The truth always bears you out. And the truth is simple. There was nothing which prophesied Jesus before his time. Rewriting and midrash do not make a fictional story true after the fact.

Pat Robertson's 2008 Prophesies are out!

As we all know, Pat was completely and utterly wrong about his 2007 prophesies. There was no major terrorist attack within the United States. But did that stop him from predicting the future of 2008? Of course not! He just announced his new God-given predictions last Wednesday on the 700 Club. See the OneNewsNow article here.

Quick quiz for you. What has been making major economic news for the last few months? You got it, if you said the housing bubble bursting. It is causing big problems for not just the credit and financial markets, but also for many American's wallets as well. We are headed for some tough times economically in this country. Anyone who pays even the least bit of attention to financial issues knows this.

So what is Pat's biggest prediction for 2008? Ding! Financial crisis. I guess only God can tell Pat's Christians what everyone (including all other Christians) have known for months now.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says 2008 will be a year of violence worldwide and a recession in the United States, followed by a major stock-market crash by 2010.

So only by the divine secret sharing of info by God to Pat are we supposed to know that a recession is very possible? I again guess that the whole housing market gave no one any indicator at all? But then again, if you listen to, and believe George Bush, then maybe not. He thinks everything is hunky-dory.

The same goes for violence. Is there going to be more or less violence in 2008, and would either be considered, "a year of violence worldwide?" Just out of curiosity, what past years have not been considered "years of violence"??

Oh yeah, there were a number of peaceful years during the Clinton Presidency... So I guess that means peaceful years are bad things, and by this statement of prophecy, Pat is really saying things will be good for conservatives, and especially religious conservatives. Because we won't be living in as peaceful times as the Clinton years. As for the market crash? Well, just like last years catastrophic terrorist attack, it could happen (even though it didn't) , and it could be mild or avoided altogether (which no matter which way it goes, will be called a vindication for Pat -- Prayer via his peeps, I mean flock, and all that).

But I have to wonder.. If God and Pat has this yearly tete-a-tete, why talk about something that could happen in 2009 or 2010, if God is telling Pat 2008's predictions?

Robertson said, "We will see the presence of angels and we will see an intensification of miracles around the world."

That actually sounds like a more reasonable Godly prediction. Because it has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever, and cannot be ascertained one way or the other. Angels will be hanging around? Ok. How do we establish that? And why haven't they been hanging around before? Intensification of miracles? You mean like I put a dozen pairs of socks in the dryer, and when I put them away in the sock drawer, there were a dozen complete pairs.. Its a miracle! Just what is a miracle? A sick person getting better?? I'll tell you what a real miracle is: Tomorrow George Bush says he had an epiphany from God, and is pulling out the troops from Iraq immediately. That would indeed be a miracle.

But what does "intensification" of miracles really mean? The miracles become even more intense?? I put a dozen pairs of socks in the dryer, and I come away with two dozen pairs of socks? The sick person not only becomes healthy, but takes on super-human powers?? I gotta tell ya.. Within the realm of Christianity, words have no meaning and stupid has virtually no limit. (I say virtually no limit, because to have limitless stupidity, Christianity as a whole would have to possibly pull a Jim-Jones in entirity. And I just don't see that ever happening.)

Finally:

Last year, Robertson predicted that a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States. Noting that it hadn't come to pass, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."

Somehow? Somehow?? You mean Pat has no idea if people prayed enough, and even if they did it had the noticed effect?

So if I understand Pat correctly here, if enough people prayed that no one ever died or got sick, or that everyone who got sick was cured, then those things would come true? Because apparently if enough people pray that we will not be attacked, then we won't be; seems to work. I also presume that no actual Christians ever pray to be rich either, since not all Christians are rich. The cop out here is completely self-evident.

You know, the only thing that really saddens me about all this, is that there are still people out there who buy into Pat Robertson's line of nonsense. They are the ultra-gullible ones. Because I am certain --certain I tell you-- that there were absolutely no faithful Christians on the eve of hurricane Katrina praying that the storm would pass. And it didn't. And we had meteorological predictions that Katrina was coming too. But nothing in the way of the eve of the Great Terrorist Action of 2007 for faithful Christians to pray against... Pat Robertson, your god-buddy in the sky was playing with you.

Separation of Church and State

Ok, so I was bored, and looked this up on youtube. Here were two videos that I found (it was a part one and part two):





I am shocked. Really shocked. Apparently, being nonChristian means that one is not an American. Apparently, only by being Christian can one be honest and moral and a true American. Apparently, the first amendment was only meant to give equality among all Christians, but to place all non-Christians as not just second-tier citizens, but non-Americans because they are not Christians.

Well, I am not a vulgar person. But I have this to say: Fuck You. Fuck you for denying me my Americanism because I am not Christian.

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).

Year End Roundup

Well we once again dodged the Pat Robertson alarmist straight-from-God's-mouth prophesy for 2007. Who knew George Bush would turn out to be more powerful than God?

I wonder what his predictions for 2008 will be? I predict that Pat will predict a strong Republican victory in Novermber 2008. If things go as they should, reality should turn out to be the opposite of what Pat predicts.

So what about you? What do you predict for 2008? I suppose I don't really have any predictions, excepting stating the obvious: anti-science creationists will still try to destroy science and poison our children's minds against reality and fact; Christians will claim persecution any time some non-Christian demands equality; the religious right will still fight to protect life and simultaneously be pro-war and pro-death penalty. I could go on, but you get the idea.

The new year offers all of us new potential and promise. But at the same time, we all know that some things will never change. Bill O'Reilly will still bloviate that there is a war on Christmas, Ann Coulter will prove once again that stupidity has no limit, and conservative Christianity will still be threatened by the fact that that their virus of belief has not affected every single human on the planet.

But on the bright side, every day that we retain our freedom and improve upon the equality of opportunity for all is a day that we win.

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)..

Politics, Religion and Mitt Romney

By now I am sure you've read something about Mitt Romney's big speech on his religion, and religious views. There have been many commentaries on it; e.g. The Rude Pundit's take (warning, he uses profanity), and Kevin Drum's thoughts. Even David Brooks has something to say in his NYT column. Most of the discussion leans towards what Romney said versus what JFK said in his religion speech. Everyone, though, was bothered by the fact that Romney basically threw anyone who was nonreligious under the bus, saying:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom....Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
....Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
....Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. [Thanks to Kevin Drum for this quote]

And this Mitt Romney jewel:

It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Secularism can in no way be called a religion; it is exactly the freedom of religion. That is each and every individual is free to practice their own religion, but no governing body (be it the American government or the Vatican, or the U.N.) can force one set of religious beliefs onto an individual. How that can be considered in and of itself a religion is beyond me. But I have to give Mitt a pass here, he is not thinking on his own, he is parroting the false views and assertions of such Christian organizations as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and the American Family Association, and "traditional" religious establishments such as Coral Ridge Ministries.

So much has already been written about secularism, and how the conservative Christians use it as a dirty word that I really need not go into it here. Simply pointing out how absurd it is serves my purpose nicely. But it is important to point out because of what I do want to focus on in regards to Romney's speech; and that is the idea of freedom and religion being not just related, but intertwined: Without one you cannot have the other, says Romney.

I guess being the atheist, makes me the only one capable of actually reading and knowing the bible, as it is clear that being Christian, especially a conservative Christian prevents one from actually knowing anything about the bible. Unless, of course, it is reinterpreted (in a literal way naturally) by a minister and re-explained to the sheep, er.. flock, in mystical terms. "God is love", "For Jesus so loved the world..", "I am the light, the truth.." etc. All this love and hope and beauty explaining all the horror and blood and gore and murder found in the actual pages of the bible, once read for oneself. So let us look at Mitt Romney's ministerial sermon on religion and compare it to the bible.

Mitt claims religion and freedom are virtually synomynous. He says, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom....Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Let us see what the Bible has to say.

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 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, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. [2 Corinthians 10:4-6 NKJV]

Hmm.... That deos not sound too much like freedom to me. And how can one like Romney allow for the freedom of other religions or those of the nonreligious if he is duty-bound to bring into captivity his every thought to God? I mean isn't it the mission of Christians to go out and convert nations to Jesus??

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. [Mark 16:15-16 NKJV]

Does this sound like freedom to you? I cannot think of anything more antithical to freedom than making it your mission in life to convert those of other religions to yours.

But irony lives on, and the Christians out there who buy into this notion of freedom and religion being even compatible, let alone synomynous will read what Jesus and Paul say and still think that is freedom. Freedom to them is accepting God and capitulating to "His" every whim. They do it freely, and thus that is what freedom means. They do not see freedom to mean anything else. There is no freedom in being allowed to reject Christianity. And those that do are not free. I am not making this up. This is what they believe. Its root is found within the pages of the Bible. The only way to be free is to be a slave of God.

But it goes even further. Mitt claimed that, "Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people." He may be right about this, for it was Christians who fought against freeing the slaves, it was the same Christians who fought against civil rights and it was the Christians who now say that a woman no longer has the freedom to determine the status and condition of her own body, rather (conservative) Christianity has that right to her body. If it had not been for Christians wanting and fighting to prevent all those freedoms, then they would have never been earned, they simply would have existed. So in that sense, Mitt is correct, those freedoms would not have come into being, if it had not been for religion fighting against them.

But what really strikes me is that in spite of everything, Mitt is just flat out wrong. He seems to think that secularism is a new religion that is taking over America. But the reality is that it is Christianity that is the "new religion".. The natives to this land we all now live on are the keepers of the "old religion", theirs was one of nature and respect for nature. The European interlopers came over, killed them by the thousands, and forced Christianity upon them. Christianity is the only real new religion which is a pox upon society and humanity. (In this part of the world at least; I would claim the exact same for Islam in the middle east as well.)

But freedom (and liberty, for that matter) mean different things to Christians and the nonreligious. Just look at Jesus' words in the Gospel of John:

Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed [John 8:36 NKJV]

Here we have come full circle. Freedom is what you have in Jesus, and freedom is defined by Paul as bringing every thought into captivity for God. So I guess the apt analogy would be that animals caged in a zoo are actually free, but their brothers and sisters out in the wild are not free.

At least this is what Romney is selling you.

The War On Christmas and a Sudanese Teacher

You may wonder what the two have in common, but in reality it is very clear. Both exihibit an --unnatural-- sensitivity to things which may be perceived as insulting or attacking one's religion. In this country, Christians consider themselves to be persecuted (i.e. the equivalent of being thrown to the lions) if they are told 'Happy Holidays' instead of 'Merry Christmas', and then those very same Christians turn around and scoff at Muslims who take offense to naming a teddy bear 'Mohammad.' This AP story, already well known by now, gives the details..

Pictures of Jesus and Mary used in innappropriate ways is highly offensive to Christians, just as images and use of the name Mohammad is to Muslims. But the brain-damaging irony only comes into play when Christians call Muslims 'sensitive' for being offended when their religion is mocked. And yet Christians the country over, all get in a hissy fit if some 16 year old says happy holidays instead of merry Christmas, because as everyone knows, "Jesus is the reason for the Season.." I mean it certainly has nothing at all to do with the pagans who celebrated the winter solstice (shortest day of the year) as the turning point of winter towards the rebirth of spring. Nope, that certainly has nothing to do with it.

In this country, aside from the vaunted War On Christmas, Christians are year-'round peeved that they are not allowed to foist their peculiar beliefs upon all other Americans who are not Christian. 'Christian Nation' is their war call. But what happens when the topic turns to, say, Iran. There is no mutual respect for Iran being an 'Islamic Nation'. In its place you hear and read terms expressed by leading Christians such as 'Islamo-fascism' 'Islamic terrorists' and 'islamic extremism.' If Iranians treat Christians as second-class citizens, then that is bad, it is repression of other religions. But in America, it is perfectly acceptable to treat non-Christians as second-class citizens. Can you imagine James Dobson of Focus on the Family arguing that it is ok for atheists to place anti-Jesus displays next to nativity scenes in public areas? Neither can I.

I guess there is one true common link between all religions. Every religion's one true god is named hypocrisy.

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.

The War on Christmas Has Begun, This Time by An Irish Catholic

Sean Hannity, of Fox News Channel, has fired the first shot in the war against Christmas. If you read this Media Matters post about how he describes Halloween, it is equally as applicable to Christmas -- Children learning to be liberals by asking for free handouts. Who knew that an Irish Catholic conservative was really secretly a part of the "great atheist conspiracy" to destroy Christmas.....


Children asking Santa Claus for free toys that they didn't earn the money to buy. What could be more liberal than that? Free handouts from a magical man paid for by nothing more than blind faith that that magical man, God, errr... Santa Claus exists. Well, maybe I'm wrong after all. What could be more Christian than asking for free handouts from a God paid for by nothing more than blind faith in that God. That is most certainly more noble and worthy than asking for a free handout from a flesh and blood person, paid for by dressing up in a costume and having to walk from door to door.

Wait, what is the difference again??

The Genius of Talking Out One's Ass

Literally talking out one's ass requires a genius most of us mere mortals do not possess. That is controlling one's sphincter to "shape" the flow of air past the spincter into reconizable sounds, more commonly known as "words." Learning that talent can only be called genius. (Yet we see so many on the right who have perfected the art of talking out your ass, maybe the genius of it is today greatly diminished... If people like Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Townhall.com, The Corner, LGF, Powerline, etc. can do it, then it can't be all that intellectual.)

But there is one unique form of talking out your ass that dominates. I see that you're way ahead of me here; yes its Christianity. The concept of Christianity is based on the principle of talking out your ass. So here we move from the literal (which requires genius) to the metaphorical (which requires nothing more than the ability to string a couple of words together into some meaningless sentences).

So here's the meat; the reason for writing this post:

Over at RaptureReady, Jack Kelley has an article up which defies all logic, and, coincidentally steps into an area in which I have spent years studying: the logic and structure of the New Testament. (For the record, I am not one of the emailers he discusses.)

The general thrust of his post is that there appears to be a disconnect between the gospels of Paul and the Jerusalem Apostles. (I wrote my book on this very subject.) But what interests me about his article is not that we have different interpretations of the texts of the Bible, but that he fails to see the glaring disconnect in what he does write. I will not critique his entire article, for I have already done that in my book, as his arguments are nothing new. He even admits as much.

So let us examine two excerpts and consider what they really are saying in terms of the value of Christianity as a "path to heaven."

First:

Was the doctrine of Grace unknown in Old Testament times? Over 1000 years before Paul began preaching, King David had this to say after sinning with
Bathsheba.

Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm 51:1-2 & 16-17)

See how David makes no attempt to restore himself to righteousness through his own works. According to the Law both he and Bathsheba should have immediately been put to death. David humbled himself before God, confessed his sin, asked to be forgiven, and was. (2 Samuel 12:13)

So from this passage we see how Jack is arguing that a person can get into God's good graces by being repentent before God Almighty. Now if being forgiven by God is a good thing, and can be done by human piousness, then what does the Christian have to say about the status of David's eternal soul? Is David in heaven for being "right" with God?

I don't know. But let's see what Jack has to say about Jesus:

When the people asked Jesus, “What must we do to do the work that God requires?” they gave Him the clearest opportunity of His ministry to hand them a list. Here He was, a Jewish rabbi, standing in Israel speaking primarily to Jewish people who wanted to know what God required of them. He could have referred them to the 10 Commandments, or the Sermon on the Mount, or the 613 laws of the Torah. But how did He respond? “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.” (John 6:28-29)

Then He said that it was God's will that everyone who looked to the Son and believed in Him would have Eternal life. (John 6:40) Their salvation was based on their belief that He had come to save them, not on their behavior. Just like ours.

Much of His teaching from the Sermon on the Mount had been aimed at convincing them that they could never attain the necessary righteousness by keeping the Law. He even commanded them to “be perfect, just as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48) This can only be achieved when God's righteousness is imputed to us by faith. Those who advocate the different Gospel hypothesis would have us mix some combination of grace, faith, and works to arrive at the Jewish formula for perfection. But it can't be done. Grace is defined as an unmerited favor. As soon as you add work, it's no longer unmerited. The two don't mix.

He is correct, the two don't mix. How can one be a good person before Jesus by being repentent and getting into God's good graces (and therefore presumably getting into Heaven -- unless David is in Hell for being born before Jesus...) and then suddenly after Jesus, the only way into heaven is by believing that the man, Jesus, is God?

Given the two differing systems of entry into heaven (if I were a religious person), it certainly seems like the moral high road would be to be a good person, follow the rules and when they are broken, be repentant. The second almost seems like a cop-out in comparison: believe in the man-god and ignore the rules, yet still gain entry into heaven.

Of course, that isn't true either. Jesus and by extension, Christianity, still require a strict adherence to rules, only they seem to be new rules. Now the only things that Christians are concerned about is homosexuality, abortion, and the evils of science. So a gay believer in Jesus would still not gain entry into heaven, according to many Christians. Rules still matter.

This is the fatal flaw in Christian theology. Somehow, before Jesus, Jews were able to gain entry into heaven via their actions: repentence and good deeds aimed at the glory of God. But after Jesus, the rules changed. That was no longer enough; belief in Jesus as God was the primary (only) way to gain entry into heaven. The rules changed in mid-stream. And this rule change was due to a God-head who does not change, and whose rules are never changing (ala the whole silly concept of "traditional marriage.") But then, even Jesus has rules. Paul has even more rules.

Jack gives this simple statement regarding rules:

I can't tell you how many times folks who believe differently than I do have advised me to just read the Bible carefully and I'll embrace their position, but that's another story.

Sorry, Jack, but a careful reading of the bible is not necessary here. Only a casual reading will expose the reality of the bible. It may be another story from the one you present here. But it is the story. Either rules matter or they don't. If they matter, then anyone who follows them is good. If they don't then only in believing in Jesus matters. Considering the sheer animosity towards homosexuality of most fundamentalist Christians, I would have to say rules matter. If rules matter, then Jesus is not relevant.

...And Jack Kelley is talking out his ass.

Pity Us Poor Atheists.. So Says Baylor U. Prof

Brent Rasmussen over at Unscrewing the Inscrutable has a post up that I found interesting. Brent takes a look at this article written by Dr. Roger Olson for their University newspaper. His reaction is certainly worth reading. I thought I'd take a look at the original article written and make some additional comments based on a different approach.


Dr. Olsen opens his article with this:

I feel sorry for atheists. They are so much in the minority in American society and they are bound to feel some marginalization if not persecution.

Do not feel sorry for us. We have broken through all the silliness that is religion and found the actual source of happiness, living our lives in truth, rationality, and free from ancient superstitions created to explain the observable natural phenomena around them. As for the marginalization and persecution stuff, we are only marginalized by Christians and Muslims who want to force us into their religious views.


Persecution is a different matter. I seriously doubt that any of today's atheists have been burned at the stake or "thrown to the lions" There is no persecution of atheists. Persecution is uniquely religious, either Christians being persecuted, Jews being persecuted by Christians or Moslims persecuting other Moslims. Of course, there is also the persecution of Buddhists and Hindus as well. Atheists are typically not persecuted, we are converted..


The good doc then goes on to express this cesspool of untruth:

We have to recognize atheists' full freedom to believe God does not exist, but we don't have to embrace atheism as a social good. In fact, I would argue that atheism has no redeeming social value.

Atheism undermines values. How? Let's look at care for others. Yes, an individual atheist might care for other people. But when have you heard of an entire atheist organization serving the poor, the sick or the hungry?

So far, at least, atheists haven't demonstrated their concern for others in any organized way.

Just out of curiosity, who supported SCHIP and who blasted it out of the water? I believe liberals (which most atheists are considered) wanted, fought for, and supported providing health care for our children. It was the non-liberals who shot that program down. How's denying health care for children proof that Christians care for others? Atheist organizations provide all sorts of care for others. For example atheists are members of groups that feed the poor. Atheists are members of groups that attempt to stamp out war and genocide. Surely a living person is better than a dead one? But Dr. Olsen begs to differ.


Dr. Olsen clearly does not understand what atheism is. He seems to think it is a united front or collective beliefs and thus should as a front all support specific goals. This is entirely wrong. Atheism is the lack of beliefs in anything specific. (except that there is no God). Christopher Hitchens is the perfect example of this. His personal views are entirely the opposite of what many atheists believe. This is of course also true of Christianity, but that fact seems to have escaped Olsen entirely.


Dr. Olsen then goes on to answer his own question with something resembling the truth, but which he fails to grasp the importance of:

But more importantly, atheism undermines values such as care for others because it cannot explain why anyone should care for others. If there is no God or anything at all above nature, then nature is all there is. The law of nature is survival of the fittest. Why help the less fit survive unless there is a God who loves them because they are created in his image?

He answers with the correct answer, but does not understand its importance. Nature is "all there is." Nature is our guide. And "survival of the fittest" is one of (certainly not the primary one) the laws that guides biological nature. What he fails to see is that caring, or more precisely, the need to protect the group, is a very powerful survival tool. Imagine a bunch of individuals independantly protecting themselves from a pack of wild animals. They would get eaten one at a time because each, as an individual, is not strong or fast enough to defend themselves. But working together as a group, they can. This leads to many "higher functions": complex communication, the need to protect the community so that the community can protect you, and a rigid set of laws that provide fairness to all so that the community can function as both a group and a set of individuals. Nature provides for all of this, atheists accept that. Dr. Olsen cannot. He only thinks that can come about by some mythical sky god telling us what we can and cannot do. For the record, I cover all this in much more detail in a series of posts on morality here, here, and here.


He continues with some other comments:

And atheism has no answer to social Darwinism -- the idea that society should not help the weak because it's nature's way to weed out the less fit.

Helping the weak goes against nature and if nature is all there is, well, why should we fight it? A person might choose to, but not because of any transcendent, objective obligation (such as that all persons are created in God's image).

Obviously, that is a flawed statement. Helping the weak actually can provide many advantages. Once language has been developed, the weak (let's assume they're the elderly for example) can actually be a great source of knowledge in spite of the fact that they can do nothing physically to help their community. The elders are the sources of experience and wisdom. Thus, they may be weak, but they have great value. And the value has nothing to do with any transcendent god.

Next comes the whole argument about "meaning".. How can atheists have any meaning in life without a god? Dr. Olsen writes:

But most atheists demonstrate their basic trust in the meaningfulness of reality by being outraged at evil and injustice, thereby demonstrating that atheism cannot be lived out consistently.

What has consistency to do with anything? Christopher Hitchens proves that atheism is anything but consistent. He is all about killing people and torture just like all the Christians who support the war in Iraq and the the more esoteric war on terrorism (Islam). Atheists can be deceived into thinking that evil things are good just like the masses of fundamentalist Christians who support killing and torture. If Christians can think evil things are good as well as can atheists, then what point is Dr. Olsen really making here?? I think he can -- at best -- say that atheists are just as human and mistake-prone as Christians. But then again, where is the surprise there?

Finally, he writes:

Baylor and universities like it exist to promote objective values and meaningful existence.

For them atheism is not benign, but the enemy -- even if atheists themselves are not.

Finally, let me repeat that I have nothing against atheists as persons and neither does Baylor University.

But in my opinion, they are people of character and virtue in spite of their philosophy of life -- not because of it.

Again, why is it that only religions can have objective values? Isn't preservation of the species an objective value? Aren't happiness and progeny objective values?

I can only conclude that religious people like Dr. Olsen are people of character and (sometimes) virtue in spite of their religion, Christianity, not because of it. I guess we have something in common after all.

Some Final Thoughts on Noah's Ark

Much of the response to this post I made has been geared towards the most obvious defense.. "God did it". I have to say that that is the only possible explanation left for the "apparent" success of the original ark (as recorded in that history factbook we now call the bible) and the probable failure of any duplicated experiment.

I agree, that would be the only possible reason given by anyone who claims the bible is factually true and inerrant in God's Word. But my response would this:

Is "God did it" a scientific answer? I mean there are so many things we today do not understand in a scientific sense. Should we just ignore them and say instead God did it? Any garden variety creationist would necessarily have to say yes. Becuse if they didn't they would be admitting to a lacking in the answer, "God did it". Take medicine for instance. How many creationists would rather die from a disease and cling to "God did it" than accept that science which searches for connections could find a cure. The problem is simple. There can be no disconnect between the science that proves the absurdity of noah's ark and the science that develops new cures. Science works via one method. If that method fails to prove the possibility of Noah's ark, and the explanation given by AiG is "God did it" then it by default has to be incapable of curing disease, because once again the only true reason could possibly be "God did it."

So by invoking the excuse "God did it" when the Noah's ark experiment duplication fails, then there can be no way for any science at all to proceed because at any point Christians can claim God did it and if God did it, than who are we to alter God's will? Under the "God did it" explanation, all of science is effectively invalidated. Because nothing can be confirmed without proof that it wasn't the work of God and nothing can be invalidated for the same reason. Thus under the "God did it" explanation, no further science is possible, and all past science is invalidated.

By invoking the "God did it" excuse, any Christian immediately says nothing that humans can do is anymore effective because it can be overridden by God. Giving a cure to a disease to both an atheist and a Christian should only provide a cure to the Christian unless God wants the Christian to die and the atheist to live so that by living that atheist will give other Christians reasons to believe. IT IS the ultimate meaning for the old faith-canard "In God all things are possible."

But it completely invalidates all reason to live if we happen to be human and not God. For nothing we do matters anymore. If we cannot conduct science, then we cannot achieve anything that we have achieved, because science has touched all areas of human achievement.

If any Christian chooses to use the "God did it" argument, then they immediately reduce all human endeavor to useless and pointless tripe which could just as easily be replaced by sleeping on a couch all day, peeing on oneself, and dying of hunger for lack of getting up off the couch. For there can be no point to doing anything, if anything one does is utterly pointless in the face of well God does all.