The Hypatian Shore

Beer Review: New Glarus Apple Ale

2012-01-30T06:00:00.000-06:00

Fans of the almost ubiquitous Spotted Cow know New Glarus Brewery well. They make unique craft brews all the way up in New Glarus, Wisconsin, just west of Madison. I've been on their tour at least once.

This ale is described by New Glarus as:

Apple Ale sings with the fresh crisp taste of Wisconsin Apples. Our Brewmaster begins with a brown ale base employing Wisconsin farmed barley and a blend of apple varieties grown in Gays Mills. Our apple growing friends squeeze them especially for this brew. Expect this Ale to pour a beautiful copper color. The fresh bouquet of Apple will rise to meet you even before the glass touches your lips. So be sure to sip slowly and enjoy the fruits of a Wisconsin harvest.

My brother and his wife introduced me to this beer. I found it to be the best, and I mean the best cider-like beer I've ever tasted. The apple flavor is immediately present in this ale. It really has a fantastic, yet fruity bite.

If you give the beer 5 to 10 minutes to warm a bit, the apple flavor becomes more fruity -- leaves a really nice echo in your mouth.

This is by far the best apple flavored ale I ever had. Better than some ciders even.

New Glarus may never brew it again, so I'm glad I had a chance to savor it.

I'm an "Evil Little Thing" too

2012-01-26T14:39:00.001-06:00

I just bought my Evil Little Thing" t-shirt to support Jessica Ahlquist and help send her to college.

Be sure to get yours!

Dear lord...

2012-01-26T12:18:00.004-06:00

FUCKING STUPID!

When in doubt, mock the LLC wingnuts

2012-01-26T07:00:00.000-06:00

Digging around in my files, I found this entry from a few years ago. I wrote it for my brothers blog, Alien Relay 2.0, on Living Lake Country to mock the wingnuts who post there. I've not blogged at LLC for years (I was banned because I mocked their pet wingnut Jim Hayett) and yet, these wingnuts still hate me and drag my name up whenever they can. I don't post there any longer, not even on my brother's blog.

Anyway, this entry is still pretty funny to me.

No, its not that we love freedom -- you know -- the freedom to marry who you love no matter what the other person sex is. And the secret is not that we think you should be allowed to freely worship without state interference with the will of the state imposed on you. Those are no secrets. Everyone knows that we liberals proudly affirm human rights in all its splendid diversity. It is why we liberals are tarred with that awful "bleeding heart" so much.

Ho-hum.

We know that words like that are not substantive criticism, but annoying, irrelevant mud-slinging which obfuscates honest debate between honest partisans. You know, all that talk talk talk from the right-wing you hear in every local and national market that says with a straight-face that Obama is really a Muslim-socialist-negro, surrender-monkey, cross-dressing Nazi, who would very much like to kill poor granny since Obama was born in Russia anyway.

Those "facts" are as irrefutable as Iraq attacking us on 911!

Yeah, we know those words and thoughts like that is the refuge of a party who have thrown reason and honest debate to the roadside. Hey, its also no secret that we love humor and we appreciate comedy! We like to think right-wingers are trying to be funny and attempting to humor us. Thank you!

No, the real secret is that the liberal elite -- at least in the Lake Country -- is a secret "terrorist" organization bent on world dominion beginning with the destruction of conservative America. Our weapons are tools like reason and the Constitution. This organization is animated alone by MC Pickard.

The, "Obamanatii.”

Our puppets are legion.

Now that you, dear reader, have discovered the penultimate of all secrets! We are not making this up.

We, the Obamanatii, with our secret handshake proclaim our motto with pride "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet!"

Facebook graphic of the day

2012-01-25T15:47:00.001-06:00

Proving again, that most garden-variety Christians really do not read their bible and when they do, they rationalize around nasty parts because they are entirely more ethical than the god they purport to worship.

Again, what kind of God is this?

2012-01-24T12:04:00.000-06:00

Fred Phelps believes in a God who sends people to rape children as punishment for perceived sins against himself.

Republican Bob Marshall believes in a God who punishes mothers who have abortions by afflicting their subsequent children with disablities.

And now Republican wingnut presidential candidate extraordinaire Rick Santorum believes that rape that ends in pregnancy is a gift from the God he worships.

Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you. As you know, we have to, in lots of different aspects of our life. We have horrible things happen. I can’t think of anything more horrible. But, nevertheless, we have to make the best out of a bad situation.”

Let's see if I got this correctly. Forced pregnancy, by rape, is a gift from God? Santurom's god cannot figure any other way to give this gift, so he does so by allowing rape of women? That is a gift?

I suppose if Jesus' mother, Mary was raped by Santorum's god, he would approve too.

And Santurom and his ilk worship this God?

Unbelievable.

Beer Review: Furthermore / Knot Stock

2012-01-23T19:26:00.000-06:00

A new feature for the millions and millions of readers I have. Beer and wine reviews. Everyone knows heathens are lushes. And heck, this is a great way to document the beers and wines that I encounter and will be good future reference for me.

First up: Furthermore / Knot Stock "A most particular pale"

When I was at the grocery store crafting my own specialized six pack I grabbed this beer, not really reading the label very close. The label caught my eye, nicely designed, testifying to the power of good design.

After a few days sitting in my fridge I decided to try this ale. It is brewed by Furthermore at the Sand Creek Brewing Company in Black River Falls, WI. Apparently, they do not have their own brewery according to the website.

The product description:

Availability: Year-Round. ABV: 5.5%
Black, cracked, stuffed in a sack, boiled and cold-infused. The real treat of our A.P.A. is the tangle of flavors that fresh cracked pepper and Northern Brewer Hops create. At 65 IBUs (bitterness units) there's plenty of zing for the Hop Heads or Bitter Bettys, but not so much to overpower the tingle of the black pepper as it slowly kicks in. Likewise, the 15° Plato malt bill features a healthy dose of caramel malt meant to soften (but not stifle) the play of pepper and hops on the palate.

Very unusual.... but tasty!

It's definitely a pale ale, but the peppery overtone gives the brew a definite aftertaste. You don't really smack your lips or anything, but the aroma of that pepper ricochets around your mouth. I think this beer would be good with a hamburger or chili. You can definitely taste the cracked pepper.

I don't know if I would drink a whole six-pack, but a beer that I would most certainly enjoy from time to time. I don't normally drink pale ale in the winter (prefer it in the summer) but this ale complements cold weather.

I look forward in sampling other Furthermore brews in the future as they become available in my area.

Need Design? Redesigned Dispatches Header

2012-01-20T09:50:00.000-06:00

I had some free time on my hands at work the other day and being a long time reader of Ed Brayton's blog, Dispatches from the Cultures Wars, I thought I would design him a new header. Least I could do after the many years of reading there. Besides, PZ can't get all the love.

I spent about 15 minutes working on it:

(The image is of Giordano Bruno. Burned at the stake by the Catholic church because he bucked their dogma.)

Are you a liberal, human rights, or an atheist organization and you need design? Contact me. Perhaps we can work something out.

For some assignments, I can possibly work pro-bono, or for really cheap.

(You can review my design blog here.)

I also updated the "School of Athens"banner that had been Ed's standard for years a few days later and sent it to him.

And you tell me that God is pro-life and pro-family?

2012-01-19T11:20:00.002-06:00

This appears to be an older story (from February 2010), but it's been all over Facebook and on some blogs lately.

In Virginia, Republican (of course) State Delegate Bob Marshall stated at a press conference that women who have abortions are subsequently punished by god with disabled children.

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.

“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

Combine this with Fred Phleps (of the Westboro Baptist cult) who stated that the Sandusky/Penn State scandal is to "remind this nation that God Hates america and sends raping coaches as a curse for this nation's rebellion" because, apparently, they are "like all of the universities in doomed USA: full of proud, fornicating, brutish sinners, bowing down to college sports."

In both cases, God is punishing an offender by harming children either through sexual assault or by maiming.When a human maims a child, that offender is punished through the courts. Yett when God does it, its held as moral and righteous. The religious approve of this child abuse!

Think about what it says about the kind of god that these people think they worship? A god who punishes indirectly by punishing children directly? That is a monster and an abomination of a god. Only an evil demon would do that.

Yet they worship this god and hold that without a god like this humanity would fall into evil.

And you tell me that God is pro-life and pro-family?

Sure. Sure. Sure.

Recall Walker! Post-Haste!

2012-01-17T16:24:00.002-06:00

Since today is the day that the recall petitions have been submitted, I signed the petition with joy to recall Governer Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefish a few months ago.

I am publicly, on this blog, supporting the recall effort.

You can tell Walker is concerned as is his supporters about losing in a recall election. They've run advertising throughout the Milwaukee metro area and had rally's to support him without a candidate to run against.

I have no doubt that enough signatures have been collected to enact a recall election.

I just hope state Democrats have a candidate that runs a strong campaign. I like Tom Barrett a lot, however his campaign last election was pretty weak.

Behold the power of teh gay!

2012-01-10T10:21:00.000-06:00

The pope is up to his usual fear-mongering about gay marriage and gay families.

The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.

He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper "settings" and that "pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman."

"This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself," he said.

And where does the pope think gay people come from? They come from families.

Homosexuality has been around a lot longer than Christianity and so far, we've not gone extinct. In fact, we face extinction more from planet-killer asteroids, environmental degradation, or global pandemics, yet teh gay threatens humanity's future?

Does this bigot suppose that everyone on earth will suddenly go gay and stop having babies? What about childless hetero-sexual couples, do they, in this bigot's mind pose a threat to humanity too? (You bet not.)

You can now add human extinction to the list of magic powers that gays are supposed to possess.

Behold the power of teh gay!

(Source)

The Catholic Church knows how to pick them

2012-01-10T06:05:00.000-06:00

With God apparently on the Catholic Church's side in all things family, you think God would give them some inside knowledge. He doesn't.

God does care if Tebow got game!

2012-01-09T07:04:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, the Denver Broncos beat the Pittsburgh Stealers in the NFC wild-card game, 29-23. The Stealers didn't play all that well and the Broncos did, even though the Stealers came back to tie the game. Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow played exceptionally well, winning the game as he threw an 80-yard touchdown pass to Demaryius Thomas in the first play of overtime.

On Facebook I subscribe to Tebow's comments. Here's his latest one about the victory.

Pretty much as you would expect from someone who prays for victories and prays before interviews. He credits god for his win. Tebow must think that god takes a personal interest in his game, granting him victories.

And he is not alone. Check out some of these sample comments following Tebow's initial post.

See, have enough faith and God will grant you a win. Of course, any losses are your fault. Not God's.

God is using Tebow? To win games in the NFL apparently. Children starve and die, cancer ravages people's bodies, natural disasters destroy whole communities but for some reason, football is a priority.

And if Tebow was a murdering drug addict pedophile and a Christian, I suppose he wouldn't be a True Christian™. No, because he wins football games, he is a True Christian™.

And don't the other players deserve divine protection, or just Tebow because he is so in-your-face with his faith?

I'm willing to bet that the losing team has a majority of Christians filling their ranks. Why didn't their play (even though they lost) bring "glory to God." Nah, its because they lost. During the game, Stealers quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger gave praise to God while looking up pointing to the sky when he threw the tying touchdown in the forth quarter. Did God use Roethlisberger to his glory too? Or just Tebow? Does God use everybody like little programmable robots? Apparently so.

Tebow and his religious fans show amazing cognitive dissonance. On one hand they will cry "free-will" but condemn you to Hell if you reject their God while stating that God uses people for his will.

Teacher led prayer in public schools?

2012-01-05T12:16:00.000-06:00

Dear John,

As you know, We've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in our schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get the old devil-inspired ruling reversed.

Naturally, we were all excited by the school board action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.

After the first day of school, I asked him "How did the prayer time go?"

"Fine."

"Did many kids go out into the hallway?"

"Two".

"Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?"

"It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray."

"Oh? Like how?"

"She said, 'Hail Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'"

The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudiced against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy bein transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.

At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross- legged, closed his eyes, raised his hand palms up in the air and began to hum.

You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. 'I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable If you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices an older, more established religion."

That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school.

"I don't think you're going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer either, Dad."

"Out with it."

"She kept chanting Namu Amida Butsu..."

The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher who prays in Jesus' name!"

"What about Bertha Smith?"

"Excellent."

I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang.

"Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car.

"Okay."

"Okay what?"

"Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus' name, amen just like you."

I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place."

"She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy.

I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?"

"Lets see..." he mused for a moment. "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God."

We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said reaching for the door handle. Then paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"

"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18."

"Nephi what?"

"Nephi," he said. "It's in the Book of Mormon.

The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.

Best Wishes Always,

Dan

(From RM on Facebook)

Facebook graphic of the day

2011-12-31T11:15:00.002-06:00

Well said.

Facebook Graphic of the Day

2011-12-30T06:41:00.000-06:00

The atheist knows that they have nothing to fear from a Christian or a Muslim threat of hell for disbelief. However, if you believe that god sends disbelievers to hell, Christians are you sure you have picked the right religion? Muslims, are you sure you've picked the right religion?

What does God "hate" now?

2011-12-29T12:27:00.002-06:00

The loathsome Westboro Baptist Church plans to picket two college bowl games this year in their crusade to remind us how much their "God Hates America."

The first bowl game they plan on picketing is the TicketCity Bowl between Penn State and Houston University to "remind this nation that God Hates america and sends raping coaches as a curse for this nation's rebellion." The other one is the Cotton Bowl.

On their website, the Westboro Baptist Church states:

"Penn State is like all of the universities in doomed USA: full of proud, fornicating, brutish sinners, bowing down to college sports. That's why Jerry Sandusky had full reign to rape little boys, under the noses of the likes of your hero Joe Paterno and his bosses. Now, a little bit of truth has come out about the grotesque sin that goes on all over this nation under the heading of 'higher education,' & the lethargic, hypocritical media are lying in wait to see whether others at Penn State will be axed. Paterno should have told about Sandusky's filth; instead, he mercilessly covered it." But just as Paterno neglected his duty to cry out against great evil... "

So it seems that Phelps and his inbred clan of religious wingbats disaprove of the sexual molestation of minors.

But why the condemnation? Since the Westboro Baptist Church approves of God killing soldiers for perceived sins, shouldn't the Westboro Baptist Church also approve of the sexual molestation of minors for these same sins? Wouldn't this also be evidence, to them, that "God Hates America?" They implicitly think that Sandusky and his crimes are a punishment by God.

This means that the Westboro Baptist Church is actually condoning sexual molestation of minors when they state that the "truth has come out about the grotesque sin that goes on all over this nation under the heading of 'higher education.'" In other words, God is punishing America because God allowed the sexual molestation of children to show his displeasure of the United States.

That being the case, why doesn't the Westboro Baptist Church just come on and say they approve of sexual molestation of children? According to the WBC, God did send raping coaches as punishment and since they approve of God's hate of America for homosexuality, then why would they disprove of God sending raping coaches?

Facebook graphic of the day

2011-12-28T15:24:00.001-06:00

There are people out there who think that every animal that ever existed could have fit on one single boat... ridiculous!

Atheist's Hate God!

2011-12-28T08:19:00.000-06:00

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." – Stephen Roberts

GODS THAT CHRISTIANS DON'T BELIEVE IN:
Selene, Phoebe, Luna, Diana, Isis, Nanna, Mithras, Hubal, Gaea, Aglibo, Jarih, Kaskuh, Kusuh, Mah, Men, Nanna, Napir, Nikkal, Selardi, Sin, Ta'lab,Wadd, Abnoba, Aphroditus, Artemis, Ataegina, Bendis, Hecate, Ilazki, Kovatä, Kuu, Lair báln, Losna, Luna, Mani, Mano, Mēness, Myesyats, Phoebe, Rhea, Selene, Sirona,The Zorya, Chang'e or Heng O, Chup Kamui, Hằng Nga, Marishi-Ten, Tsukuyomi, Anumati, Chandra or Indu, Dewi Shri, Silewe Nazarate, Mayari, Avatea, Fati, Hina-Kega, Hina-Uri, Ina, Kidili, Lona, Mahina, Marama, Papare, Sina, Ul, Ngalindi, Almaqah, Arebati, Chons, Gleti, Hathor, Iah, Kalfu, Thoth,Yemaya, Ahau-Kin, Alignak, Ari, Awilix, Chia, Chie, Coniraya, Coyolxauhqui, Igaluk, Ixbalanque, Ixchel, Jaci, Ka-Ata-Killa, Mama Quilla, Menily, Metztli, Nantu, Pah, Tarqiup, Inua, Tecciztecatl, Yoołgai Asdzą́ą́, Moirae Atropos, Clotho, Lachesis, Ananke, Geras, Horae, Kairos, Khronos, Tyche, Moros, Parcae, Decima, Morta, Nona, Camenae, Antevorta/Porrima, Carmenta, Egeria, Postverta, Aeternitas, Anna Perenna, Caerus, Chronos, Fortuna, Vertumnus, Nortia, Tinia, Norns, Urðr,Verðandi, Skuld, Dagr, Skinfaxi, Nótt, Hrímfaxi, Sumarr, Vetr, Elli, Dalia, Laima, Lauma, Sudz, Ursitoare, Zurvan, Kan-Laon, Khonvoum,Wōden, Atlaua, Mixcoatl, Opochtli, Cernunnos, Nodens, Neith, Pakhet, Mielikki, Nyyrikki, Tapio, Aristaeus, Britomartis, Heracles Kynagidas, Lelantos, Orion, Zeus, Banka-Mundi, Rudra, Rundas, Arnakuagsak, Arnapkapfaaluk, Nerrivik, Nujalik, Pinga, Sedna, Tekkeitsertok, Odin, Asgard, Skaði, Devana, Ipabog, Podaga, Wendish, Bendis, Ogoun.

GODS THAT ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN:

Selene, Phoebe, Luna, Diana, Isis, Nanna, Mithras, Hubal, Gaea, Aglibo, Jarih, Kaskuh, Kusuh, Mah, Men, Nanna, Napir, Nikkal, Selardi, Sin, Ta'lab,Wadd, Abnoba, Aphroditus, Artemis, Ataegina, Bendis, Hecate, Ilazki, Kovatä, Kuu, Lair báln, Losna, Luna, Mani, Mano, Mēness, Myesyats, Phoebe, Rhea, Selene, Sirona,The Zorya, Chang'e or Heng O, Chup Kamui, Hằng Nga, Marishi-Ten, Tsukuyomi, Anumati, Chandra or Indu, Dewi Shri, Silewe Nazarate, Mayari, Avatea, Fati, Hina-Kega, Hina-Uri, Ina, Kidili, Lona, Mahina, Marama, Papare, Sina, Ul, Ngalindi, Almaqah, Arebati, Chons, Gleti, Hathor, Iah, Kalfu, Thoth,Yemaya, Ahau-Kin, Alignak, Ari, Awilix, Chia, Chie, Coniraya, Coyolxauhqui, Igaluk, Ixbalanque, Ixchel, Jaci, Ka-Ata-Killa, Mama Quilla, Menily, Metztli, Nantu, Pah, Tarqiup, Inua, Tecciztecatl, Yoołgai Asdzą́ą́, Moirae Atropos, Clotho, Lachesis, Ananke, Geras, Horae, Kairos, Khronos, Tyche, Moros, Parcae, Decima, Morta, Nona, Camenae, Antevorta/Porrima, Carmenta, Egeria, Postverta, Aeternitas, Anna Perenna, Caerus, Chronos, Fortuna, Vertumnus, Nortia, Tinia, Norns, Urðr,Verðandi, Skuld, Dagr, Skinfaxi, Nótt, Hrímfaxi, Sumarr, Vetr, Elli, Dalia, Laima, Lauma, Sudz, Ursitoare, Zurvan, Kan-Laon, Khonvoum,Wōden, Atlaua, Mixcoatl, Opochtli, Cernunnos, Nodens, Neith, Pakhet, Mielikki, Nyyrikki, Tapio, Aristaeus, Britomartis, Heracles Kynagidas, Lelantos, Orion, Zeus, Banka-Mundi, Rudra, Rundas, Arnakuagsak, Arnapkapfaaluk, Nerrivik, Nujalik, Pinga, Sedna, Tekkeitsertok, Odin, Asgard, Skaði, Devana, Ipabog, Podaga, Wendish, Bendis, Ogoun, Yahweh.

When a Christian states that an atheist "hates God" because they've reached the very end of their capability to argue against the atheist, I always laugh. Really? I hate something that doesn't exist? That's the best you can do? I just had a Christian on Facebook scream this at me (in caps of course) recently.

The first list above, is only a partial list of 182 gods that other people have worshiped at one time or another. Do you, as a Christian, hate them? I doubt it. Why would you spend the energy hating something that you believe that doesn't exist? As a Christian you wouldn't. You shrug them off.

The second list is a list of 183 gods that atheists don't believe in. Likewise, the atheist don't spend his or her energy in hating them either. (Unless, as a Christian, you do hate this list of 182 gods, which must mean that you acknowledge their existence -- because that's the inevitable application of your reasoning.)

Try another tactic please... and actually meet the criticisms of atheists head on, instead of resorting to hysterics.

You look silly otherwise.

Facebook picture of the day

2011-12-27T15:47:00.003-06:00

Pack it in you atheist bastards!

2011-12-25T09:42:00.001-06:00

Surely a devastating blow against atheism!

TIM TEBOW ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE:

P1: Tim Tebow wins football games

P2: Tim Tebow is a Christian
C: God Exists

More: Hundreds of Proofs of God’s Existence

Beware of glittery things, the Pope warns...

2011-12-25T06:31:00.003-06:00

This is a good one, coming from the man who for years hid pedophile priests from prosecution.

In his homily, he urged worshippers to "see through the superficial glitter of this season and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem".

For centuries, the Catholic church commercialized their religion. Ever been to a Cathedral? Lavish amounts of wealth have been spent in their creation, and all of them are monuments to excess. The Catholic church has holdings that numbers in the billions between property, art, and investments.

But forget all that for a moment ... just look how the man dresses.

Such lavish vestments and robes with all the trappings of some kind of supreme emperor you have my dear Pope. And the Pope worries about commercialization over the holiday? Please.

He fucking glitters. Perhaps we should do as the Pope says and ignore glittery things.

Another irony meter breaks.

Give me a break.

(Source)

On this day, the King of Kings is born

2011-12-25T06:09:00.001-06:00

Growing up Christian, I was told that on December 25th, Jesus was born and that he was the "King of Kings." Jesus, it was said, was a divine ruler who superseded the rule of any earthly king or elected official.

Millions of Christians worship Jesus as a King of Kings today. (I know it's in the Bible. So what.)

A king is not governed by the rule of law. A king governs through personal mandate. He is the law. The United States fought a war against this kind of monocracy at it's founding.

Even the President of the United States, Barack Obama, stated:

"And it was through that experience, working with pastors and laypeople, trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace him as my Lord and Savior."

Christians hope that when they die, they will go to heaven. Here, they will continue to exist under a divine dictator where His will shall be their own. (So much for free will.) Christians even state that while alive you can not be good without god (although millions of atheists are), and that goodness is grounded in a fixed point -- God. You can't have it both ways: you can't have free-will where you can choose between good and bad and a fixed point of mandated morality. They are mutually exclusive.

I find it deplorable that in the 21st century and in our largely democratic societies, with it's nearly inclusive governments (well in theory anyway), that we as a people should worship a "King of Kings."

Recently, the free world rejoiced in the deaths of Kim Jong and Kadafi. Since we find rule of dictators on Earth so deplorable, why would we welcome an absolute monarchy when we are dead?

Boggles me.

Facebook graphic of the day.

2011-12-23T12:08:00.001-06:00

I used to have a joke on my dating profile that "unlike some, I resurrected in only 2 days."

I love this song!

2011-12-23T08:28:00.000-06:00

NOFX nails Christianity here (especially the part about Jesus relating too other godmen), and I thought since the holidays are here it would be a great time to post this song.

I'll throw a pie in the face of piety
I'll torch a torah right off a bridge
I am a reverend of irreverence
I'm a shill for any sacrilege
I understand that faith in a deity
Helps the masses who are having hard times
But blasphemy like prostitution
Are clearly victimless crimes
Blasphemy, blasphe-you, Jesus Christ the blackest Jew
Blasphe-you, blasphemy, poisonous pedagogy
I'm an unbeliever, I'm a heretic
I'm gonna projectile puke off a pew
I'm a trouble making immature imp
I'm gonna turn your other cheek for you
I understand we all need something to believe in
I believe I'll never be given wings and
I'm sorry if it's up there cuz I didn't think
A song was gonna hurt it's feelings
Blasphemy, speaking deadpan
Apparently this god has got a master plan
Now they call foul, pure heresy
But ya gotta wonder, does he have a plan B?
Horus similar to Mithra, Attis analogous to Krishna
Jesus, different name same story
All based on ancient Egyptian allegory
My position hasn't been occulted
It can never be more overstated
My intelligence has been insulted
So my tongue lashes out in defense
Anything that is your holy or sacred
I'm gonna desecrate and use in jest
But you'll never hear a crack about Mohammed
Cuz I don't wanna get shot in the chest
Blasphemy, isn't this fun
Rob a rabbi, bugger a nun
Blasphemy, want some more?
Mother Mary, the virgin whore

I start my days listening to Coaster at work too.

We're both going to Hell. Guess Jesus didn't die for all sins.

2011-12-22T06:32:00.001-06:00

God's Prorities. (Facebook graphic of the day.)

2011-12-21T13:17:00.002-06:00

Makes me think of Bronco's QB Tim Tebow thanking God for each of his touchdowns.

Tebow's god has his priorities I suppose.

Atheists are "good for nothing." Bill Donohue reveals how he values Non-Christian life.

2011-12-09T08:29:00.001-06:00

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic Defense League, wants Catholics to Adopt an Atheist this holiday season. This CDL campaign is in reaction to American Atheists president, David Silverman's comment in the New York Times about the recent billboard campaign to encourage atheists to come out of the closet this holiday season. Silverman stated that "we want people to realize that there may be atheists in their family, even if those atheists don’t even know they are atheists."

The goal of Adopt an Atheist is to make atheists (apparently in the "closet" over their Christianity) understand that "they were Christian all along."

He states:

If we hurry, these closeted Christians can celebrate Christmas like the rest of us. As an added bonus, they will no longer be looked upon as people who “believe in nothing, stand for nothing and are good for nothing.”

It seems clear that Donohue regards atheists as worthless individuals,not on par with Christians like himself. Because of this, I thought I'd write Donohue a letter and make him aware of who else is "good for nothing" by his reasoning.

Dear Mr. Donohue,

You stated that atheists are "good for nothing" in your Adopt an Atheist campaign. (I'm assuming that quote is attributed to you.) I can only conclude that you think that only Christians are "good for something." According to you, Christians are the only people of any value, and the lives of people who are not theists, much less Christians, are worthless. If this is the case, then why even bother trying to convert atheists?

You know who else are atheists? Those fetuses you are pledged to protect. They do not have a belief in God, nor are they Christians. Children are atheists too, until they learn these beliefs. By your reasoning, children and fetuses are "good for nothing." Worthless.

Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how Christianity divides and devaluates people.

As an atheist, I believe that all people are of value and are worth something, whether they are Christian or not.

MC Pickard
The Hypatian Shore

I doubt I will get a response, but it had to be said.

UPDATE:

The Catholic League have removed their contact page because of the push-back from atheists they've received. Of course, the CDL left the most offending comment up that atheists are "good for nothing."

You know, I'm not offended at this campaign of theres, nor do I care if it's done to mock atheists. By all means go ahead. Who cares really? But to make a statement that some people are worthless just because they don't share your religion is dehumanizing. Then again, the CDL puts the defense of its religion above the human right of free speech in the attempt to silence its critics-- I shouldn't be surprised.

Greta has a great response to the "good for nothing" statement.

Jesus always provides! Really?

2011-12-06T12:55:00.001-06:00

I just had lunch today with a vendor that I have never met before. He's an older, elderly gent probably past his seventies. He was a nice grandfatherly man that we might do some business with, depending if he meets our budgets of course.

Just before we got down to eating, he asked if I wouldn't mind if he said grace. I was shocked actually that he asked, but said sure - go ahead - even though I knew I was going to be probably uncomfortable as he did. He bows his head, folds his hands, and thanks Jesus for the food that we are about to eat that God had provided. I stared at him while eating my fries as he prayed, curiously listening and watching.

He prayed out loud, completely obviously that I watched him as an anthropologist would study their subjects. I do wish I would have warned him what the NT says in Mat 6:6, (which Tebow ignores) but I never seem to think fast enough in these situations. I wonder what would have been his reaction? Would he have continued on, or would he have thought twice and not? I guess I'll never know now.

I kept thinking anyway, no Jesus isn''t going to pay for this lunch, you are.

I did cover the tip.

Who side is Jesus on?

2011-12-05T16:17:00.001-06:00

Christians are taught that Jesus came to earth as the only begotten son of God to die for humanity sins. This is what I was taught as a child at church and in Sunday school.

CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) states:

Jesus Saves

(Jesus saves from what and from who?)

Jesus is the most important figure in all of human history. He is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), physically risen from the dead, Lord (Luke 24:34; John 2:19-21) and Savior (Acts 5:30-32). He came to die for sinners (Rom. 5:8) to deliver people from the righteous wrath of God upon us. ... The gospel is that Jesus died for sinners on the cross, was buried, and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Seems pretty clear, Jesus died for the sinner.

So with the Jerry Sandusky sexual molestation case of 8 or 10 children for over a decade, what side do you think Jesus is on?

Is Jesus on the side of the children? What sin did they commit? None. Did Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit lift one finger to protect these children after ten years of abuse? What did these divine, all-powerful beings do to protect them? Nothing.

CARM points out:

Receive Christ (John 1:12) and the sacrifice he offered on the cross. Turn from your sins. Only He can wash you clean from your sins and only Jesus can deliver you from the future judgment of a holy and infinite God. Pray to Jesus. Seek Him. Ask Him to save you.

He will.

No, Jesus died for Jerry Sandusky sins, because Jesus is on the side of the sinner and not of the innocent.

Reaction to my letter

2011-12-03T07:51:00.001-06:00

I've mostly received generic auto-response messages from those vendors I contacted. In other words, thank you for your time, we probably really didn't read it, but thanks anyway.

However, Foot Locker actually took time to respond.

Dear MC,

Thank you for your email.

We appreciate your kind feedback!

Happy Holidays!

Sincerely,

Bryan S.

eCustomer Care

No "Merry Christmas" there.

Of course, I wouldn't be offended if Foot Locker had said "Merry Christmas."

I just object to the AFA in trying to control everyone by forcing them to say it.

Such jerks.

UPDATE (12/6/2011): Staples had this to say in an email.

Hi Matt, thank you for contacting Staples.

Staples respects all cultural and religious celebrations during the holiday season, includingChristmas. However, rather than singling out Christmas as our only focus, we prefer to wish ourcustomers peaceful and happy ?holidays? in honor and respect of all cultural and religiouscelebrations at this time of year.

We do certainly appreciate your feedback, and are glad you will continue to be a valued Staplescustomer.

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. I hope you will continue to look toStaples with confidence and satisfaction for all of your office supply needs.

If you would like to contact one of our representatives, please reply to this email or call us atthe number listed below.

Kim

Staples Customer Service Supervisor

Notice there is no Christmas censorship here, but a very practical approach to the holiday season that is inclusive and "in honor and respect of all cultural and religious celebrations at this time of year."

Bravo Staples!

The Sad State of Christianity

2011-12-02T08:59:00.001-06:00

You know that nest of homophobic bigots that are apparently so "pro-family" that if you have gay members of your family they just can't help to hate because their Christianity informs them too?

Yep, that's right the American Family Association is fighting the good fight to keep the christ in Christmas. This is of such utter importance to them that they have published a list online of companies who either say "Merry Christmas" enough, to those who are marginal, and those who don't.

If a company has items associated with Christmas, but did not use the word "Christmas," then the company is considered as censoring "Christmas."

Yeah, that's right. If you don't say Christmas enough you are censoring it. So this is what the descendents of Jesus' mission on earth has become? The AFA are a bunch of squabbling, petty-minded, busy-bodies who think they own the holiday. Does this really advance Christ's mission of saving people from sin? Really?

Guess what AFA? Those on your "naughty" list I will be explicitly supporting. Those that get your approval I will not support. In fact, I will write them and tell them how I strongly approve of Happy Holidays over Merry Christmas. If you want to make this a fight, then we will.

Dear _______,

You may know by now that the American Family Association disproves of you for not saying the highly divisive "Merry Christmas" over the inclusive "Happy Holidays."

I want you to know that I approve of your decision to do so. You obviously realize that this time is for everyone regardless of religious affiliation.

Because of this, I will be shopping at your stores this year when I purchase gifts for my friends, family, and co-workers.

Thank you very much!

Happy Holidays!

Even though we call it Christmas, this is still a time that people of other faiths, and not faith, celebrate. We live in a pluralistic society made of many people who are not Christian. Christians grafted their holiday onto pre-existing pagan celebrations anyway and if there really was a Jesus he would have been more likely have been birthed in spring and not in the middle of winter. There is no historical basis for Jesus' birth. Meaning: it's myth people!

The AFA is a joke and it clearly demonstrates the sad state of Christianity today.

UPDATE: I've sent emails to those companies listed as "naughty" on AFA's list and thanked them using the letter above. I'll keep you posted on any feedback from them.

Just how stupid is Satan anyway?

2011-12-01T13:01:00.001-06:00

Christians are taught that sometime in the future there will be an epic battle between the forces of good and evil. Jesus will return to earth to battle against Satan and finally defeat him, ushering in a new existence. This is taught right out of the last book of the bible, Revelation.

Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry at 2010 fundraiser for the Beltway 8 Crisis Pregnancy Center in Houston, Texas commented:

“Because we know how the Bible ends,” Perry continued, “we can rely on His strength to persevere and never, ever give up, in doing good.”

But have these Christians ever asked themselves just how stupid Satan is?

All that ole' Scratch has to do is read Revelation and change his plans accordingly. Really, if Satan doesn't want to be defeated, he just needs to do enough to avoid what is "prophesied" in Revelation. Or do nothing at all. If Satan does nothing at all, what's Jesus going to do? Throw the first punch?

Doesn't the whole book of Revelation tip God's hand anyway?

Can't Satan read?

How stupid.

If they "deserved to die" why not just send Jesus?

2011-11-30T11:43:00.001-06:00

PZ Myers had a recent confrontation with a creationist at the Creation Ministries of the Ozarks in early November of 2011 that he details on his blog.

He recounts this exchange:

I was dismayed at one bit of conversation with Dr Rod Butterworth, head of the place. He was trying to explain how the bloody god of the Old Testament really wasn’t such a bad fellow after all.

“You don’t understand: all those people he had to kill, were horrible people. They deserved to be killed!”
…

I pointed out that his god, according to his myth, exterminated the entire population of the planet, except for 8 people. Was he really arguing that all of those people, even the babies, were all so wretchedly evil that they deserved death?

He replied that yes, they did, because they refused to worship god, and god as their creator had every right to do with them as he will.

This had me thinking back to my confirmation.

My instructor was the pastor of the church and young earth creationist who taught us that the Grand Canyon was created by the flood and not through millenniums of geological processes. I was taught that God had to destroy the world by the flood because all those people on the earth at that time were wicked and had to be destroyed -- except for Noah and his family of course. I was also taught that Jesus came a few short millennium later to redeem the world through his sacrifice on the cross.

And then the thought occurred to me back then, why didn’t God just send Jesus instead destroying the world in the flood? If people needed a savior, wouldn’t this be the most appropriate time? Weren't these the most “wicked” people ever if anyone needed redeeming and saving it would have been them. No one would have been killed -- including babies and children. I mean, Jesus' sacrifice was suppose to be so significant that it could not have redeemed these antediluvian people? Christians believe that Jesus came to redeem humanity, you mean to tell me that Jesus only conditionally redeems? Apparently so, since Christians believe in the flood myth.

So I was taught that I should approve of God’s genocide and not question it.

Of course, it’s never taught to us that God committed genocide. It’s always taught that the creator of the universe, who engineered people, had no choice than to drown everyone in the world. His hands were tied and he had no other options. Except, he later came up with the Jesus option anyway.

Yet, this thought never seems to occur to believers of Genesis that God could have done something else other than genocide. They approve of God’s genocide and hold it up as righteous and inevitable, even though they believe that Jesus eventually came to redeem humanity’s sins at a later date anyway. And the God they worship is supposed to be all-knowing and has a plan for everything. So why not Jesus then, instead of a global genocidal flood? I can only conclude that God wanted genocide and to murder children and babies.

Since I had this thought many years ago in my confirmation class as child and with the other things that did not make sense to me in that class, I reasoned that Christianity is false and I did not want to be a Christian.

Lakeland Supply I-94 Religious Display

2011-11-08T14:22:00.002-06:00

You may have seen these signs on eastbound I-94 before. The owner of Lakeland Supply is an evangelical Christian who likes to proselytize to the passing commuter.

A few years ago, the Journal Sentinel even did a story on him.

I live now in Oconomowoc and have to commute to New Berlin everyday.

Well for the last few weeks he has posted a sign in another clueless attempt to demonstrate his faith. I thought I would write him a email expressing the ridiculousness of his latest attempt.

Here it is:

I am perplexed.

What do you hope to accomplish by posting the sign "Eternity. Smoking or Nonsmoking' off of eastbound I-94 in front of your building?

Is it your hope to convert non-Christians or to bolster the faith of those that already are? If you are attempting to either of these, you fail at the former and as for the later, so what?

Simply stated, you believe in a god that would torture unbelievers for eternity. This is the same god who you (probably) believe is omni-benevolent, that is, a being with an infinite capacity for goodness. The god you believe in can not be both infinitely merciful and punish infinitely, as both states are mutually exclusive. God is either omni-benevolent and a hell can not exist, or hell exists and god is not omni-benevolent. In fact, what you worship is an evil demon by your very own internal standards.

A message like that highlights your religion's inhumanity. It also demonstrates the basic barbarity of your religion that such a belief in a hell necessities.

A message like is nothing more than a stark threat, using fear as motivation. It also demonstrates the intellectual vacuity of your religion.

Since you subscribe to such a monstrous and inhumane doctrine as hell, I can only pity your basic lack of humanity. You apparently lack any form of human compassion.

Because of the twisted, backward reasoning which convinces you that such a message like is acceptable and even display-worthy, you are as evil as that god you worship.

You and your company I would never want to associate with.

I will await their reply and will post the results.

God Bless America

2011-11-07T15:18:00.002-06:00

Last week, Republicans voted to re-affirm the nation's highly divisive motto "In God We Trust," replacing the more inclusive e pluribus unum.

We as a nation love to sing and state "God Bless America" at our sporting events and from our politicians mouths.

When we do, we think that this act of quasi-religious devotion will ingratiate us to the Christian god even more.

And what has all this praise done for us? Has it been successful?

More than 49 million Americans — even more than thought — live in poverty, new measure finds

In September, the government reported that a record 46.6 million Americans were living in poverty. But a new report released Monday by the Census Bureau using a more sophisticated method to measure poverty rates has found that the true figure is even higher: 49.1 million, or 16 percent of all Americans.

Nearly 50 million Americans live in poverty. Is this evidence that God has blessed America? Or is this evidence that God does not bless America and that he is either incapable, or unwillingly, of providing for a country that earnestly believes that he protects them?

God sure has really blessed America! If this is his blessing, make him please stop.

It is almost like he doesn't exist to hear our country's fervent prayers.

Keep it up faithful! You are doing a wonderful job!

I just bet

2011-08-24T08:28:00.001-05:00

I have to wonder about yesterday's earthquake in the DC area and the east cost, will some idiotic right-wing evangelical like Pat Robertson proclaim that it was God striking at the heart of DC for Obama's "pro-homosexual" agenda.

I just bet its a matter of time before one such "steward of morality" will make such a claim.

Real idiots.

Why doesn't God build his own places of worship?

2011-08-13T14:20:00.002-05:00

I was raised to believe in the Christian god, first an Orthodox one, then a Lutheran one. I grew up going to church, weekly Sunday school, and prayers before bed and meals. I was a Christian, because I was taught to be one in childhood and I loved Jesus. But somewhere in my tweens, I began to wonder about God.

One of the things I wondered was why God didn't build his own churches? Why did people have to build churches and cathedrals if God was not only responsible for my life, the creation of humanity, and all the animals? Why didn't god build his own places of worship? It seemed like something he could do if he was a powerful as I was taught and had created all those things. Building a church would be such an easy thing to do.

It's still a question I muse on today.

Perhaps God doesn't build his own places of worship because if he did he would circumvent faith. But why faith, when faith is belief without evidence. Wouldn't knowledge be better? If God built his own churches, there would be no variety in the places of worship. There would be no temples of the Buddhist, no mosques of the Muslim, no shrines of the Hindu, and no Cathedrals of the Catholics to the mega-churches of the Protestant. I always wondered why God's places of worship weren't built consistently. I also wondered why God hadn't built a church in Eden if man was created to glorify God. Genesis mentions nothing approaching a temple or church.

I was told that God had created the universe and as a child I wondered why God did not build the most magical of places to worship in. But every church I attended was built out of brick and mortar, or wood. They were not built by a god, moreover they had the telltale signs that they were crafted by men. They were not so different from the house that I lived in.

Perhaps God doesn't build his own places of worship because the variety of religious experience and the variety of buildings pleases him? But this makes no sense if you factor in a Christian understanding of God who penalizes non-believers with Hell. Building his own structures would give the prospective believer knowledge of his existence in a real concrete way. Yet, this is something he does not do.

I thought as a child that god could construct a place of worship so out-of-this-world, so magical, that there would be no doubt as to who created it. This structure, built by god, would be beyond our imagination and human engineering. It could be a structure which defies engineering and physics. If god created his own places of worship then they would function as a perfect edifice attesting to his existence.

Eventually, I grew up and I later realized that god doesn't build his own places of worship was the same reason why god didn't author his own books by his own hand. It is because books like the Bible and the Koran, places like Mecca and the Vatican, are the inventions of man, and not of god.

Until the gods erect their own structures for worship, I can not believe in a god.

It's been over three years, and where are Jim Hayett's published results?

2011-08-02T09:22:00.009-05:00

Somewhere before 2008, Lake Country Living blogger Jim Hayett made the claim that he did a three-year study on the biases at the Journal Sentinel. He concluded that the JS was liberally biased.

When I prodded Hayett on his study, Hayett could not produce the data. I even chided Hayett to produce a napkin with hash marks -- even this he could not produce. Hayett also has a big problem with his study, if in fact, he ever did one. Hayett did not reproduce the methodology of the parent study he copied, but instead counted his own biases in the way he reads stories, not in the way stories are allegedly biased.

I've blogged about his credibility on this issue before, here and here.

It's been over three years since Hayett first made the claim. He has even stated that he has published the study but has never produce a link to that study. This is a lie. This is the same blogger who blogs day-in and day-out about perceived liberal lies for which he seemingly has no lack of keyboarding time to do.

So in the meantime, I await for Hayett to publish his study as the three year anniversary has long been eclipsed.

Should we update the Pledge?

2011-07-30T04:54:00.007-05:00

The Pledge of Allegiance is the most anti-American thing we Americans can do and I have already stated my opposition to the pledge here, here, here and here.

Basically, my argument is that compulsory patriotism is not patriotism. If people want to pledge something on their own because they feel the need, then so be it. But when you require that the pledge be recited through peer pressure, you've invalidated any sort of free exercise and freedom of conscious.

David Waters at the On Faith blog argues this compelling reason why the Pledge is wrong and should be updated.

Second, the greatest threat to American freedom is no longer godless communism but "godly" terrorism -- people who pledge their allegiance to God. Docherty noted that even Stalin's Soviet Union could claim to be "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Today, even a Taliban-led Afghanistan could claim to be "one nation, under God."

Both the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan have established the Koran as the basis for its laws, unlike the United States that has a prohibition against church and state conflation in the First Amendment and Article VI for religious oaths. Furthermore, the United States constitution does not establish the Bible as a basis for our laws.

And Waters is correct.

The United States should be a country that is exceptional in its church and state separation since we were the first country to be founded as such.

If we didn't want to be like the Communists in the 50's, then we shouldn't want to be like the highly divided countries of Afghanistan and Iraq (where religious and sectarian violence makes all the headlines) today.

The "Once Saved, Always Saved" Dilemma

2011-07-28T10:04:00.000-05:00

On August 4th, 2009, 48 year old George Sodini killed 4 people (as well as himself) in a Pittsburgh suburban health club -- targeting mostly women. Prior to the shooting, he stated on his blog (now since removed):

"Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them."

These are not the beliefs of a lone maniac, but are mainstream Christian beliefs. It is the salvation, of Jesus Christ, of course. Salvation, is described by this evangelical site as:

Jesus is the only one that has the perfect ransom and perfect gift to save us. There is no other way to salvation and redemption. Jesus’ redeeming act on the cross paid the ransom (price) for our sins. Jesus does not need to take on the punishment for our sin anymore. It is finished. He has paid the price once; He has paid the ransom for all on the cross.

Your garden-variety Christian is taught to believe that Jesus died on the cross as the price for human sins and this in turn was the redemption of humanity. Sodini may have been referring to the doctrine of "Eternal Security"which has its roots in Calvinism. Bible.org describes "Eternal Security" as:

While the believer may gain assurance of his salvation and know that he has been saved, the question may arise concerning the permanence of his salvation. Once genuinely saved by trusting in the merit of Christ’s death on the cross for sin, can the believer lose his salvation? Is there anything we can do to lose our salvation? The answer is NO! Why? Because Scripture clearly affirms the fact we are protected by the power of God through faith. Faith brings us into a grace relationship with God as a gift of God through the merit of His beloved Son. We are saved by His record, not ours.

It seems clear that one can never lose their salvation. (Even if they murder) John 3:16 is unequivocal. So if your George Sodini, you can kill people, yourself, and you still will be saved and go to Heaven. Likewise with Mehmet Ali Agca, who shot John Paul II in the eighties and converted to Christianity in 2010.

Accordingly, the saved can do anything and it doesn't matter if it is immoral or inhumane -- as long as they believe that Jesus died for their sins. With this kind of free-pass, Christians need not act morally.

And herein lies the dilemma.

If Jesus' did not die for all sins, then what did he die for? Jesus' death becomes a conditional act -- only saving some and not others, or dying for some sins and not others. If some sins are exempt from Jesus' death, then he certainly did not die for all of humanity. Jesus either died for humanity's sins or he didn't. And if Jesus only died for some sins and not others, what was the point? Jesus death on the cross was supposed to have paid this "ransom." Again, what's the point if Jesus only died for one set of sins and not all?

Also, there is also no need for Christians to do go deeds, because once you're saved, you're saved. And if good deeds are required, then Jesus' death becomes once again a conditional act. Why should it matter to god if my good deeds are done because I believe in Jesus or not? The only unforgivable sin is blaspheme against the holy spirit. Since the Bible makes this clear, then Jesus' death and his so-called redemption is a conditional exercise for which God died for himself. (Jesus is supposed to be God after all.) This being so, Jesus' death isn't redemptive.

Likewise with bad deeds. If Jesus did die for all sins, (even if we include blaspheme against the holy spirit) then what's to stop you from murdering like Sodini? What's to stop you from murdering scores and bombing buildings like Anders Behring Breivik? Jesus paid the "ransom" with his death and through the acceptance of people's sincere belief. Jesus' death on the cross gives people free reign to do whatever misdeeds they chose to do.

The doctrine of salvation becomes even more hopelessly incoherent when you stop to factor in the doctrine and belief in Hell. If Hell really exists to punish sinners and non-believers infinitely for finite crimes, then Jesus' death becomes once again conditional. He didn't die for all sins, in fact he didn't die for any. The injustice of infinite punishment invalidates any sort of "ransom" that Jesus was suppose to pay with his temporary "death."

So where does this leave the doctrine of salvation?

It leaves the doctrine hopelessly unintelligible and incoherent and no amount of twisting can harmonize the doctrine with reality.

Everlasting Life?

2011-07-26T02:52:00.009-05:00

One of the great assets that religion has is its promise of everlasting life after death. Whether it is an eternity in hell or heaven, reincarnation, our lives (for the price of belief and submission to a system of subsequent beliefs) can be continued after death.

Notice, however, that everlasting life is granted only after you are dead.

Religion does not give you everlasting life, immortality, when you are still living. Why? Because it can not deliver.

If religion really had the power to grant you immortality, then it would do so, magically, in this existence and not some other. If god really has the power to grant you everlasting life, then it is conceivable that he could do so in this life and in not some other as it shouldn't be beyond his power.

If religion really could deliver everlasting life while you are still alive there would be no sense of loss, no fear over dying, and no graveyards.

Religion only promises to deliver immortality after you are dead where no amount of scientific measurement can be done. No amount of metric gathering can be done. No amount of verification can be done to assure one that life does indeed continue after death. And no evidence can be collected to prove there really is everlasting life after death.

Religion only promises immortality after you are dead because it exploits our fears of extinguishment and gaps in our knowledge. It is a promise built on ignorance and fear.

The promise of everlasting life is an empty promise.

Divisible, Under God

2011-07-20T06:57:00.047-05:00

American Christians (usually of the right wing variety) love to cram the Pledge of Allegiance phrase, "Indivisible, Under God" down every American's throat.

But this is neither true, nor is it accurate.

How many different religions make the claim that they know the way to god?

How many different sects, and how many different denominations are there in one religion like Christianity? In Islam? In Judaism? In Hinduism? Not only do these religions make mutually exclusive claims about god, but they contradict themselves internally.

Christianity specifically divides people into "saved" and "not saved."

How much religious strife and war has the belief in god created? Terrorism? Or division among families and communities?

It should be the most obvious thing in the world, but humans are more divisible under god, than without.

We are all born atheist

2011-07-10T16:54:00.002-05:00

We are all born atheist. This is a fact. If it wasn't for our parents, society, and tradition making up the concept of god then we would have no beliefs in the gods. As I write this, my daughter is 9 months old and she has (probably) has no beliefs. She certainly doesn't believe in god because she has not been taught these beliefs nor has she the maturity to learn such beliefs. Theistic belief is usually a matter location. If you are born in the west, you are probably Christian. If you are born in the east, you are probably Hindu or Buddhist or Muslim -- depending on the country.

I was taught to believe in god. I was never given much of choice in the matter. Luckily, my skepticism took hold and I was able to unlearn these erroneous beliefs.

Here's to reason and skepticism for making me the secular humanist, strong atheist that I am today.

Creationists believe in incest

2011-07-04T06:32:00.005-05:00

Now I am willing to bet that pretty much all Christians will tell you that incest is morally wrong. Heck, if it wasn't for the righteous Lot (2 Peter 2:7-8) impregnating his daughters after the fall of Sodom and Gomorra the Bible would be pretty clear in its condemnation about incest. (Leviticus 18:6; 20:11; 20:12; 20:14.)

However, creationists literally believe that the first book of the Bible is a historical account and that the events described within actually happened. You know, God blew on some dust and made Adam the first human; took a rib from him and created the first woman as a companion; all people and all nations are descended from these two people. This means that creationists believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans and all of humanity is later descended from them. All people.

A leading creationist website, Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, in response to a question from an apparent child states:

Olivia, let’s look at what the Bible says to find an answer. Our verse says that God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. In other words, they were supposed to start a family in the Garden. But the Bible also indicates that they had to leave before they had any children.

You see, the Bible tells us that all men are born with the sin of Adam. If Adam and Eve had started their family in the Garden, their children would not have been born in sin or affected by Adam’s sin. So, I think they may have been in the Garden only a few days before they sinned and God made them leave.

When you believe the bible literally, then little questions like this become a big concern. It seems pretty clear that to AIG, Adam and Eve were the first parents, whether they had their children in "garden" or not. Notice how important it is to them that all children are impugned with original sin since Adam and Eve.

And then theres All About Creation.org, which asserts to us:

Adam and Eve were the first humans, according to the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religions, and all humans have descended from them.

There's no doubt there. All humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Not that they were some of the first people. No, they were the first people and all humans are descended from them. You. Me. Everybody. All 6 billion of us on this planet.

This is a big problem for creationists like Ken Ham that they don't like to think about or address. In the mp3 clip "Adam of Eve - Parents of All People," Ham talks around the issue of incest. Instead, he begs evolutionary biology in making the case for Adam and Eve as the parents of all people.

It should be blaring apparent that if Adam and Eve were the only two people who started the human race, then the only people that are left to breed with are sons and daughters since there would have been no other people around to breed with. This means that Adam must have had sex with his daughters, Eve must have sex with her sons, and that sons and daughters had sex with brothers and sisters to have had children to propagate the species. It's so painfully obvious that it doesn't take science to disprove this very notion, just applied reason.

And we know what interbreeding in families does to populations and persons, don't we?

Whether they admit it or not, creationists must believe in incest since they believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures and that all of humanity is descended from them.

This is why belief in the Genesis myth is ridiculous.

The "Gotcha" Moment

2011-07-02T03:33:00.006-05:00

A few years back, three older women came to my door to preach the gospel to me. I lived in a neighborhood of Milwaukee that had several churches just blocks away. One close-by church was Catholic and one was Lutheran, and there were several other Protestant denominations nearby too.

I went to the door and the oldest of the three ladies invited me to their church as she attempted to hand me something.

Not wanting to waste too much time with these people, who came uninvited to proselytize at my door, I said to them, "No thanks. You believe in talking snakes."

This screwed up the faces of two of the younger ladies who knew they weren't going to pull any bullshit on me, but the oldest one was undeterred. She quickly asked if I knew what ventriloquism was. Even she could sense the ridiculousness of her beliefs and she attempted to offer a naturalistic explanation of a "talking snake" to me standing at the door.

Likewise, undeterred, I said "You have no biblical justification for that." Dismissing her I said curtly "Thanks for stopping by" and closed the door on them. I wanted them to know that their invasion into my privacy was not welcomed and their superstition was unwelcomed too. What is it with some Christians who think that their proselytizing is welcome? They do this to me too on Facebook.

The Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the serpent is foundational to Christian beliefs because without original sin, there can be no doctrine of atonement and no need for Jesus Christ. Most Christians, especially if they are literalists, actually believe in a talking snake and magic fruit.

My gotcha moment exposed the ridiculousness of their religion and they knew it.

This incident occurred before Bill Maher's movie Religulous.

Right-wing Christians and their respect for life

2011-06-30T10:45:00.007-05:00

It's no surprise that the more right-wing, socially conservative you are, the more of a bigot you are. A recent poll shows that more evangelical the Christian, the less likely they are of accepting interracial marriage.

It should be no surprise when Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus, provides us with this view of gays.

We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…

So he thinks that gays are barbarians and need to be educated or even disciplined? Really? That what? That gay Americans are going to destroy American civilization, and that you can educate the gay away?

Social conservatives say they respect life and this is why they are against abortions for any circumstance (rape, incest), but when it is homosexual life they do nothing but demonize. Pat Robertson, almost on the same note, thinks God will destroy the United States because some states in the U.S. gives rights to its GLBT citizens.

Right-wing, social conservatives really have no respect for life. It is religion that informs their bigotry. The bible is rife with anti-gay stuff.

Rather they exhibit undying religious commitment which not only makes them bigots, but hypocrites -- placing religiously motived hate above people.

Has Bachmann really read the United States Constitution?

2011-06-28T18:50:00.001-05:00

Republican Tea Party (people who supposedly love and idolize the Constitution) candidate, Michele Bachmann, believes the founding fathers worked "tirelessly to end slavery."

Has she even read the Constitution? If she has, does she remember the Three-fifths compromise? (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3)

The Three-Fifths compromise was the deal that Northern and Southern states made where slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when assigning congressional representation.

I want to know how does she account for this fact? Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 does not give slaves freedom. Nor does it state that they have full equality to whites.

It does nothing like that.

In fact, it allowed slavery to continue by not explicitly banning it.

Gays in NY can marry!

2011-06-28T10:47:00.003-05:00

It's nice to see social-conservatives and bigots get defeated.

New York state is just the seventh state legalizing gay marriage. At least there are a few states in the union that believe in human rights, not like my state, Wisconsin, with its damnable constitutional amendment in 2006 to ban gay marriage and same-sex unions.

So congrats to the happy couples!

Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists

2011-06-25T11:24:00.000-05:00

Although the First Amendment does not enshrine the phrase "separation of church and state, the intent of the First Amendment is illustrated in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

I think it's good to remind us that there is indeed a separation between church and state from Jefferson own words and that as Jefferson expressed that religion is private matter for the believer.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

(Source)

Why do conservative Republicans demonize?

2011-06-23T16:28:00.017-05:00

It seems whenever a Republican speaks about their opposition to their worldview, they often characterize their opposition as the most repulsive to liberty. More often or not, they usually go to extremes in casting their opposition as something that is inimical to freedom, thereby hoping to cast their political worldview as the only viable option.

For instance, take Ann Coulter.

The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.

In defending McCarthyism, she characterizes liberals as nothing as worse than Nazis. (Never mind the fact that the conservative, Christian Hitler persecuted liberals.) And she isn't the only conservative that does this. Newt Gingrich frequently attacks Obama as liberal who is a threat to freedom, as well as the rest of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate field.

And these are only two of the more popular representatives in the national media. In the local smaller communities, we have conservatives republicans like Amy Hemmer and Jim Hayett.

Jim Hayett asks the question (in which he thinks he answers), "Are Liberals Supporting America?" in a blog post:

In these posts you will read direct and unarguable quotes from liberal democrats - many from our own democrat politicians - which are nothing but hate, and violent filled rhetoric that attacks the core and moral beliefs that this great country was founded on.

Notice it is the liberals who are attacking the core beliefs and the foundation of the country (by being liars of course), and it is Jim Hayett who is calling them out on it -- so he believes.

Amy Gieger Hemmer, in a blog post entitled "Governor Mark Sanford and liberal hypocrisy" explains the "liberal" to us.

The tolerant, compassionate liberals are neither tolerant or compassionate. They are not open-minded as they profess to be. Look at how the liberal Obama Administration is attempting to control everything. They want to control peoples lives. They want to tell you what kind of car to drive. They want to take over the banking industry. They want more of your money. They want to take over your health care - and in doing so, work to rid the world of those they see as unfit - those with birth defects, the sick, the elderly, the unborn. They want to tell you where you can and cannot light up a cigarette. They want to punish those who work hard to achieve their goals. They are the most judgemental when it comes to those who do not follow their liberal ideals - that anything goes. Nothing is wrong. Anything is OK. Except if it is a conservative belief. Or if a Republican violates moral values.

And conservatives frequently demonize liberals as socialist, or as communist. To the conservative, being secular is bad. Going for broke, Newt Gingrich frequently refers to Obama as a "secular European socialist." Also, whenever a republican gets the chance to associate a liberal as a terrorist, they take the time to do so.

So why do conservative Republicans demonize? I'll attempt an answer.

They demonize because they are projecting, as if they know and sense that their worldview has its inherent problems and they don't want you to notice. They demonize because their political worldview is weak and they know it. They demonize because they are ideologically bankrupt and have little to offer in the marketplace of ideas. They demonize because their mandatory religious devotion describes a good/evil dichotomy, and they naturally convince themselves, uncritically, that they are on the side of justice and liberty and that liberals are the representatives of evil.

They demonize because they hate. They simply hate. They hate liberals.

They merely hate, hate, hate, all out of love and worship for their political ideology. And in doing so, they place their idolized political beliefs over tolerance of others.

Sarah Palin gets it wrong again. (As do most social-conservatives.)

2011-06-23T09:03:00.011-05:00

Sarah Palin's flubs about history are well known. Her gaffe about Paul Revere is one of them, and her bus graphic, (on her much publicized bus tour) is just the latest example.

The graphic states that words from the pledge, "One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all," juxtaposed next to a picture of the Constitution.

Does she realize that the phrase, "Under god", is not featured in the Constitution but added to the pledge in 1954? Does she realize that compulsory religion and compulsory affirmations of a deity are expressly un-American? The nation that she envisions is a nation dominated by her god, divisible between her sect's understanding of a god not just among unbelievers, but believers as well.

This promotion of the phrase "Under god" by social conservatives, like Sarah Palin, belies the fascism they would exact on the American people if they had the chance. They honestly believe that we are a nation, a country, sanctioned by God. And not just any God of course, but their sectarian, special God. (And in Palin's case, her church has some very special things that their god demands of voters.) Being a Pentecostal, her sect has distinct practices that differentiate itself from other Protestant practices.

The country that right-wing, social-conservatives envision when they use the phrase "Under God" is a country where they think that their actions and politics are sanctioned by God. Again, not just any god, but their sectarian, special God. And liberal democrats are no different if they think that when they utter "Under God" is that it is their god that is represented.

Political power does not flow on the behest of a deity, but from the people. A god's will, and especially the god of the Bible, is often capricious and callous and not beholden to any standard human morality.

I live in a country that is "under law" and not "under god."

Rather, I affirm the rights of people -- not of suspect religious doctrine -- to govern ourselves by writing our own laws and electing our own representatives.

God does not appoint our leaders, nor does he write our laws.

President Obama Announces 10k Afghanistan Drawdown

2011-06-23T08:59:00.005-05:00

Big whoop.

Liberals are coming for your guns!

2011-06-21T15:45:00.002-05:00

I remember when Obama was elected, the local gun shops quickly sold through their supplies of guns and ammunition. It was feared that an Obama administration was coming for American's guns.

It's been three years into an Obama presidency and has he come for your guns yet?

I don't think so.

If you thought that Obama was coming for your guns you are sadly mistaken and have been suckered by the right into believing that your right to a gun was threatened.

I have to laugh at you.

"Defend Biblical Marriage"

2011-06-20T16:53:00.011-05:00

I was just browsing cable, and on CNN I saw someone who holding this sign, "Defend Biblical Marriage" during today's New York gay marriage vote.

And I thought, what a moron and had to laugh.

Defend biblical marriage? Ha Ha Ha Ha.

One doesn't have to go deep in the Bible to find examples of Biblical marriage that is decidedly not between one man and one woman. Right there in Genesis, we have marriages that are suspect. So what about the duo marriages of Lamech? (4:19) Is that Biblical? Or that of Abraham marrying his sister? (17:15-16 & 20:12) Is that Biblical? Or his multiple concubines of Abraham? (25:6) Is that Biblical? Or the triple marriages of Esau? (26:34) Is that Biblical? Or the two wives and two concubines of Jacob? Is that Biblical?

Are these the "Biblical Marriages" that our law-makers should protect? Well?

If you believe that legislatures should protect "biblical marriage," then you are an ignorant fool. If you believe that law-makers have a duty to protect "biblical marriage," then you're homophobic and uninformed as to what exactly is in your bible and probably listen way to much to your fundamentalist pastor.

Laws have no business defending Biblical values. (Such as they are.) Laws are made to protect citizens in a civil society. So much in the Bible is anti-societal. (Stoning of disobedient children -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21.) I need to just mention a few examples to debunk any idealization of the Bible as an edification of any so called "great family values."

Furthermore, marriage is a civil institution and marriage is sanctioned by local municipalities. Marriage licenses are not issued by churches. The church does not have the say in who you get to marry.

One of the top Google hits on marriage is on Bible.org. In the article on "Marriage, Abortion and Divorce" it asserts:

The third contributing factor to the growing consensus that marriage is fast becoming obsolete is an increase in homosexual and other unnatural relationships. These sordid and perverted practices are affecting the institution of marriage. Homosexuality is the collaboration of two persons of the same sex for the purpose of promoting sexual excitement and gratification. One unauthorized source has estimated that there are in excess of five million homosexuals in the United States. All three of the above mentioned factors are strictly forbidden and strongly condemned in Holy Scripture.

My marriage (a hetro-sexual marriage) is not diminished or harmed because a same-sex couple marries. In no way is marriage diminished by same-sex marriage. Marriage is in fact, enhanced by same-sex marriage. More marriage makes more marriage. Homosexual relationships are not unnatural, sordid or perverted either. They are just not heterosexual relationships. That's all. (Oh, and the Biblical punishment in this "Holy Scripture" is death by stoning. Again, the bible shows it is the unnatural one, unnatural to a civil society.)

If your only reason in prohibiting same-sex marriage is Biblical, then you know little of your bible and forget that your place is in a civil society that is founded on equality and democracy, not on Biblical law.

You live in democracy, not a theocracy.

"Secular European Socialist"

2011-06-17T07:57:00.010-05:00

Newt Gringrich uttered this phrase as a description of President Obama at last nights Southern Republican Leadership conference in New Orleans. It was meant as a derogatory statement for the head-wavers and amen-ers at the conference. Recall this is the same Newt who took two weeks of his presidential campaign to tour the Greek Islands.

But I quite like that description and it could apply to myself. I believe in a strong central government and one that provides a social safety-net for the people -- all under the will and supervision of the people.

Being secular is good. Being European isn't a bad thing. Europeans are largely democratic and fine people. Being a socialist isn't bad either. There are worse positions to take -- like being a communist, or radical Islamists, or a Christian fascist.

Of course, none of this is true of Obama.

He is not European. His story is exceptionally American.

He is not a socialist. He extended the Bush tax cuts.

He is not secular. Obama has participated in the (unconstitutional I might add) National Day of Prayer. He Publicly declares his Christian faith at every opportunity given. He has also continued Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives which groups who receive tax-payer money frequently discriminate against even their own co-religionists. I would prefer a "national Secular European Socialist" than a two-term fake Texas American president.

Only if he was.

All Newt is doing is playing that same old tired game that conservative Republicans like to play, and that is to demonize his opposition by degrading one's patriotism as the "other."

Newt has nothing else to criticize Obama on and has nothing left in his arsenal. He is totally bankrupt in his critique over the president and should be ignored as a left-over from the nineties.

The Gay Litmus Test

2011-06-14T20:23:00.005-05:00

Democrats and liberals must, from this time forward, weed out Democrats who are homophobic. If they oppose same-sex marriage or gay civil unions, they must be pushed away from the party.

Homophobes who are invariably (Conservative) Christian, by default belong to the Conservative-Christian, right-wing, Republican party. These people represent the lingering stain of bigotry.

Representatives like Senator Ruben Diaz are bigots, and there is no room for bigots in the Democratic party and among liberals.

This Man is a Bigot

2011-06-14T20:01:00.008-05:00

New York state Senator Ruben Diaz is a bigot. He opposes same-sex marriage in New York. He is a pentacostal minister who is also a Democrat.

His religion informs that same-sex marriage is a bane toward God and he must therefore legislate in this way. Make no mistake as he is a man who is proud to have administered the first "Pentecostal religious service ever held inside City Hall."

His opposition to same-sex marriage is the direct result of his religion. This is not minor behavior, but concrete evidence that Christianity drives one to take positions that promote in-equality.

Diaz should be recalled from his position as representative of the people as he only represents a narrow-minded, religious worldview that is now conflated with his responsibilities as state senator. Diaz should represent the people without the distractions of one's religious proclivities. And we are to respect this homophobia because it is predicated on his religion? No.

The man is a bigot and should be ever associated as a bigot.

Assholes

2011-06-14T18:31:00.009-05:00

I thought Republicans had turned the corner on playing the patriotism card. After reviewing last nights second Republican candidate debate, I can only conclude that they haven't. Bachmann, Romney, Cain, and Newt all had to play that card.

They really must hate America, since they continually hate Americans. And if its the President, they hate him all that much more.

Such a disappointment. But should I really have expect anything less?

There is no such thing as moderate Republican. They are all beholden to the religious-right and the conservative-right.

They speak for an Unitied States that doesn't represent me. As left-leaning liberal, an atheist, a freethinker, small-business owner, a husband and a father, these people on the right represent everything that is anathema to me.

Make no doubt, but these Americans would destroy me and my family if they had the chance.

And they would have you believe that they are the real Americans who are protecting the United States from people like me. They would have my head if they could legislate against it and have you praise their apparent patriotism for the oppression they would exact on Americans like me.

"Government Doesn't Create Jobs..."

2011-06-10T07:29:00.005-05:00

You know that every time an approach is offered by a conservative Republican on job creation they invariably state that "government doesn't create jobs."

They say this with a straight-face as they hold a job that is created by government. They would have us believe that the government can not create jobs while they collect tax payer dollars in the form of their salary.

Of course, government can create jobs. That over-bloated military that Republicans word-fuck at every opportunity is the single biggest employer.

And these naysayers are the front-line recipients of such job creation.

Newt Gingrich for President

2011-05-25T19:04:00.004-05:00

Tool.

Camping Doubles-Down

2011-05-25T17:52:00.002-05:00

That fraud Harold Camping is still calling for the end-of-the-world. Apparently, the judgement is just beginning and will culminate now on October 21st -- the new date of the Rapture.

Anyone want to bet that the suckers out there will take this new delusion from their leader?

Suckers.

Todays Rapture Fail

2011-05-21T12:48:00.002-05:00

Well, the the Rapture as predicted by Camping Ministries has come and passed.

Nothing happened.

No earthquake. No mass disappearances. Nothing. Just human credulity has once again reared its ugly head.

As I said before, I can't wait to hear the excuses why it didn't happen this time.

Why do Christians desire death and destruction so much? It because their religion is an ugly manifestation of religious devotion.

Well I am laughing today at the fools who believe this sort of stuff.

Fools!

Stop tax payer funded proselytizing!

2010-06-30T09:51:00.003-05:00

It's time for Obama to keep his promise and reverse the policy of tax payer funded proselytizing.

Can Sarah Palin lead the religious right?

2010-06-17T09:38:00.000-05:00

I've written before that Sarah Palin is a part of the "Christ-hating egalitarian agenda of the socialist elitists of this nation." Yep. Well, that's not my characterization, that's the religious right, Pastor Matt Trewhella for you.

Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches explains why this is so.

That's a major prediction, and not one that is suggested either by the past or the present. In some ways, the Christian right has always been a movement about women -- about what their role is in the family, in the church, and in the culture. That doesn't make it a women's movement, and that doesn't make Palin its leader. The movement's original sin, if you will, is that it is entirely predicated on the idea that America is a Christian nation and must be guided by biblical principles. And those biblical principles, as defined by the Christian right, preclude things like women's free agency -- choosing when and if to have children, choosing to enter ministry, choosing not to submit to her husband's spiritual authority, or choosing not to get married and have children at all.

The religious right will never concede that a women has her own right to her body and mind since they value women as nothing but breeders. As the Pastor describes, women's rights are "Christ-hating."

The religious right will always place women in subservient roles because it is religiously mandated.

Man tries to kill bin Laden

2010-06-15T09:17:00.001-05:00

I found this story rather amusing. An American, on mission to kill Osama bin Laden, was arrested in Pakistan.

When asked why he thought he had a chance of tracing bin Laden, Faulkner replied, "God is with me, and I am confident I will be successful in killing him," said Khan.

Wouldn't the Christian thing to do, is to convert Osama bin Laden to Christianity, instead of killing him?

You would think.

If God is really with him, shouldn't God just deliver Osama bin Laden to the United States?

A manhunt is unnecessary.

(Source)

The Taliban is brutal

2010-06-10T08:57:00.001-05:00

As the 9-year war in Afghanistan drags on, we are reminded about just how brutal the Taliban is.

On Wednesday, the Taliban hanged a 7-year-old boy in public in Helmand province, neighboring Kandahar, for alleged spying, a local official said. Also Wednesday, insurgents dragged a Kandahar provincial council member, Amir Mohammad Noorzai, from his house and fatally shot him, said local government spokesman Zalmai Ayoubi.

A7-year old? That is just breathtaking.

The Taliban are monsters and a threat to a liberal society.

(Source)

Reading the Bible: Genesis 3

2010-06-07T15:30:00.000-05:00

Fundamentalists take this chapter literally as it essential to the belief in original sin. They really believe in a talking snake and magic fruit on some magic trees. My mind bends at these suggestions.

Talking snakes. That's all I really have to say about his chapter, other than the contradiction of god making a personal appearance and also being a voice.

Talking snakes.

President Bush is a War Criminal

2010-06-04T13:57:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, former President Bush admitted to a war crime.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," the former president said during an appearance at the Economic Club of Grand Rapids, Michigan, according to the Grand Rapids Press.

This is in direct violation of UN Convention on Torture, Article 2.

Let's see if conservatives who are in a fury over Obama's non-paid job offer to Rep. Stestak, can find similar courage to call out Bush. I seriously doubt that they will.

(Source)

Reading the Bible: Genesis 2

2010-06-04T09:57:00.006-05:00

Genesis 2 almost reads like an entirely different creation story.

I find it funny that God needed a rest from all the work that he had done. He sounds like some kind of overworked farmer that can't wait for the weekend. He must have been so pooped from all his hard work!

And of course, this is the introduction of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. Fundamentalists really believe that such trees actually existed, and that such trees grow magic fruit.

God states:

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”

This is a newly created world, how is man to know about death? God is making a demand that has no context. And without knowledge of good and evil, how is one to know that disobedience is a bad thing?

I'll talk more about the ridiculousness of original sin in the next chapter.

The other highlight is that Eve is created from Adam's rib. Do I even have to comment on how unscientific that is?

One last observation.

At no time does God set out and create Hell. If, after all, this is supposed to be a literal record of creation, you think God would have set his sights on creating the damn place.

Reading the Bible: Genesis 1

2010-06-03T10:38:00.010-05:00

As a child, I was taught that the Genesis story was an accurate account of how the universe and life on earth became into being. It was unquestioned, even by me. And if I recall, it seemed to make sense. God created this. God created that. Everything had to come from somewhere, so placing God as the nexus seemed like a natural move. Let's see how my reading today holds up to these memories.

Some observations.

The real blaring inaccuracy I see is that God makes light before he makes the stars. Stars produce light. The moon (lesser light to govern the night) does not. There is no way he could have called the day and night without first establishing a light source. And that's a big problem with this story if it supposed to be read literally.

What's the "Spirit of God?" God has a spirit? I thought god was a spirit, that is, an immaterial ghost thingy. Does a spirit have a spirit? Doesn't make much sense to me.

Also, God seems a little smug and little too prideful in himself by showing satisfaction for every one of creations. I was taught that God was all powerful, so I don't understand why God must call everyone one of his moves "good."

Is it me, but does God seem overly Earth-centric -- what about the rest of the solar system, much less the universe? Did the god of this story create only one planet? Not all exo-planets, much less planets of the solar system behave like the Earth in its orbit around the sun.

I find it interesting that in Genesis 1:27 God created male and female. Like the rest of this chapter, God is said to have created kinds. There is nothing specific about creating one man and one woman, although it can be read that way. This is interesting, because if God created more than just one of each, you avoid any problems with incest in propagating the species later on.

The biggest problem with the story is how god became created. Does the spirit of god generate any radiation that may be measured? If not, then what can you reliably say about something that has no fingerprints which to be measured. God fails to give an accounting of himself.

All in all, I don't get the appeal of the story. It's entirely unscientific and inconsistent with itself.

Reading the Bible: Introduction

2010-06-02T09:50:00.015-05:00

To give me something to blog about, I've decided to read the Bible in its entirety. As of late, I seem to have plenty of time so I thought I give it a go.

As a child in Sunday School, I was instructed from teachers materials on the Bible and guided as to how to read the Bible. Instruction on the dogma of the church superseded any time actually spent reading the Bible. It wasn't until my confirmation classes, as an adolescent, that I spent any time actually reading the Bible. Because of confirmation, my brother and I both decided that becoming Christian held no future for us. We deconverted.

I haven't been a Christian for a very long time and I don't think reading the Bible now will change the fact that I'm an atheist. But since the Bible is a collection of books that has so much weight in this society, reading the Bible will be of great value. Most Christians don't read the volume, instead they learn about the Bible from secondary sources like I did in Sunday school. Reading the Bible will give me an advantage over proselytizing and garden-variety Christians. I've at least read the damn thing, have you?

I know there is debate on how to read the Bible. Every church instructs its faithful to read it in its own idiosyncratic way. This leads to the dilemma on how to read the Bible. I did a google on "how to read the bible" and 24,900,000 results were returned. One such return instructs how to read the Bible "theologically."

To read the Bible "theologically" means to read the Bible "with a focus on God": his being, his character, his words and works, his purpose, presence, power, promises, and precepts.

That's not much help.

First of all, how do you "focus on God?" The author promises that the Bible is to "be read as a God-given rule of belief and behavior—that is, of faith and life." This is all meaningless. At no time are my terms defined. What is a "God?" Without knowing what a "god" is how am I to know what is its "being" and "character" are? In order to do that, the answer is "belief." But without belief than I can not know the "being" and the "character." This is all highly tautological, circular, and does nothing to answer the question on how to read the Bible. This is why people are instructed as to what to believe about the Bible, as I was when I was just child.

Perhaps another how to will be helpful.

3. Approach the Bible with prayer and anticipation. "Expect God to speak through God's Word, if you are a believer," says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. "If you are a critic and a doubter, your reading of the Bible will be nothing more than an intellectual exercise. You will take nothing to the text and you will get nothing from the text!"

Again, I am faced with more circular reasoning, except this time the caveat of intellectualism is included. What it is with Christians and reason? You think a reasoned faith would be the most valued of faiths, but according to pastor above, critical analysis is to be shunned.

Since either of them is of no help, I can only resolve to read the Bible as myself. I carry no agenda other than reading the thing to kill a little time. I plan on reading the Bible as it is plainly presented to me, as if I was a believer that doesn't have any special knowledge of the volume's history and canonical past. (Which I do.) The only difference is I will not be a believer. If reading the Bible is supposed to be the way to god, the perhaps my perspective will change and I will be lead to faith. I am not reading the Bible to debunk it or to criticize it, but that doesn't mean that I won't in the process.

My plan is to read a chapter a day and write a review of what I observed, or learned, in the body of a blog post. I was raised on the King James, but I plan on reading the NIV. I'll be using Biblos.com. They feature a range of tools and other translations which should be helpful in my study.

So with that, I'll begin my reading of the Bible. That's not to say I'm looking forward to reading all of it. Some of the sections are incredibly tedious, but if it is in there I will be reading it.

If this offends you, you are missing the point.

2010-05-24T14:44:00.002-05:00

This made me laugh

2010-05-07T15:55:00.001-05:00

Obama hosts a meeting for magic invisible sky buddy at the Whitehouse

2010-04-06T12:36:00.001-05:00

As a secular American, an atheist, I find President Obama's catering to the religious offensive.

President Barack Obama will host an Easter prayer breakfast at the White House on Tuesday morning.

Christian leaders from across the country are to join the president at the breakfast for a time of prayer, reflection and celebration of Easter.

Obama plans to highlight the important role that Christian organizations play in serving the country.

What else to faith based people need from this country? They are allowed to practice their religion in tax free havens while simultaneously allowed the ear of government? Must the president pander to them as well? He is the host after all.

It seems to me that the religious have all the enfranchisement in this world because they have a magic, invisible sky buddy.

This is a custom that should stop.

The bible promises you stuff: God doesn't return phone calls.

2010-03-29T13:37:00.005-05:00

Prayer is an essential component to practicing ones faith and it is said that it is fundamental in establishing a "relationship" with God.

Evangelical leader, Billy Graham is asked the question: "When God doesn’t answer our prayers, is it because he’s testing our faith to see whether it’s genuine?" Graham answers: "When God doesn’t answer our prayers the way we want him to, our reaction often shows just how strong (or weak) our faith is."

But the questioner wasn't asking Graham why God doesn't answer prayers the way he wants him too, but why his prayers go answered. Graham is doing his best to explain away why God isn't answering the prayers. How does Graham's answer fare against the New Testament:

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive. - Matthew 21:22

That seems pretty definitive. Nowhere do the writers of Matt state that prayer is sometimes answered, or not answered just to test your faith. The bible is unequivocal. Whatever you ask, you shall receive.

However, Graham doesn't fully answer the question in his response. He supplies Hebrew 4:16, stating that prayer will help "find grace to help us in our time of need." And what if the prayer is done in a time of need? For instance, your mother is dying of a horrible cancer and you pray to God to ease the pain before she dies. You realize that asking for perfect health is too much of a request from God, so instead you ask for no pain during the dying process. Your mother dies painfully anyway after countless prayers.

In no way was your request made selfishly. Grahams assertion that "often what we think is best for us isn’t really best, and God says no to our prayer" doesn't answer why the prayer went unheeded. If the bible's word about prayer holds any validity, the core concept of this Christian practice is just bunkum.

As aside, Graham also informs the questioner that "Christ sits at the Father’s right hand in heaven."

This is a comical suggestion. Jesus is supposed to be God. We are to believe that he is simultaneously sitting at his own right hand? Absurd.

As absurd as the notion of Jesus sitting at his own right hand, so is prayer. Unanswered prayers, any unanswered prayer disproves the notion of God taking requests if the bible is too be trusted.

(Source)

The Vactican is a criminal organization

2010-03-25T14:43:00.000-05:00

What does it take for the Vatican to reprimand its priestly sex offenders into custody?

The Vatican on Thursday strongly defended its decision not to defrock an American priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys in Wisconsin and denounced what it called a campaign to smear Pope Benedict XVI and his aides.

200 accusations not enough? What about 300? Perhaps 1,000?

Is there any doubt that the Catholic church has become a criminal organization?

Is there?

(Source)

Women. Just shut up already.

2010-03-24T12:50:00.001-05:00

The religious practices of one Baraboo,Wisconsin church do not allow women members to vote and in the case of a meeting to determine the fate of its school principal, to not speak as well.

Women were not allowed to speak or vote Sunday as men from a Baraboo church voted to fire the principal of the church's elementary and middle school.

Apparently, the principal had been spreading a document that challenged men's alleged authority over women, and from what I can only guess that lead to his firing. And it seems, that when the beliefs were questioned by the principal, he was fired because it went against doctrine.

Details of the principal's alleged wrongdoings are murky, and church leaders have been unwilling to be interviewed. In a letter to school parents announcing his suspension, church pastors said Hartwig had promoted materials that questioned the church's teachings and had engaged in conduct "unbecoming a called worker."

What else does it take to show that fundamentalists don't value democracy and the women that fill their corridors? Just shut up already and be a second-class citizens.

How can any woman subject themselves to this sort of debasement is beyond me.

Rank sexism.

(Source)

Teh Stoopid. Things that Christains believe.

2010-03-19T10:22:00.004-05:00

These comments are from a Christian that pretty much stand on their own.

"I believe that all dinosaurs were born of Satanic angel who has sex with woman and the animal kingdom that created ungodly reptilian creatures none of these were on the Ark," Johnson said.

Johnson also said that he didn't believe in homosexuality and "that they should be put to death," according to his statement. But he said his beliefs don't lead him to treat gays differently.

This is from an ex-prison guard who was fired over these comments for being overly aggressive.

So homosexuals are to be put to death and dinosaurs were the spawn of Satan? Comments that dumb stand on their own without any ridicule from me.

Teh Stoopid. It burns.

(Source)

God Heals?

2010-03-16T16:00:00.000-05:00

Conservatives and their republican allies are a sorry lot.

The back-and-forth came as a couple hundred tea party activists descended on Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and voice opposition to the legislation. Protesters carried signs that read, "God heals, Obamacare steals," at a rally with Republican lawmakers.

God heals? Let me guess this is from the same buffons who probably think that Earth's climate (that's climate not weather) can't be ruined by humans because the end of the earth is in God's loving hands.

Asshats.

(Source)

God must mean nothing at all. God in the Pledge.

2010-03-12T10:38:00.002-06:00

I have previously written my views against the pledge stating that compulsory patriotism is not patriotism. Furthermore, I also object to the phrase "Under God" in the pledge. I am not a theist. Reciting that phrase is tantamount to endorsing a religious concept with which I disagree.

We are a nation under law, not a nation under god.

"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday.

Judge Bea is stating that the nation was founded under God. This is a curious history, as the phrase "Under God" wasn't graphed into the pledge until 1954 and was done so to distinguish ourselves from the atheistic state of Russian communism.

All this bluster from the courts that the phrases "under God" and "In God we trust" is "ceremonial and patriotic" is just bunkum.

The 9th District court is lying to you. God is a religious concept. Arguing that the recital of it is something that which is not, robs the meaning of such word, which the 9th District has done. And in by doing so they are forcing anyone who recites the pledge to endorse a religious concept.

This is one reason why I will not recite the pledge.

(Source)

Absolutely annoying: Obama's spiritual cabinet.

2010-03-11T10:26:00.001-06:00

In the United States, politicians must pander to the religious proclivities of Americans in order to reassure them of their leadership abilities.

"He certainly does not ask us how we would run the country and what issue to pursue or not pursue," said Bishop Charles Blake of the Los Angeles-based Church of God in Christ, who was on the call.

For 10 minutes, the president and the pastors prayed for peace, an economic recovery, protection for U.S. soldiers, and for Obama to be guided by a wisdom and power beyond himself.

It is gratingly annoying that politicians can not be freed from the overt influence of religion into matters of state, even if those instances are not directly gerrymandering into the functioning of the state.

President Obama has a number of ministers and other religious leaders which he relies on as quasi-members of his "cabinet" according to Washington Post. This is to give him the veneer of religiosity that Americans so require.

Before stepping into politics, DuBois, 27, was a pastor at small Pentecostal church in Massachusetts, and his approach to the president bears traces of his former calling. DuBois sends daily devotionals to Obama's Blackberry--often a Bible verse or an excerpt from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, or a snippet from the works of theologians Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr, particular favorites of the president.

The very notion that Obama has a cabinet member, in this case Joshua DuBois -- director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives send him daily Bible verses is nauseating enough. When you take into consideration that this activity is during taxpayer time, DuBois is very clearly violating the Establishment Clause by sending these daily devotionals of a decidedly sectarian nature.

And if Dubois and the President are not offending the Establishment Clause, then they are sure wasting time on religious nonsense. The President holds the office of president not as a pope or theologian, but as the executive of the state.

He can play theologian on his own time.

(Source)

Peace in the Middle East? I don't think so.

2010-02-24T10:25:00.000-06:00

Religion is said to be the arbiter of many good things. Charity, kindness, are some of the benefits that religion is supposed to provide.

But religion also divides. According to Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a Hamas founder who was revealed to be an Israeli agent had this to say about Hamas.

"Hamas cannot make peace with the Israelis. That is against what their God tells them. It is impossible to make peace with infidels," he told Haaretz.

Mideast peace is not likely in the short term while religious differences cut through practical imperatives like coexisting with your neighbors.

(Source)

Religious stupidity. Exorcisms.

2010-02-22T15:46:00.004-06:00

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time.

Congress participants argued that demonology lessons should be treated more seriously in seminaries and that ordinary people, too, would benefit from knowing more about exorcisms. During the congress, the priests discussed the main causes of possession by demons such as occult, esoteric beliefs like magic, eastern meditation and homeopathy.

Polish exorcists are having a conference apparently to dish out their nonsense. Notice on the list of things to be exorcised are things like "magic." Also notice how other forms of magical belief bump up against this belief in exorcisms.

How is an exorcism performed, anyway?

By magic, of course.

“Our role is mainly to say prayers and psalms,” Father Andrzej Grefkowicz told the press conference.

Its like the pot calling the kettle black.

They are seemingly unaware that the very same thing they object to, is the very same thing they are practicing -- magic.

(Source)

Tim Pawlenty is a douche bag

2010-02-19T13:58:00.001-06:00

Tim Pawlenty is a douche bag for good two reasons. Addressing CPAC, Pawlenty shows us his ignorance.

"God is in charge," he said. "If it's good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for each and every one of us."

God is in charge? Right. Then I 'd like to know what all this business of electing leaders we go through every year? What about the election that put Pawlently in office? The clueless douche doesn't seem to realize that once you inculcate god into government you have precluded democracy and have entered into a theocracy. Pawlenty seems unaware of the First Amendment as well as Article VI, plus a long history of Supreme Court decisions separating church from state.

But that's not enough, he has the temerity to state that republicans are the party that are "on the side of the rule of law."

This is after, he criticized the Obama administration for reading of Miranda rights to alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. People have rights, no matter what acts they commit, otherwise we would simply cease to be a democracy and be a police state instead.

Right. This is from the party with a prior administration that outed an uncover CIA agent and instituted tortures like waterboarding.

Republicans, by and large, do not side on the rule of law, rather, they side on -- if Bush did it, it must be okay.

Small minded hypocrisy from a douche bag.

(Source)

When dancing becomes a sin!

2010-02-11T08:40:00.001-06:00

Apparently, touching women while dancing is sinful behavior.

A Baraboo man is accused of repeatedly shocking a male dance instructor with a stun gun, claiming the instructor was a "sinner" who "defiles married women."

Get this, the offender, Kevin Johnson, arranged a dance lesson at the instructors home where he shot him in the neck.

A Dane County prosecutor says 59-year-old Kevin Johnson of Baraboo hastily arranged a dance lesson at the instructor's Madison home and showed up with a stun gun and sledgehammer last Friday.

Why?

A criminal complaint says Johnson told a detective that his church does not condone touching while dancing and that he was going to scare the instructor "and tell him to leave the women alone."

It's a safe bet that Johnson's church is a fundamentalist church, although the story doesn't give that detail. It's also safe to bet that Johnson learned this concept in church, preached down to him like it was god's own very word.

Fundamentalists have this preoccupation with sex, as if they are transfixed on that issue alone. From homosexual rights to the right of abortion, fundamentalists have appointed themselves the guardians of your chastity, nosing themselves into your bedroom.

(Source)

Roaming thugs of Banda Aceh

2010-02-04T08:31:00.005-06:00

Since the 2004 tsunami, Sharia law has been enforced in Indonesia by uniformed policemen specialists. Infractions of Sharia law require being canned at least 7 times. What are some of the offenses?

But the party does not last long. The Sharia police are here - and they zero in on their first target. A young boy and girl, sitting too close to one another in the dark.

It is for offenses like this in which warnings are given by these policemen. Apparently, Sharia law must be obeyed because this apparently makes the "Acehnese care about their religion." As if you can actually make someone care. What a backward system this is.

Roaming thugs who tell you how to conduct your social interactions.

It all boils down to a preoccupation with sex.

(Source)

Nothing fails like faith healing

2010-02-03T09:44:00.002-06:00

Nothing fails like prayer, and sometimes there are dire consequences when it does.

An Oregon couple who practice faith healing testified they did everything they could for their 16-year-old son before he died, but a jury decided it was not enough, especially just months after the death of their granddaughter.

Jeff and Marci Beagley were convicted of criminally negligent homicide on Tuesday after prosecutors argued they failed in their duty to get medical help for their son, Neil, in June 2008.

The teenager died of complications from a congenital urinary tract blockage that doctors testified could have been treated up until the day he died.

The Beagley's, instead of seeking necessary medical attention, decided to anoint "with oil while the family prayed and laid on hands" instead.

Again, like the Nuemanns from Wisconsin, faith healing has destroyed two more families.

(Source)

Very cool: atheist convention sells out.

2010-02-02T10:18:00.000-06:00

It appears that the World Atheism convention in Melbourne Australia has sold out, despite not receiving help from the hypocritical Australian government.

The Parliament of the World's Religions, held in Melbourne in December, received $2 million from the federal government and the state government.

This convention has booked two other smaller venues, instead of one large one.

Looks like this convention will be a blast.

Wish I was going.

(Source)

Is God a god of forgiveness?

2010-02-01T08:38:00.002-06:00

Reading Christianese can be a downright challenging assignment at times.

But, when Christ came, He lived a perfect life, so as to be the perfect sacrifice that God required as payment for sin. He paid the price with His life. He was crucified, died and was buried, but rose again. He offers eternal life to all who trust in Him and receive His free gift of life everlasting.

Do Christians ever think about what they say or believe? God requires a sacrifice? You mean to tell me the same god who is responsible for all the physical laws of the universe needs a sacrifice?

Why can't God just forgive? Jesus is God after all, the "God of redemption." What is with all the blood, death and torture? No, instead of redeeming mankind, God has to become Jesus in order to sacrifice himself to himself. What kind of divine plan is that?

Does the Christian stop to consider what kind of God this is? The Christian plainly states God required a blood sacrifice. It would be like our modern criminal justice system requiring that the offender sacrifice a bull for wrong doing. Not only does it not amend for the offense, it neither justifies the method.

This Christian idea of redemption does not make any rational sense.

(Source)

Does the 700 Club create murderers?

2010-01-29T10:54:00.001-06:00

Scott Roeder, the gunman who admitted to killing abortion doctor George Tiller revealed in his trial that it was the 700 Club which led him to becoming a born-again Christian and anti-abortion.

In his remarks for the defense Thursday, Chief Public Defender Steve Osburn told the jury that Roeder began participating in the antiabortion movement after becoming a born-again Christian in 1992 while watching "The 700 Club" alone in his living room.

700 Club, is of course, the right-wing extremist Pat Robertson's show. Robertson actually believes that the recent Haitian earthquake is the result of god punishing Haitians for an alleged deal with the devil for their freedom from slavery.

This is an example how religious-right programs, like the 700 Club, radicalizes Christians into murderers or worse.

(Source)

The former Pope flagellated himself

2010-01-29T08:38:00.002-06:00

There is news that the former pope, Pope John Paul flagellated himself in order to "feel closer to God".

Like many young people, although not a christian, I still admired the Pope growing up. I had no idea.

The book, which was published Tuesday, reveals that even when he was not ill, he inflicted pain on himself, known in Christianity as mortification, so as to feel closer to God.

"In Krakow as in the Vatican, Karol Wojtyla flagellated himself," Oder writes in the book, citing testimony from people in the late pope's close entourage while he was bishop in his native Poland and after he was elected pope in 1978.

"In his closet, among his vestments, there was hung on a clothes hanger a particular kind of belt for pants, which he used as a whip," Oder writes.

The very notion that pain should make you closer to your god is laughable. The very fact that he was engaged in this irrational behavior alters my perception of the last pope. If I had only known.

This is pure crazy.

(Source)

Why don't more people just blame satan?

2010-01-27T14:28:00.005-06:00

According to a Harris interactive poll from 2008, 59% of Americans believe that Satan is a real entity. This number is higher than the acceptance of evolution.

It's surprising that you don't hear of this defense more as this man in England has tried.

A man who firebombed a house in Lanarkshire in broad daylight claimed the devil made him do it, a court has heard.

Prosecutor Paul Kearney said: "When the police arrived Mr Johnstone was asked to put down the hammer and he told them: 'The devil made me do it. The devil told me to do it at 2am, God told me not to. That's why I did it during the day'."

The man is obviously crazy, even though he had the balls to pull it off. But let's face it, he is only considered crazy by society because the devil won the argument and the actions he took because of this sincere belief. If god had won the day, and the man had followed God's instructions and thrown flowers instead, society would have looked the other way.

I just love the imagery that this story provides. Here is some poor crazy schlep, whose delusions have found a place to roost in religious beliefs, listening to an argument by god and the devil as to which action he should take.

It's like those cartoons where an angel and devil appears on a person's shoulder and urges the correct, or wrong, moral decision -- except in this instance both characters are on the same page -- they just had a difference as to what time he should have thrown the firebomb.

If I recall, the devil usually seems to win these pitched arguments.

(Source)

God is petty. Small. And easily offended.

2010-01-22T13:29:00.000-06:00

Technology brings all sorts of useful things to our lives. Apparently, ring tones which summon the Mulsim faithful to prayer is offensive to God.

Egypt's top cleric wants Muslims to answer the call to prayer, but not when its ringing on their cellphones.

Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa issued a fatwa, or a religious edict, on Wednesday urging Muslims to do away with a popular fad - Quranic verses or the five daily calls to prayer as cellphone ringtones. The government-appointed cleric says such ringtones are inappropriate, misleading and demeaning to God's words.

"God's words are sacred. ... He ordered us to respect them and glorify them," Gomaa said.

God is petty and a busy body and has no clue about modern amenities and conveniences. You'd think a reminder to prayer would be useful, but no, it is an affront to god according to his representative.

You don't need to give me another reason to laugh and abhor at the whole idea of God -- but now that you have -- thank you.

(Source)

Blessings. Stupid custom.

2010-01-21T09:41:00.001-06:00

Catholics like to bless all sorts of things from Harley's to beer. Christians generally love this custom.

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI has blessed two lambs whose wool will be shorn to make shawls for newly appointed archbishops to wear.

And this is considered a sane activity by Catholics!?!? Mumbling magic words over lambs wool is going to what? Make them impervious to wear and tear? No.

I have to ask them, doesn't their god have better things to then worry about favoring some particular material item? The pope is one to go on and on about materialism, but when it comes to material goods, the pope is sure willing to demonstrate his concern.

(Source)

Threatening to get your way

2010-01-19T13:07:00.003-06:00

In order to continue the unconstitutional use of prayer, just threaten God's wrath in order to get your way.

If the city doesn't host the prayer meetings, Jackson said: "The water in the rivers will come up and flood the city. ... This is the word of the Lord."

Stay classy Mobile.

(Source)

Death metal rooster

2010-01-12T10:34:00.000-06:00

This is too good to pass up. We, at the Hypatian Shore, dig death metal and grindcore.

(H/T to Dave K via Facebook)

If you want to mock the atheist, pray for him

2010-01-05T11:50:00.001-06:00

Ireland has a regressive, backward blaspheme law. Ireland's atheists are attempting to test the law by publishing quotes online from authors that they believe challenge the constitutionality of the law in an effort to repeal such a law. Instead of reacting to affront to the freedom of conscience that the Ireland blaspheme law represents, this Christian would rather spend his vehemence by attacking the atheist response.

So yes, Christians must battle against the secularists' new bold vehemence to removing faith from state. We must make this a fight. But how? By matching argument for argument? By championing new laws for the respect of faith? By boycotting Hollywood? Perhaps.

Stating that you can only "perhaps" match the atheist with an counter-argument is sure sign that you've come to the end of your resources. Which type of faith: Islam, Christian, Hindu, etc? I highly doubt that a Christian would want to live under the conflation of Islamic faith with state, likewise with the others.

But I believe this battle will not be won using natural weapons of influence political, philosophical, intellectual, social. I believe this is a supernatural battle that must be won in prayer. God can be not be proven, but he can be experienced and known. Today, let's pray for those who doubt God, that they may meet him and know him in all his goodness and mercy.

God can not be proven the Christian states in his argument, but yet goes on to state that God can be experienced. God can either be experienced or he can not. If you can experience something, you can have evidence of something. These are mutually exclusive propositions. Which is it?

Knowing that he is beat, the Christian turns to a prayer, mocking the atheist.

God, you are, and you are good. You made us curious and independent yet only able to fulfill our destiny when we turn our imagination toward you and choose to be dependent on your infinite power and love. We pray today for all those who doubt your reality. Show them your love. Impose yourself on them, with firmness and kindness. Surprise them with your joy and the freedom they all so passionately long for. In Jesus..."

Its a common tactic. When a theist has been defeated by an atheist's arguments, they all too frequently throw their hands up and state they'll pray for you. They appeal to your emotions instead. At this point, the theist is conceding any rational argument.

As for the prayer itself, you have to tell God you know he's good? That's hilarious. Shouldn't God already know and how you feel without reaffirmation? Praying for an atheist is highly offensive. Essentially, you are demanding God to reprogram him like some kind of wind-up robot so you can have your way.

Whereas freedom of speech makes necessary space for mockery of religion, so too is the theist has the freedom to mock the atheist with prayer. The only answer to this prayer is mockery in return.

And that's what the Christian misses by "championing new laws" that mandate respect of religion.

(Source)

America is not a Christian Nation

2010-01-04T12:33:00.008-06:00

You hear it endlessly, "America is a Christian nation" from the religious right. The intent of such a statement is to conflate state legislative power with a religious or theological predication. This why the religious right asserts America was "founded on Judeo-Christian" principles. Blue laws to blaspheme laws, like in Ireland, are such a conflation between church and state. In other words, the religious right wants to force you what and how you believe. And if the law can force compliance, then so be it.

Malaysia is such a place where not only there are secular courts, but religious courts. These courts are based on Sharia law.

A judge ruled Thursday that Christians had the constitutional right to use the word Allah to refer to God. The judge, Lau Bee Lan, found that a government ban was illegal. Government lawyers said they might appeal. In Malaysia, a Muslim-majority country, minority groups had viewed the ban as a symbol of institutionalized religious discrimination. Judge Lau was ruling on a lawsuit filed two years ago by The Herald, the Malaysian Roman Catholic Church’s main publication, after the government blocked non-Muslims from translating “God” as “Allah” in their literature. The authorities have said that Allah is an Islamic word that should be used exclusively by Muslims. Officials are believed to be afraid that Muslims reading Christian literature might be tempted to convert to Christianity. Recently, the government confiscated 10,000 copies of Malaysian-language Bibles because they contained the word Allah.

This is how you know that the United States is not a Christian nation. Our courts are constitutionally forbidden to interfere with a way a religion express itself (as well as individuals), unless that expression is by committing offenses that clearly are against the law. (Sometimes this is on a state by state basis.) Sexual abuse, coercive exorcism, or failed faith healing of a minor which leads to death are all cases which church and state separation don't protect the evil-doers.

Same goes if you decide to switch your religion. You don't have to appeal to a court in the United States to do so -- although I am sure there are those on the right that would love to have this type of circumspect control.

(Source)

Jesus flesh needs a sanitary dispenser

2010-01-04T10:53:00.005-06:00

I don't know if this is something to be ridiculed or something to envy.

I wish I thought of this device: communion-wafer dispenser. Considering the number of churches and bible-believing Christians, the potential market for this molded plastic cylindrical device, that features a handled-mug with a trigger, could be quite lucrative.

Apparently, there is a lawsuit between the manufacturer and the former president of company for patent infringement of said device.

I would rather ridicule.

You mean to tell me that Christ's actual flesh has to be kept germ free and in a sterile, hands-free environment? If the magic is that powerful to turn ordinary cracker flour into flesh (and not just ordinary flesh: Jesus' flesh), then it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the spell can be made more effective by just adding a few extra words to make it germ-free.

(Source)