Feed on Posts or Comments 20 April 2014

Christianity Thomas on 23 Feb 2010 12:24 am

If you are a Christian, you are probably a racist

A recent study lays out the evidence for a link between Christianity and racism:

Study: Religion Linked to Racism

Further, Wood said, the more devout the religionist, the more extreme the racism.

The opposite is also true; Wood and her co-authors found that the less religious the person, the less racial prejudice is manifested.

One possible surprise? We are all familiar with the stereotype of the fundamentalist Christian ranting against all sorts of people, and assume that she is more likely to harbor racist attitudes than the friendly, rational-seeming Episcopalian next door. Not so.

While fundamentalists were more outspoken with their bigotries, Wood, et al found that mainstream Christians held the same prejudices, while paying lip service to racial tolerance.

78 Responses to “If you are a Christian, you are probably a racist”

  1. on 23 Feb 2010 at 11:42 pm 1.S said …

    I find this post ironic.

    The article states: “A meta-analysis of 55 independent studies carried out in the United States with more than 20,000 mostly Christian participants has found that members of religious congregations tend to harbor *prejudiced* views of other races.”

    Prejudice is not the same thing as racism, though the two are related. Additionally, the study discovered a correlation, but we cannot infer causation. An alternative explanation of this effect is that perhaps prejudiced people are more likely to choose religion.

    Additionally, the data are old: “Wood and her co-authors — Deborah Hall from Duke University and David Matz from Augsburg College — analyzed data from all available studies on religion and racism since 1964, when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. A quarter of the studies in the analysis were conducted after 2000 and just over half after 1990.”

    It’s important to avoid bigotry when taking the moral high ground. Christians don’t deserve the broad (racist) strokes you’ve painted them with.

    I love your blog and, as an agnostic, I hope you take more care in future posts so that I can continue to grow and learn from your often-informative postings. Thanks for receiving this constructive criticism.

  2. on 24 Feb 2010 at 1:54 am 2.3D said …

    I don’t think it’s bigoted to call Christians racists. They admit to believing in the Bible, which is chock full of racist ideology. That’s calling racism what it is by definition, not bigotry. It’s like if someone joins the KKK, we can make a pretty good assumption they are racist.

    That said, I do agree that there are “Christians” who give themselves that label without actually reading or subscribing to the nasty things in the Bible, and sure many of them aren’t racist. This is probably who you meant, but then again they aren’t really Christians, either. It’s commendable and speaks well of their morality that they pick and choose which parts of the Bible to ignore, but they’re still hypocrites.

  3. on 24 Feb 2010 at 3:36 am 3.Al said …

    Christians are racist against which race? Can you offer some relevant proofs – now – where all Christians or even the majority are racist?

    As my favorite pastor states it (Charles Ware)”Its not a skin problem its a sin problem”.

    I find the ones who point at others as racist typically are the racist. It is like a black who will vote for Obama for the sole purpose of his color. A racist act but somehow not seen as such although it is as racist as someone who would not vote for him for the same reason. Just saying.

  4. on 24 Feb 2010 at 4:03 am 4.S said …

    Your argument changed gears. First you were justifying your claim that “Christians are racist” with the Wood study you cite. Now that I’ve shown the problems with this argument, you make a stronger claim– namely, that anyone who believes in the whole Bible is racist.

    But there are Christians of all races who believe in the “inerrant” Bible. Who are Korean Christians racist against? What about African Christians, or Jewish Christians (they exist– messianic Jews, I think they are called?) Your claim that believing in the Bible and joining the KKK are analogous is both hyperbolic and untrue. Don’t give them the luxury of your dogmatism.

  5. on 25 Feb 2010 at 10:55 pm 5.3D said …

    “Your argument changed gears. First you were justifying your claim that “Christians are racist” with the Wood study you cite. Now that I’ve shown the problems with this argument, you make a stronger claim– namely, that anyone who believes in the whole Bible is racist.”

    I’m not the blog author, stoopid. I didn’t make the first argument. So trying to make either of us look inconsistent by contrasting the two arguments is pointless.

    “But there are Christians of all races who believe in the “inerrant” Bible. Who are Korean Christians racist against? What about African Christians, or Jewish Christians (they exist– messianic Jews, I think they are called?)”

    They believe in a God who favors the extermination of races he doesn’t like, all over the Bible. If you know of a better definition of racism than that, let’s hear it.

  6. on 26 Feb 2010 at 12:58 am 6.4D said …

    What? He punishes sin and that makes God a racists? But he made the races. So, does that make the courts racist to?

    Man, the nuts are out in full force!

  7. on 26 Feb 2010 at 5:13 am 7.3D said …

    “What? He punishes sin and that makes God a racists?”

    No, just one big racists. Not plural.

    “But he made the races. So, does that make the courts racist to?”

    Basketball court? Food court? Help me out here.

    Yes, I agree, I don’t know why God hates some of the races that he made himself. It’s pretty silly. I thought he was supposed to love everybody, but then there he is sending one race to kill another race all the time in the Bible. It’s crazy, and doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the Bible in a nutshell.

  8. on 26 Feb 2010 at 8:34 am 8.Severin said …

    4D 6
    “What? He punishes sin and that makes God a racists?”

    Mybe not a “racist”, according to modern definition of the word, but a baby killer anyway.

    it is your choice: is it better your god to call a “racist” or a baby killer. He ordered killing of thousands of innocent babies who could not recognize a “sin” from a “non-sin”
    Did you read Bible?

    I would call him both, as he directly ordered extermination of whole nations, INCLUDING brutal killing of children.

  9. on 26 Feb 2010 at 1:22 pm 9.4D said …

    You know, judicial courts?

    God punished tribes for their sin. He even did it with his own chosen people.

    Now, next step here. Racism is hating a people group simply for their color/creed. See you just don’t understand the term which make you argument silly. If you could find a passage where God punished a group of people and He used a racial slur I’ll reconsider.

  10. on 27 Feb 2010 at 7:44 am 10.Severin said …

    9. 4D
    So you either did not read Bible or you agree with god’s crimes and find them O.K., because he just “punished sins”.
    Killing of whole towns and nations, including brutal killing of their children (+ their sheep, oxes, women who “lay with men”) is for you just “punishment for their sins”?
    Nice!
    Long live christian love!

  11. on 27 Feb 2010 at 6:02 pm 11.4D said …

    Hmm, I bet you have no problem with partial birth abortion or even abortion out of mere lifestyle decisions? That seems more barbaric to me.

    No, I don’t like the fact God had to kill babies, people or anyone else. However, something I realized along time ago is I’m not God. I do know He sent His Son to dies fore me and all mankind which pretty much eliminates your monster theory.

  12. on 28 Feb 2010 at 2:19 am 12.3D said …

    Hmm, I bet you have no problem with partial birth abortion or even abortion out of mere lifestyle decisions? That seems more barbaric to me.

    “No, I don’t like the fact God had to kill babies, people or anyone else. However, something I realized along time ago is I’m not God.”

    This is really starting to sound like battered-wife syndrome. God “had to” kill the babies! It’s not because he’s evil, see, he had to do it! The babies made him do it, they had it coming. Please don’t call 911, we’ll work it out and everything will get better.

    “I do know He sent His Son to dies fore me and all mankind which pretty much eliminates your monster theory.”

    No, it strengthens the monster theory. He sent someone to earth to be tortured, starved and beaten in the desert sun, for something he could have just forgiven with a snap of his fingers. The only possible conclusion, if you believe this cock and bull story, is that God likes to make people suffer, including his own son.

  13. on 28 Feb 2010 at 3:05 am 13.4D said …

    “or something he could have just forgiven with a snap of his fingers.”

    Well, I would expect you to have such a shallow responses to sin. You lack understanding to the seriousness of sin. I wonder why our courts don’t just forgive sin with a snap? Maybe OBL or Charles Manson..
    The Bible is clear those outside of Christ have no understanding of their sin and that the message of the Cross is foolishness. The Bible is clear. I pray you come to repentance. God is Holy AND Just and requires a perfect sacrifice for sin.

    So you have no problem with partial birth abortion or even abortion out of mere lifestyle decisions? You failed to deal with that relative issue.

    How can it be battered wife syndrome if I have not been battered???

  14. on 28 Feb 2010 at 8:53 am 14.Severin said …

    13. 4D
    „You lack understanding to the seriousness of sin. I wonder why our courts don’t just forgive sin with a snap?“

    „Sins“ for which your god punished people (towns, nations, children) are:

    -Working on sabbath
    -Making the golden calf
    -Desobediance of children to their parents
    -Getting married as non-virgin (females only, of course)
    -Etc
    All those „serious sins“ were punished by brutal death, stoning or slaughtering, as ordered by god directly and personally.

    Our courts deal with real crimes.

    But we can find in the Bible also many cases of brutal (and total) exterminations of whole populations of cities/lands ordered by god, which were not caused by „sins“, but by pure intention to grab the land (Jericho etc.).
    If we take such biblical events as justified, why do we blame Hitler, who had exactly the same plans, and did exactly the same things that god suggested to his “chosen” nation.

  15. on 28 Feb 2010 at 10:23 pm 15.Biff said …

    I think Severin means the land of Canaan not the land of Jericho. (that was a city)

    More evidence of atheist just picking up bits of the Bible off other atheist blogs. You just complained about God and his modes of punishment and fail to realize the Cannanites burn their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice sodomy, bestiality(Lev. 18:23, 24, 20:3), the land itself begins to “vomit” them out as the body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18:25, 27-30). So, hardly a land grab but again punishment for their wickedness.

    Our courts deal with REAL crimes? What is a real crime? Speeding? tax evasion? racketeering?

  16. on 01 Mar 2010 at 8:02 am 16.3D said …

    “Well, I would expect you to have such a shallow responses to sin. You lack understanding to the seriousness of sin. I wonder why our courts don’t just forgive sin with a snap? Maybe OBL or Charles Manson..”

    You’re right — I have seen the light. If we ever catch Osama bin Laden, we should try your method out: put him on trial, and then the judge in the case will have his own son murdered, allowing Osama to walk out of the court free. That makes perfect sense!

    “So you have no problem with partial birth abortion or even abortion out of mere lifestyle decisions? You failed to deal with that relative issue.”

    I am against abortion. I am in favor of reducing the number of abortions, through birth control and comprehensive sex education.

  17. on 01 Mar 2010 at 9:20 am 17.Severin said …

    15 Biff
    It is typical for “Bible defenders” to point out unimportant details to hide important ones.
    Something like this:
    Severin: A bus killed a man out in the street.
    Bible defender: Severin is a lier! It was not a bus, but a truck!
    Wherewer one “picks up bits” from the Bible, he finds only horror, so no need to be extremely precise.
    If Canaanites burnt their children, does it justify god’s crimes!
    He “punished” people for their “sins” against their children by killing them AND their children!
    Where is the difference? You would expect an “all loving” god to be a little bit more gracious.
    But, of course, he killed for such “sins” as being non-virgin, for working on sabath, etc.
    If your god did not know better, maybe you do!?

  18. on 01 Mar 2010 at 12:03 pm 18.4D said …

    “I am against abortion. I am in favor of reducing the number of abortions, through birth control and comprehensive sex education.”

    Why would you live in a nation full of such monsters? SHouldn’t you leave? Outraged by God but I bet you are not outraged at the MDs doing the dame today.

    “we should try your method out”

    It is not my method. I don’t control God. I know he views sin seriously and at the same time he was willing to die for them. He is an awesome God.

  19. on 01 Mar 2010 at 12:53 pm 19.3D said …

    “Why would you live in a nation full of such monsters? SHouldn’t you leave? Outraged by God but I bet you are not outraged at the MDs doing the dame today.”

    Nope! I didn’t say I was outraged by abortions, I said I would like to reduce the number of them. It isn’t a moral issue, it’s just a traumatic experience for a woman and one that can usually be avoided.

    “It is not my method. I don’t control God. I know he views sin seriously and at the same time he was willing to die for them. He is an awesome God.”

    As someone else here said, he only died temporarily — a few days tops — then went on to live in heaven for eternity. That’s a pretty lame sacrifice.

    But anyway, we know what the Bible says. What do YOU think? Do you think it’s wrong to burn people alive or stone them?

  20. on 01 Mar 2010 at 2:01 pm 20.4D said …

    “Do you think it’s wrong to burn people alive or stone them?”

    Yes, for people to do such horrific acts is immoral and in violation of God’s law. (see 10 commandments)

    “I didn’t say I was outraged by abortions,

    So, you are not outraged by vacuuming a fetus out of a womb or sticking a a medical instrument into the skull of a partially birthed baby? Horrible!

    “he only died temporarily”

    Would you like to take on His mode of death? Anyhow, he lived 33 years of a sinless life so you couldn’t fulfill the role.

  21. on 01 Mar 2010 at 2:16 pm 21.3D said …

    “Yes, for people to do such horrific acts is immoral and in violation of God’s law. (see 10 commandments)”

    Oh, OK. That’s good to read — I am glad you are not in favor of stoning people to death.

    So, since we can both agree that stoning and burning people are horrific acts, then that means that when God commanded people to stone and burn other people, he was condoning horrific acts, in your opinion.

    I agree, which is why I don’t follow the Bible. I wonder why you would continue to follow a God that commands people to do horrific acts to each other, usually for minor offenses like teenagers sassing their parents, or working on the Sabbath day.

    “Would you like to take on His mode of death? Anyhow, he lived 33 years of a sinless life so you couldn’t fulfill the role.”

    No, I don’t think anyone should be killed, let alone allowing one’s own son to be beaten and tortured. This is why I would consider God a sick fuck, if he was real.

    Fortunately for us, the Bible is fictional, and we live in a slightly less insane universe.

  22. on 01 Mar 2010 at 2:33 pm 22.4D said …

    “God commanded people to stone and burn other people, he was condoning horrific acts, in your opinion.”

    Horrific and for God and God only justified because He is a Holy and righteous judge.

    “Let alone allowing one’s own son to be beaten and tortured.”

    I know terrible, but the only way out for us and Jesus was willing to take it on for you. Don’t reject Him.

    “Fortunately for us, the Bible is fictional, and we live in a slightly less insane universe.”

    Yes, where MDs suck babies out with vacuums and jam forceps in their skulls. Thanks for the sanity and for once again evading you clear contradictory moral judgments you possess. Who is the monsters again? Hard to talk about but I have witnessed it.

  23. on 01 Mar 2010 at 9:38 pm 23.3D said …

    ” “God commanded people to stone and burn other people, he was condoning horrific acts, in your opinion.”

    Horrific and for God and God only justified because He is a Holy and righteous judge.”

    Oh OK. So basically, you are admitting you have no morality. You will accept any act as moral if God approves of it, no matter how heinous you know it is.

    That’s why atheists are morally superior to theists. An atheist can unequivocally say, “burning people alive is wrong” without any weasel words or hemming and hawing. A theist can’t.

  24. on 01 Mar 2010 at 10:57 pm 24.4D said …

    “That’s why atheists are morally superior to theists.”

    Think so? Forgot about the gulags, China and Csmbodia? Still dancing around the baby murderers you approve of today? You just can’t deal with your own mixed bag of morality. Lawful baby murders walking the streets.

    The fact you THINK you are morally superior in itself proves you are not. I realize I am a sinner saved by the grace of God. You need to get there as well but until you realize the heavy cost of sin you never will. The Lord gives and He takes away Blessed be the name of the Lord.

    I wish you well.

  25. on 02 Mar 2010 at 7:49 am 25.Severin said …

    22 4D
    “Horrific and for God and God only justified because He is a Holy and righteous judge.”

    So why then YOU lecture us?
    Why don’t you just let god to do his job and let us do ours, then let god judge us.
    Why is it your business?
    Why would it be anyone’s business?
    It is between an individual and god!

    You (religious people, organised religions) told us what you think you had to tell, nobody killed you for your opinion, and it was done! No need to repeat and force us further!

    However, your opinion IS my business, as a citizen of the world: justifying masacres for any reason (such punishing of “sins”) makes you dangerous individual. You might start to think you are “god’s tool” and start “punishing sinners” in name of god.
    History is full of such examples, and many people died in horror because someone (religious organisations) took right to judge in name of god.

  26. on 02 Mar 2010 at 7:55 am 26.Severin said …

    24 4D
    “Think so? Forgot about the gulags, China and Csmbodia?”

    Forgot Pinoche, Papa Doc, many other “christian” regimes around rhe world, Inquisition, thouseands of religious wars, forced (and bloody) imposing of both christianity and muslim religion to Africans and American Indians, cruisade wars…….

    The BIG difference: No “atheistic” regime killed in name of atheism, but in name of lunatic political ideas.
    Above mentioned regimes and wars were all IN NAME OF GOD!

  27. on 02 Mar 2010 at 8:03 am 27.Severin said …

    24 4D
    “I realize I am a sinner saved by the grace of God.”

    I do not!
    That is why atheists have sex with joy (and masturbate with joy) and without any fear of anything and you probably with fear of being a sinner.
    Atheists live with joy, without fears!

    Our main “rule” is not to harm another individual!

  28. on 02 Mar 2010 at 3:45 pm 28.Matt said …

    What? you really believe Christians don’t have sex? I literally did lol. Then where did they come from….a storks?

    So you and all the other atheist got together and came up with the “Main Rule”. Maybe you need to check into the murder of Madeline O’Haire. He didn’t get the memo. Some of the other atheist above didn’t get that memo either.

    Good stuff there with what you enjoy!

  29. on 02 Mar 2010 at 9:31 pm 29.Severin said …

    28. Matt
    “What? you really believe Christians don’t have sex?”

    I did not say it. Not necessary to lie to make yourself „cleverer“ or more „witty“
    I said atheists ENJOY sex more than religious people, because they have no fear of „sins“.
    When making love, atheists care about their partners, not about god.

    And, of course, as fears are the most frequent causes of sexual impotency, atheists are more sexually potent by definition.

  30. on 02 Mar 2010 at 10:13 pm 30.Matt said …

    “When making love, atheists care about their partners, not about god.”

    As one who masturbates, how could you possibly know this? God created sex therefore christians enjoy it more. See…..easy to just make up anything..

    “atheists are more sexually potent by definition.”

    Are you sure? Can you prove this? Why are there so few of you? Why do RCs tend to have more kids. Seems to me you are less potent.

  31. on 03 Mar 2010 at 10:14 pm 31.Severin said …

    30 Matt
    “Are you sure? Can you prove this?
    I could, but I do not want to be rude here.

    “Why are there so few of you?”
    Because religions supressed common sense, logic and science for thousands of years and teached people NOT TO THINK. Only 100 years ago there were really „a few“ atheists around the world. Today we have in Western Europe more than 15% of declared atheists, and more than 25% of people believing in „life force“ (being no adherents to any religions, but „private, intimate, believers“), of total population.
    Seems not much, but hey, FROM ALMOST 0% TO 15% after only a few decades!
    Education and freedom of thinking, without fear of torturinga or burning, allows atheism growing SPONTANIOUSLY. As soon as people feel free to think with their own brains, all religions become loosers VERY rapidly. And spontaniously! No force, no threats, no killing, no torturing…atheism blossoms!
    See you in 20-30 years!

    „Seems to me you are less potent.“
    Yes, I admit: all believers in the world, taken together, are probably a little bit more potent, than all atheists in the world, taken together. Not much, I assume.
    Because „sin“, „hell“, „fear of punishment“ are not in our minds ever, including during making love. Only our partners are.
    Evene when we masturbate. Believe me, I know it.

  32. on 03 Mar 2010 at 10:27 pm 32.Severin said …

    “As one who masturbates, how could you possibly know this?’
    Not only, Matt, not only. I tried it once or twice, and it was nice!

  33. on 03 Mar 2010 at 10:58 pm 33.Lou said …

    Matt,

    We tend to ignore trolls Matt. If you feed them they tend to keep typing in their incomprehensible language.

    Atheism and theism have been around longer than Christianity, Islam , Hinduism, etc yet atheism hasn’t caught on in culture. These guys are about as potent as a water pistol:).

    The only way to get the masses to follow such a simplistic empty belief is to force the masses to follow a state religion of atheism. Of course, even then you can’t look into a man’s heart. You can only suppress the outward expression. The largest underground church is thought to be in China even as we speak. Atheism is empty and hopeless.

  34. on 04 Mar 2010 at 9:45 am 34.Severin said …

    33. Lou
    “The only way to get the masses to follow such a simplistic empty belief is to force the masses to follow a state religion of atheism.”

    That must be reason why we have today some 49% atheists/agnostics in Germany, and during Hitler there were some 0,1% of them!
    Germany (Belgium, Sweden, Hungary, Netherlands,…) are forcing “a state religion of atheism”?

    Oops!

  35. on 04 Mar 2010 at 9:59 am 35.Severin said …

    33 Lou
    “We tend to ignore trolls Matt.”
    Yes, I am full of understanding for your problem!
    No arguments, no evidences, no logic, wahat was left?Ignoring is the only way out, after you tried to impose your opinion with lies and offends in some previous discussions.

    You can call it “ignoring”, in fact it is ignorance.

  36. on 04 Mar 2010 at 10:21 am 36.Severin said …

    33 Lou
    “…atheism hasn’t caught on in culture”

    Ha, ha, ha, (etc)!
    Not in taliban “culture” (so far, but wait!), I admit.
    Maybe not in such an extent in American culture too, as it “caught on” in Europe.

    But how is it that atheism is rapidly and spontaniously growing, exactly parallel and proportional to growing of freedom of thinking, AND to level of education of people, AND to freedom and possibility to communicate, AND to development of science, AND … parallel to growing of everything that was forbidden and suppressed during the dark age of prevailance of religions?

    WHO forces the masses to become atheists? Common sense, logic, science…., NOT threats, forcing, killing, burning…
    Pls. see some statistics.

  37. on 04 Mar 2010 at 12:38 pm 37.Matt said …

    “The only way to get the masses to follow such a simplistic empty belief is to force the masses to follow a state religion of atheism”

    I was in the former USSR about 10 year ago. I was amazed just how undeveloped the nation was as compared to the US. During the cold war years we always had the impressions they were very advanced. The atheist state religion brought apathy.

    I am reminded of a study done about 10 years ago that correlated a nations decline with their decline in faith. Possibly, we are on the same path.

  38. on 04 Mar 2010 at 4:20 pm 38.3D said …

    “Atheism and theism have been around longer than Christianity, Islam , Hinduism, etc yet atheism hasn’t caught on in culture.”

    You’re right! Maybe we need a couple of Atheist Inquisitions or Crusades, where we threaten people with torture and death, to help atheism “catch on”!

    “The only way to get the masses to follow such a simplistic empty belief is to force the masses to follow a state religion of atheism.”

    Right! No state government ever forced Islam or Christianity on the masses before!

  39. on 04 Mar 2010 at 6:37 pm 39.Curmudgeon said …

    “Maybe we need a couple of Atheist Inquisitions or Crusades, where we threaten people with torture and death, to help atheism “catch on”!”

    You already did. It is called communism and you have killed off a thousand times more individuals than the Inquisition or the Crusades combined! China is still keeping up a great job for your cause. Congratulations!

  40. on 04 Mar 2010 at 11:14 pm 40.Severin said …

    39 Curmudgeon
    “It is called communism and you have killed off a thousand times more individuals than the Inquisition or the Crusades combined!”
    I could not agree with your estimation of killed people as „thousand times more“, but I agree such regimes were bloody and took millions of victims.

    Now let’s see why:

    0% atheists in naci Germany! If atheist prevailed then, Hitler would never take power in Germany!
    0% atheists in October 1917. in Russia (additionally, only some 2-3 % people who could read!). If atheists prevailed there and then,lunatic communist regime would never succeed. People were totally por, totally illiterate, totally uneducated, and totally prone to any lunatic idea SIMILAR to religion, if it promissed more just a little bit more than religion.
    Difference which made 100% religious people turn their attention from religion to communism: communist promissed „paradise on earth“ (today), not after death!
    Typically more educated and much more sceptic, atheists would recognize both promisses as unattainable, and would not permit lunatics to get power.
    Exactly the same (and worse) was in China during Mao’s revolution: 0% atheists, and even more poverty!

    When such regimes took roots, it was too late to do changes: they replaced old religions with new ones, and illiterate and religious people accepted that. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, became „new gods“. But tools used to keep power were EXACTLY the same as all religions used all the time: pogroms, killings, torturings….
    They swallowed millions of wictims THANKS to religions which „trained“ people for centuries before: NOT TO THINK, but to TRUST without arguments, TO BE OBEDIENT to authorities…
    Those are facts.

    So we could say with certainty: religions (all of them!) = communism = fascism. Maybe the equotion marks could be understood not as „equals“ but as „is very, very similar“.

  41. on 04 Mar 2010 at 11:29 pm 41.Severin said …

    39 Curmudgeon
    “You already did. It is called communism and you have killed off a thousand times more individuals…”

    That was mean! Who are “you” in this sentence?
    If religious people and organized churches killed millions (as they certainly did, which you recognized by saying: “….more individuals than Inquisition…”), would I be permitted to say that YOU killed them? Would you tollerate such an accusation?
    Atheist do not discuss that (dirty) way.

  42. on 05 Mar 2010 at 1:14 am 42.3D said …

    “Maybe we need a couple of Atheist Inquisitions or Crusades, where we threaten people with torture and death, to help atheism “catch on”!”

    You already did. It is called communism

    Bullshit!

    Communist regimes mimic religious regimes. They just replace the bullshit God of the Bible with the bullshit dictator of the moment. Obey this man without thought or dissidence, instead of that fairy tale. It’s all the same corrupt garbage.

    “and you have killed off a thousand times more individuals than the Inquisition or the Crusades combined!”

    Bullshit! Numbers completely pulled out of your ass. Even more to the point, there was no “atheist agenda” driving Stalin or Communist China, the way that the Bible was the central driving force behind the Crusades and the Inquisition.

    But, even more pathetic, the best you can do is say that religion’s body count is similar to atheists’ body count, that’s pretty pathetic for the supposed light of the world.

    Therefore, I close with another Bullshit! And thanks for playing.

  43. on 05 Mar 2010 at 1:57 pm 43.Curmudgeon said …

    “Communist regimes mimic religious regimes.”

    Correct, atheism is just religion without the God.

    “They just replace the bullshit God of the Bible with the bullshit dictator of the moment.”

    Can you say Humanism? Just another form of atheism. Thanks for making the point so easy for me!

    “Even more to the point, there was no “atheist agenda” driving Stalin or Communist China”

    I thought atheist had no agenda? Not true of course, their agenda was to retain power and stomp out religion. Life means little.

    “Bullshit! Numbers completely pulled out of your ass”

    Think so? Look it up. I’m not comparing religious body count to the atheist. I’m saying atheist are much higher and your adherents much lower. Shows what happens when they grab power. Tell us again how much more “RATIONALE” atheism is over religion?

  44. on 06 Mar 2010 at 7:11 am 44.Severin said …

    3D:
    “…there was no “atheist agenda” driving Stalin or Communist China…“

    Curmudgeon:
    „I thought atheist had no agenda?“

    You was right, 3D just told you that!

    Do you know what are you talking at all?
    Your “arguments” are nothing more than “claim to claim” type of discussion: “who can piss further” (bunch of drunks), or “whose dad is stronger” (bunch of children).
    You are trying to compensate lack of arguments by faking, lying, twisting of another’s words, bad “sarcasm”, or just denying.

    Example: “Atheism is just religion without god”
    Religion without god is not, and can not be “religion” at all, and can not have any attributes of religion.
    But – hey, let’s say something, maybe someone will “swallow” it and take me as clever one.

    You are a book … without letters.

  45. on 06 Mar 2010 at 1:06 pm 45.Lou said …

    Curmudgeon

    Not only is theism/humanism a religion is reality, it is also a religion legally according the courts. They have dogma (whatever man declares) and they have their priests (Dawkins). Then they have their overarching them which is eradicate all other religions. Seems to have some parallels to Islam.

  46. on 06 Mar 2010 at 9:57 pm 46.3D said …

    “Correct, atheism is just religion without the God.”

    Well, at least we’re getting you closer to admitting that religion is an unhealthy virus. By equating religion with atheism, which you (for whatever reason) reject as evil and violent, you are saying by implication that religion is evil and violent. I agree 100%.

    Now the next step in your recovery is to get you to see that what makes religion evil and violent is the delusional worldview inherent in it. And atheism, lacking that, is much more conducive to peace.

    “I thought atheist had no agenda? Not true of course, their agenda was to retain power and stomp out religion. Life means little.”

    Association fallacy — Hitler was a vegetarian and had a mustache; this does not mean that vegetarianism or mustaches cause people to be dictators.

    Atheism did not drive the regimes of Stalin and Mao; power did.

    But religion DOES drive Saudi Arabia and did drive the Crusades and the Inquisition and countless other regimes that thought they were doing the will of god by putting people in chains or outright killing them for heresy (including the US).

    Today’s prominent atheists don’t oppose freedom of religion. They encourage it, as long as the government doesn’t choose to enforce a particular religion (or lack thereof).

    People should be free to believe and worship whatever delusional bullshit they want (or none at all), as long as it doesn’t impose on other people’s well-being and pursuit of happiness.

    “Shows what happens when they grab power.”

    As opposed to all the peace and harmony that occurs in a religious state. Right?

    “Think so? Look it up.”

    Look it up yourself. You’re the one making a claim that isn’t true, so cite sources.

  47. on 06 Mar 2010 at 10:35 pm 47.Curmudgeon said …

    “Well, at least we’re getting you closer to admitting that religion is an unhealthy virus. By equating religion with atheism”

    Absolutely. A relationship with Jesus Christ is the ONLY thing than has any eternal meaning. Atheism is just as bad as religion. Untrue and no hope. Great, we have common ground.

    “Association fallacy — Hitler was a vegetarian and had a mustache;”

    It is know FACT that the USSR stomped out all religion outside of atheism and Communist China does today. Using the mustache analogy to save your worldview is silly. Atheism points to man as the center of all power, much like Islam. Accept it.

    “Today’s prominent atheists don’t oppose freedom of religion.”

    You are not familiar with Hu Jinato? He has more power than any other atheist alive. In the UK and USA atheist must get along. They have no choice.

    How about this “Todays prominent christians don’t oppose the freedom to be atheist”.

    “Look it up yourself. You’re the one making a claim that isn’t true, so cite sources.”

    LOL, um….well… I have. So are you willing to purchase some textbooks?

  48. on 06 Mar 2010 at 10:37 pm 48.Curmudgeon said …

    True Lou, very true. Since the SC has determined it to be a religion you think they just go along with the associated protections.

  49. on 07 Mar 2010 at 6:49 pm 49.Severin said …

    47 Curmudgeon
    Atheism points to man as the center of all power, much like Islam.”
    How could you invent such a stupidity? Try to tell such a claim to a muslim believer!

    45 Lou
    “…it is also a religion legally according the courts.”
    ONLY in the USA!
    That was the only way for authorities to protect atheists from militant believers.
    In countries in which believers are more tame authorities have no need to protect them by declaring atheism a religion.
    How can an opinion that there is no god at all be a religion?

  50. on 07 Mar 2010 at 6:57 pm 50.Severin said …

    47 Curmudgeon
    “It is know FACT that the USSR stomped out all religion outside of atheism and Communist China does today.”

    And it is known FACT that in all mentioned countries (Germany, Russia, China) 100% population was religious when dictators took power.
    How was it possible?
    Germans (all christians) have listened Hitler’s speeches full of hate for 12 years before they voted for him.
    No atheists to accept Hitler, Mao, Stalin, ONLY 100% believers.
    Was Pinoche atheist too?
    Give us some arguments, not only claims.

  51. on 07 Mar 2010 at 7:47 pm 51.Lou said …

    “go along with the associated protections.”

    Well that is for the the denomination of atheism known as Buddhism. Somehow the other denomination believe religion must include a deity. Some men believe they are a deity -mthat should be enough.

  52. on 08 Mar 2010 at 10:05 pm 52.Sammiesoo said …

    Hello everyone!

    Sorry to jump right into the current food fight that’s going on but…Wasn’t the article addressing, “If you are a Christian, you are probably a racist”?… That’s okay, I’ll just leave my, out of “current context” answer to the original statement because I’d like to address the final remark which was, “…mainstream Christians held the same prejudices, while paying lip service to racial tolerance.”

    That was really well put! The reason I say that is because I was raised in a home where you could get yourself dropped off anywhere you wanted come Sunday just so long as it had a “Christian” stamp on it. (It was wonderful!)

    Thus I can “personally” attest to the fact that mainstream Christianity might not all agree on whether or not God is a trinity (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran…all those guys) and they might not agree on whether or not preachers should marry (Catholic 1978-1980) but one thing everyone of them sure did teach me back in the day was that, “beyond question, God loves every race on earth exactly the same!” And once we had all smiled at each other and nodded to indicate that we all understood that that was the case… Here’s what every one of those religions did:

    They all proceeded to show me only “white” faces at: Sunday Service, Sunday School, Church Suppers, Youth Dances, Fellowship Outings, you name it. If you wanted a horrified look from anyone and everyone you just had to roll into a church event with your “Best Friend” Sally Wang, or Nancy Yellow Feather, or (Best of all) Mayanda Jackson. Wow-zer!

    But like I said at the start, I’ve set in on pretty much all Christian based religions and only found one that makes no bones about their stand on how you’re to treat people who are of different races. It’s Jehovah’s Witnesses—oh I know, who wants to hear about them! Tell you what though, if your looking for no holds barred, racism free, they are the only ones I’ve seen that are diehard serious about it across the board. Now I will say this in closing, just like they couldn’t care less what someone’s race is they’re just as tough on not wanting any of their members marrying out of the religion. Mayanda Jackson I mentioned earlier can marry Sally Wang or Nancy Yellow Feather’s brother but if one of them is a baptized JW and the other isn’t? That will not set well…nope, if you want to marry a “bona fide” JW you need to be a “bona fide” JW.

  53. on 10 Mar 2010 at 11:27 am 53.Christie said …

    This really shows your hatred toward Christians. I find racism disgusting & feel that you cannot be a true Christian if you are racist. You assume that every Christian takes the Bible 100% literally, I don’t. Why can’t you accept that not everyone has the same beliefs as YOU? I am against the hypocrisy, it needs to be fought against but there are real, genuine Christians out there I assure you. We’re all the same, just different beliefs.

  54. on 10 Mar 2010 at 5:25 pm 54.Observer said …

    Christie- What is a “real, genuine Christian”? I want the Easter Bunny. I want the nice Pagan decorated eggs. I want the Pagan Yule trees. I want the Pagan gods as saints.

  55. on 10 Mar 2010 at 8:33 pm 55.Severin said …

    53 Christie
    “You assume that every Christian takes the Bible 100% literally, I don’t.”
    The Bible itself claims in many places that it is THE WORD OF GOD, for example:
    2 Peter 1:20-21 the Bible says:
    Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
    Psalm 19:7 the Bible says:
    The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.

    If you now proclaim the Bible should not be taken 100% literally, how do YOU know which parts of the book should and which should not be taken literally?
    Are YOU personally the one who makes such decisions?
    If you are free to make your own choices about what is authentical and what is not in the Bible, what makes the Bible a relevant book? Anyone can interperet it as he wishes!
    Why, then, would I not be free to take the whole Bible as bullshit?

  56. on 10 Mar 2010 at 9:54 pm 56.Sammiesoo said …

    Hello Christie,

    Here’s my thoughts on your closing comment, “there are real, genuine Christians out there I assure you. We’re all the same, just different beliefs.”

    When God gave instruction to Adam and Eve that was the first religion… “Only one true form of worship.” In other words, “no different beliefs.”

    Later God chose Israel and through Moses gave instruction to his people… again; “only one true form of worship” was acceptable, all others were pagan so again, “no different beliefs” were acceptable to God.

    Christ, the Messiah arrived in fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and gave new instruction… again and for the third time in human history, “only one true form of worship” was acceptable, all others were pagan…again, “no different beliefs” were acceptable.

    Now you say, “there are real, genuine Christians out there”…well, which are, “genuine”? Here’s why I ask that:

    Is God, “One all powerful God” or “One part of a three part trinity”? He’s either one or the other. So one is correct and acceptable to God and one isn’t acceptable to God. But as everyone knows there are religious organizations calling themselves “Christian” that don’t agree on which one God “genuinely” is. Hey! He’s not both…one’s right and one’s wrong or, one is genuine and one isn’t genuine!

    The following scriptures indicate that there should still, “only be one true form” of worship and that all other forms are compromised by pagan additions. That means that, “interfaith” or as you said, “We’re all the same, just different beliefs” simply wouldn’t be acceptable to God today just as it was never acceptable to God in the past!

    (1 Corinthians 1:10) “Now I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

    (Philippians 2:2) “make my joy full in that you are of the same mind and have the same love, being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind.”

    (1 Peter 3:8) “Finally, all of you be like-minded, showing fellow feeling, having brotherly affection, tenderly compassionate, humble in mind.”

    (Romans 16:17) “Now I exhort you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.”

    (Acts 20:29-30) “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.”

    (2 Peter 2:1) “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves.”

    (Matthew 24:24) “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.”

    Soooo, If you think I’m wrong you need to use a nice chunk of scriptures to counter my point.

  57. on 11 Mar 2010 at 2:46 am 57.A real-ist said …

    If something isn’t proven to exist, don’t we all agree that the odds tip in the favor that it doesn’t really exist?

    When you die and become only dirt in the ground it is kind of difficult to come back and say, “hey, guess what, you were right, there is no god!”

  58. on 24 Mar 2010 at 8:53 pm 58.Sammiesoo said …

    ello real-ist!

    For me you have to say things “really plain”. So if what you said above means, “Hey Looney Tune, I say God is about as real as Bugs Bunny!” That I understand, however…

    Years ago I used this test to see if I could prove or disprove, “intelligent design” better know as “God”; the creator of all matter.

    The magic word for me was, “VACUUM” and a vacuum is: A state of being sealed off from external or environmental influences; an isolation better know a something completely devoid of matter…(very empty, nothing there, no way) so what’s “MATTER”? matter is: tangible material; liquid, solid or gas. OR anything from your wonderful brain “matter” all the way down to the dirt “matter” under your fingernails and more!

    Sooooooooo, if there is no God (intelligent designer) where did the “matter” come from because as we read, nothing existences in a vacuum? Just how do you imagine the particles of dirt under your fingernails came to be? Much less your finger nails, or you fingers or (let’s jump ahead here) what about your eyeballs which are: 1) the most complex organs you possess except for your brain. 2) are composed of more than two million working parts. 3) Can process 36,000 bits of information every hour. 4) and are universally understood to be beyond the realm of human duplication.

    Trouble is, when you say there’s no God you’re in effect saying that a one celled thing spontaneously appeared in a matter less vacuum out of nothing and decide to kept inventing and adding more parts to itself and its surroundings (other parts like galaxies, magnetic fields, water, air, whale, rocks…you get the point) until it reasoned (after it invented it’s brain of course) that it needed to “see” so it pulled more matter out of a matter less vacuum and made eyeballs as described in examples 1-4 above.

    Now, I don’t know how educated you are personally, but some folks out here are very highly educated according to what it says on their walls and many of those individuals enjoy spending time scribbling all sorts of mathish info on large blackboards that are keep in offices, labs and homes (yes, in computers too). Anyway, I’d just like to tell you that the hardcore math isn’t there to backup the, ‘one celled thing in the vast vacuum’ theory. No matter how much you’d prefer to be on your own…and try to convince yourself that God doesn’t see you personally or care about you personally– that’s not what the math says…nope the math and the Scriptures say, (Matthew 10:29-31) “Do not two sparrows sell for a coin of small value? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s [knowledge]. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Therefore have no fear: you are worth more than many sparrows.”

    So now we’ve added sparrows, coins, gravity and hair to the list of things that no vacuum could possibility spontaneously spit out!

    Like other religious, mathish people I know the blackboard just doesn’t lie. You can run the numbers as many times as you like but it still won’t equal out that all this beauty that “is us”, and all this beauty that “surrounds us” was generated by a mindless vacuum.

    Does that still sound beyond the scope of mathematical comps? Well if you think so you need to have a look a God’s masterpiece, the Bible. Start reading and writing down questions as you go. In course of time someone will show up at your door to offer you a “free” home Bible study to be conducted at your convince no matter what time of day or night. Of course you’ll agree to this study because you will be thinking with the right side of your brain, not your left!

    Did you happen to know that Sir Isaac Newton totally believed in God and Albert Einstein as well as Carl Sagan were on board with intelligent design (though true, Newton was much more out there about it then the other two and wrote much more about God and religion then he ever did about mathematics).

  59. on 25 Mar 2010 at 4:31 am 59.A real-ist said …

    Vacuums prove to exist. They are called black holes in space. We can see them from a telescope. Has someone ever pointed out “heaven” from a telescope? My point is and still will be, if something isn’t proven to exist then chances are more in the favor it doesn’t exist. Vacuums are proven to exist; God isn’t. You claim a God must have created a cell particle. Who created God then? As mankind we have made many great scientific discoveries, but there are still ones that can still be discovered yet, for example, how the first cell was created. Until it is “proven” that a God created it, I have no need to believe one did. I need proof first before I can believe something, and if there is no real proof, then why would I need to believe it?

    –”It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    More quotes from Einstein:

    “Religous thought is an attempt to find an out where there is no door.”
    “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”
    “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropoligical concpet which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.”

    Quote from Carl Sagan:

    “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe.”

  60. on 25 Mar 2010 at 1:44 pm 60.Observer said …

    Sammiesoo-

    The purported messiah Jesus is a fraud. Jesus did not fulfill the role of Messiah on many fronts according to the Old Testament, and here are three easy and obvious examples to shoot down your nonsense:

    1. The messiah would be born of a maiden. There is nothing of the virgin nonsense Christians talk about in Isiah. That is either a mistranslation or intentional fabrication to get around the fact that Jesus was either a bastard, or conforming to earlier myths of the region. Of course, virgin birth of a male is beyond idiotic.

    2. The messiah is supposed to come from the house of David. This is a patrilineal attribution. “God” can not be from the House of David, and if Jesus was the “Son of God” he could not be from the House of David. “God” fucking women would be abhorrent to Jews as that would render “God” of the same ilk as Zeus.

    3. The messiah would, by definition, be recognized by Klal Israel. Clearly, that was not the case. The Pharisees, at the very least, did not take to him. Had he been “The Messiah” there would have been no question with the Pharisees or anyone else.

    Therefore, he was not the messiah.

    If you clear the BS out from between your ears, you will also realize there never was, nor will there ever be a messiah.

    Free your mind.

  61. on 25 Mar 2010 at 2:29 pm 61.Biff said …

    Observers claims refuted:

    1. “Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. “He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.” Isaiah 7

    Possibly the book of Isiah states something different but it is not the Bible.

    2. “The angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city in Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” (Luke i, 27).

    3. I know some believe Barrack to be the messiah but that does not make it so. Jesus Christ fulfilled over 330 prophecies from the OT. No question He was the Christ.

  62. on 26 Mar 2010 at 1:08 am 62.A real-ist said …

    Don’t you realize the bible or any other religous book was written by man, not a God. Therefore you cannot claim just because something is written in it makes it true. So that means any book ever written by someone is true. Shouldn’t the bible be listed under fiction in the library, possibly next to any other fairy tale book?

  63. on 30 Mar 2010 at 2:37 pm 63.Sammiesoo said …

    Wow, reai-ist…everybody is really all fired up and testy! So, what about throwing this log on the fire:

    If we evolved by, “whatever means” and we are a product of, “survival of the fittest” better known as, “whoever eats who first wins thus gets to reproduce even faster eater/winners”…how did the notion of “mercy” come to be? Must have been from that big bang that created that big black hole in that all consuming vacuum…right?

  64. on 30 Mar 2010 at 3:28 pm 64.Observer said …

    Biff-

    Sorry about the Hebrew transliteration. ( Do you realize how ridiculous it is to refer to English as definitive with respect to the Bible? The Bible was not written in English. ) Isaiah it is. The transliterated word in Isaiah 7:14 is “Almah” which is a young woman. A virgin is a “betulah” and is not used in the text of Isaiah.

    What is more (since we are quoting scripture now), the “Almah” referred to was the wife of King Ahaz, and the mother of Hezekiah a king of Israel. The fulfillment of the prophecy of Hezekiah is in Kings II, 16:9, 15:25 (dumbass).

    I do not know what you are referring to with respect to the numerous prophecies you claim Jesus achieved. They are half-assed at best compared to what a Messiah is supposed to do: Jesus did not establish universal peace, social justice, nor righteousness. He certainly did not redeem Israel. What is more, the OT admonishes to be aware of and on guard for a false messiah. Proof of a false messiah would be one who abrogates, or adds commandments. Mark (7,19), Matthew (15,11) Jesus declares all food clean (as in chorizos). Ooops! Ergo, Jesus != Messiah.

    Of course, it is a small step from the actual proof Jesus is not a messiah presented above to something along these lines: “These are nice stories, and interesting in the context of Western and Near Eastern culture and thought. What is more, these stories are even more interesting as they have provided a means to captivate, and arguably enslave man for millennia. What is the psychology at play here? How does that work with the physical organ we know as the brain?”

    Biff, keep coming to this blog. Unless you are slipping into senility, there must be some cracks forming in your armor against reason. Let the light of rationality shine in.

  65. on 30 Mar 2010 at 3:34 pm 65.Observer said …

    Sammieoso-

    The notion of “mercy” or altruism or collaboration seems to be hard wired into many species. Think about wolves. They are more successful hunters because they work together. Wolves who work together have a better chance of survival, and their genes are more likely to propogate. It is a pretty simple concept.

    Species also tend to be less prone to killing their own species than others, hence mercy. As a species though, we are not so good at showing mercy to one another. Oh well.

  66. on 30 Mar 2010 at 3:46 pm 66.Truth said …

    A careful look at the etymological and semantical aspects of these two words actually documents the fact that there is no single-word-meaning for either Hebrew term.

    According to John Walton, one of the translations of ‘almâ is “young woman,” but there are certain nuances to the Hebrew term. After examining all occurrences of the word, and looking briefly at its etymology, Walton gave the lexigraphical definition of ‘almâ as “one who has not yet borne a child and as an abstraction refers to the adolescent expectation of motherhood.”

    In application to Isaiah 7:14, he admitted that virginity seemed to be implied (1997a, 3:415-418). As to the claim that, if Isaiah had meant virgin, he would have used betûlâ, Walton refutes that as well. He says that betûlâ is a “social status indicating that a young girl is under the guardianship of her father, with all the age and sexual inferences that accompany that status” (1997b, 1:783).

    If the passage was a prophecy of the virgin birth of Jesus, then betûlâ would not apply since Mary, while not yet married per se to Joseph, was nonetheless no longer under the guardianship of her father.

  67. on 30 Mar 2010 at 4:06 pm 67.Observer said …

    Truth- WTF? Are your referring to John H. Walton at the wing-nut, batshit crazy, evangelical Xtian Wheaton College in Illinois? You can’t be serious.

    Have Wheaton students been allowed to start dancing yet? What happens if a faculty member gets divorced? Wheaton is a nut-house.

  68. on 30 Mar 2010 at 7:48 pm 68.Horatio said …

    Truth

    You smoked Observer on the etymology and thus backed him to an ad hominem tirade. The Bible wasn’t written in English no less – who knew?
    I have read that one man fulfilling all of the over 330 prophecies in the OT as Jesus did is calculated as 1 in 10 to 17th. Quite astounding and quite unlikely which makes Him the obvious Messiah.

  69. on 31 Mar 2010 at 3:07 am 69.A real-ist said …

    Here is an intriguing question for you believers. If God created the universe, Earth, and man with soles, then why has man only existed in a small amount in time? Did God get bored with floating rocks in space over billions of years and decided he needed more entertainment? The dinosaurs and other living things weren’t enough after even that so he then decided to create a living thing, man, with soles? If God really created the universe, then why didn’t he create man at the beginning?

  70. on 31 Mar 2010 at 1:49 pm 70.Observer said …

    Hor Truth et al.

    You will note in T’s bit that he lifted something from an outside source. (Note: the awkward inclusion of citations for references not included.) He should include some sort of attribution when lifting text verbatim (,Idiot!).

    Ad hominem rant? It is a joy. Walton is not a reliable source. He is a crank from the Wheaton College nut-house. Some sources are so unreliable as to not be credible; sort of like a ranting loony street person.

    I think it is all nonsense regardless. You fellas choose not to refer to the rest of the posts showing the Jesus as messiah argument is nonsense of a nonsense.

    Still digging for some disreputable sources to plagiarize?

  71. on 31 Mar 2010 at 3:57 pm 71.Horatio said …

    “If God really created the universe, then why didn’t he create man at the beginning?”

    Because he saved his greatest creation for last. He is an amazing God, so complex, so incredible and always right on time.

    I have never read where God created soles. That would be for Nike.

    To the Big O:
    The only disreputable source would be you Big O. I would venture to guess a man professor from Wheaton knows more Systematic Theology than some self-appointed theologian on a blog. Just a guess but I feel confident in the accuracy. Hey, but prove Walton wrong Big O.

  72. on 31 Mar 2010 at 5:34 pm 72.Sammiesoo said …

    Hummm everyone…
    There’s certainly a lot of wordy stuff flash-posting so I need more clarification.

    Here’s how I’m understanding the, “Out of nowhere and nothing all came to be” side: God is nonsense and that should be obvious to any rational person because things, even as complicated as the need for the human eye, could certainly have come to be once the one celled organism had evolved itself to the point that it realized it would be needing such an organ…this all took place after the black hole that came to be in the vast vacuum just after the big bang…

    Weeeel…Back in my younger days when I really enjoyed doing whatever I pleased and didn’t even want to consider that someone was holding me accountable for all my very sorted actions I considered it best to conclude that my ancestry consisted of several levels of very smart fish that decided to breathe air and walk on dry land. However, over the years I began to think, “What the heck, it’s time to get a straight gig and take a hard look at options, soooo…

    Now days I enjoy taking credit for my personal accomplishments. I’m much better at realizing that though I might have been credited with helping to “discovering new and surprising things from pre-existing matter”. I have never been credited with the “creating of matter itself from void”. But of course if I were able to create matter from void that would be a greater accomplishment then any of my predecessors! And if I were able to take the matter I created from void to yet an even high level and transform it into living organisms…well then, if I could do that then I’d be… (Choose A: Spontaneously Self-creating one celled life form – or – B: Intelligent Designer know by the title, “God All Mighty”)

    Ya gotta love pot sturring!

  73. on 31 Mar 2010 at 8:24 pm 73.Observer said …

    Walton is at best a Christian apologist trying to tie up obvious inconsistencies and contradictions. The folks that wrote the OT and their descendants have made the point I made several times in the past, often with disaster at the hands of offended Christians as a reward. Of course the virgin birth bit is a necessary excuse because the historical Jesus was a bastard.

    You Xtians will keep making up whatever stories you want. These threads always start out pretty funny. Ultimately, you Xtians make me feel depressed, despondent, and unclean.

  74. on 31 Mar 2010 at 9:23 pm 74.Horatio said …

    “Ultimately, you Xtians make me feel depressed, despondent, and unclean.”

    That is because you have no relationship with Christ. Seek Him while he may be found.

    Inconsistencies are only in the eyes of the unbeliever. Read some CS Lewis, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel and find the truth.

  75. on 01 Apr 2010 at 12:00 am 75.A real-ist said …

    Horatio, read books like the God Delusion.

    “That is because you have no relationship with Christ. Seek Him while he may be found.”

    Um, kind of hard to seek and find someone that doesn’t exist. If you think you have heard or seen Christ then that was just your imaginary friend. It’s all in your head.

    “Because he saved his greatest creation for last.”

    Really? What would be his point in all that? Who is he trying to impress? I like how your type just makes things up to try to fit your belief in order to tell yourself that you think you are right and can’t accept that your belief is actually being seriously challenged.

    Have you heard the big news in science these last few days? Check this out:

    Atom smasher will help reveal ‘the beginning’

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFngOTfNSw21ce_26N1EzfTAXwRQD9EP74HO0

  76. on 01 Apr 2010 at 2:18 am 76.Horatio said …

    “Atom smasher will help reveal ‘the beginning’”

    Great! I look forward to revealing the scientific steps God took in bringing about our creation. However, i doubt current laws will be the answer.

    You reminded me of this:

    “The message of the Cross if foolishness to those who are perishing”.

    You just proof God’s Word accurate time and time again.

  77. on 01 Apr 2010 at 3:47 am 77.A real-ist said …

    “You just proof God’s Word accurate time and time again.”

    I did? Where is the example? Especially since there has never been real proof of God’s existence and that has been the point I have been making. So I guess by me saying there is no proof is proving it. Doesn’t make sense at all.

    “The message of the Cross if foolishness to those who are perishing”.

    So the message here is that I am perishing and you are not? Are you refering to this so called afterlife you think you are going to get? Here is a quote that I heard once “When you die you will wish you were in hell”. Which means, there is no heaven and life on Earth is hell, so you will wish you were back in the present because once you die the only thing that will be left is your rotting body. And you will wish you didn’t waste half your life praying and worshiping when you could have spent that time doing fun things to enjoy our little time we have in our life. Maybe your message is meant to be “the foolish believe in the cross even though we are all perishing.”

  78. on 01 Apr 2010 at 1:47 pm 78.Horatio said …

    “And you will wish you didn’t waste half your life praying and worshiping when you could have spent that time doing fun things to enjoy our little time we have in our life.”
    ___________________________________
    I like speaking to my father and worship. It is a great time. Hardly a waste! If we both rot in the ground how does that give you a leg up?
    I also regularly have a great time and feel good in the morning! Why would that be a waste to me? You think if we don’t all live life YOUR way we are wasting it? Such a narrow-minded egocentric attitude.

    The “message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” is a verse in scripture (I Cor 1:18) you and others prove to be accurate time and time again.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply