Posts Tagged ‘Christ’

The Saving Properties of Jesus Christ

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

A man who espoused his faith in Jesus Christ, was saved by Jesus sometime on Thursday evening along with the rest of his family.

Charles Dalton was an evangelical Christian man. He worked at his church, spoke of the saving power of Jesus Christ and was helping to build a summer Bible camp. Sometime during the early hours of Friday, September 25, Jesus came to save Charles, his wife and two kids. Jesus saved them from the demons that secretly plagued the family. They no longer have any demons and can rejoice in the presence of the Lord.

Never doubt the power of Jesus Christ.1

  1. Also, never doubt the ability of a .12 gauge shotgun to deliver the saving, healing power of Jesus Christ. [<]

Obama’s ‘God Bless’ expletive is hate speech

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Mean ObamaAt the end of nearly every Obama speech, Obama fails the prudence test regarding the rule among politicians to avoid saying anything about anybody’s religious faith. Obama isn’t the first, nor will he be the last politician to abuse the idea of church and state separation. However, I can relate to the President — I’ve uttered those words myself on occasion. But if this were just an occasion like that, Obama would have by now offered an apology for his repeated and blatant invocation of the Christian god: “God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”1

So, I must ask this question: Did Obama intend to offend millions of his countrymen who choose not to worship God (or, specifically Obama’s version of god), or did he just not care if they were offended?

Either way, if Obama had invoked the name of Allah, you can be sure that Christians would be lining up to throw their “I’m offended” stones.

Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is aimed at atheists, Christians, straight people, white people, non-white people, men, or women. Whether we should tolerate this speech as a form of free speech, or whether we should prosecute it as hate speech is a different issue. In this case, we must note that “hate speech is speech meant to demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are associated with its target.”2

So, where is the outrage against Obama’s hate speech against atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, and Hindus (among many others)? We haven’t heard from many of these groups, and we especially haven’t heard from Obama’s spokesman. Obama’s uncorrected cursing is indicative of the persistent asphyxiation by the tireless forces of religio-political convergence. One of atheism’s greatest gifts to America was to keep God out of the Constitution, and every time we let hate speech slip by without consequence, we come closer and closer to settling the new foundation of theocracy.

In other news, Washington Examiner commentator Mark Tapscott argues that Vice President Biden’s use of “Jesus Christ” as an “expletive” should be considered “hate speech,” and Biden should, at minimum, apologize. State of Protest attempted to reach Jesus Christ for comment, but all we received was a cryptic message: “Yes, No, Wait.” We think that Christ’s prayer-induced voicemail was on an endless loop.

Tapscott asserts that Biden, who used the phrase in an on-the-record interview with the Wall Street Journal, should have, by now, offered an apology for what Tapscott considers hate speech “meant to demean, ridicule and discredit all who are associated with its target.” Tapscott considers the victims to be American Christians, who, he is surprised to note, have not protested or made any demands of Biden.

Of course, one must ask whether Biden actually did “mean” to demean, ridicule, and discredit American Christians. I know when I say “Jesus Christ,” I’m not even thinking of Christians, let alone intending to demean, ridicule, and discredit them. Heck, if I knew merely saying something was the equivalent of all that, I would have just made one single post on this blog stating only “Jesus Christ, Muhammad, God,” and have been done with it.

Tapscott is wrong, and he shouldn’t be trying to induce an artificially created sense of a right not to be offended on behalf of anyone, let alone the most privileged of America’s religious sect.

[Poe disclaimer: I've found I need to add these disclaimers every once in a while to cure Poe Blindness on all sides. Please read the original article by Mark Tapscott and compare it to what I have written above. I hope you're able to see the parallel and how incredibly stupid it is for Tapscott and any others to accuse Biden of hate speech while simultaneously ignoring Biden and other politicians' invocations to the god of the Christians.]

  1. See http://obamaspeeches.com/ for endless examples [<]
  2. Original article [<]

Carnival of the Godless #117

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

COTG

It’s my pleasure once again to present an edition of Carnival of the Godless, #117. This edition is packed full of outstanding articles, reviews, and advice.

I’m adding italicized comments below the articles with some personal quips. Take them with a grain of salt.

Enjoy!

Mike at Brain Stimulant asks about a Religious Pill:

Does a selective drug exist that could increase a person’s spirituality and religiosity? Are there pills available that would allow a person to suffuse their perceptual consciousness with a feeling of the presence of an otherworldy supreme being? Will the very same drug increase feelings of serenity, peace and magic?

Note the comments after the article where Mike clarifies his reasoning. There’s a lot of pharm-science and some subtle hypothesizing, but it’s certainly worth reading even for the non-scientist who might be interested in how the brain may delude and how it may be manipulated (tailored?) with pharmaceuticals.

Lukeprog at Common Sense Atheism examines and analyzes a debate regarding escapism in Escaping Hell (Part 1):

If God wants to reconcile with us, why would he shut the door on us forever at death? Two philosophers argue that a loving God would always give us the option to escape hell.

Most Christians think of hell as a punishment for evil actions or non-belief, but philosophical attacks on this view are so powerful that most Christian philosophers today instead defend the view that hell does not exist (universalism or annihilationism) or else they defend an “issuant” view of hell, which says that God provides hell out of love. (He provides a place for those who choose not to be with him, so that they are not forced to be in the presence of someone they don’t like.)

If you were ever brought up in the southern American traditions of worrying about your almost guaranteed descent into hell, or if you weren’t so raised but have wondered how Christians live with the belief that God is both loving and will send people to hell, then this article would certainly interest you. If you don’t fall under any of those categories, read it anyway to find out what you’re missing.

(((Billy))) The Atheist shares a high school horror story quite likely shared by the majority of American graduates. Graduation and Prayer: Some Schools Are Stuck In The Last Century at (((Billy))) The Atheist.

He told us that we were sinners. That we would only find success through the intercession of the one loving god. That we could only be accepted by god if we make a personal relationship with Jesus the center of our life. That we would burn in hell for eternity if we failed to take advantage of this life choice.

I like Billy’s articles because they’re narratives about situations I’ve shared, but wish I had not. He infuses the articles with critical analysis of religion, and his personal experiences give him more than enough credibility. Don’t miss his two submissions.

(((Billy))) The Atheist recounts his experience in the PTA and the negative social ramifications resulting from being openly non-Christian, and describes how Christians claim to be a persecuted minority while simultaneously persecuting non-Christians based on “majority rules.” Christianists: Please, Make Up Your Mind!.

For American Christians, the idea that majority always rules is a comfortable part of their life. Even if something is blatantly unconstitutional, if the majority likes it, it must be okay. Quick history lesson, folks: the Constitution of the United States of America exists, in part, to protect the minority from the majority.

Paul Gowder challenges the idea that the non-religious are ignorant. On the claim “you are ignorant of Christianity” and the metaphysics of religion. at Uncommon Priors.

On the equivocation that critics of the new atheism make between the content-free religion that they claim we’re ignorant of and the hellfire and bearded guy in the sky religion that we criticize and that people actually believe.

Paul Gowder touches on something I’m sure most of us have experienced, and something I resent. How dare anyone accuse me, without any evidence, of being ill-informed about the religion that has pervaded my life and invaded this nation like a creeping moss over the past fifty or so years.1

The Whited Sepulchre lists a select set of Bart Ehrman quotes “for the next time someone claims that eyewitness accounts “prove” that a miracle happened.” “Jesus, Interrupted” – Bart Ehrman on miracles at The Whited Sepulchre.

Okay, so TWS’s personal contribution to this article is “Hmmmm….” But don’t let that stop you from taking a look at the excerpts from Bart Ehrman’s pinnacle of achievement, “Jesus Interrupted.”

larryniven offers up his own lambasting of Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against (belief in) naturalism, supplementing the reaction of The Daily Show’s John Oliver. Plantinga vs. …The Daily Show?? at Rust Belt Philosophy.

It says something very interesting about the state of religious philosophy when the single most revered theologian can be flat-out wrecked by a late-night cable comedy show.

A straightforward criticism of what is evidently a severe abuse of neurological energy.

Greta Christina presents Not Religious, But Spiritual at Greta Christina’s Blog.

Why should disorganized religion be seen as more valid than organized religion? A critique of the “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual” trope.

Any time I see a new Greta Christina article pop up in my RSS reader, I know it’s going to be good. I’m never disappointed. Her submission reminds me of an article I wrote back in December, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand. Both touch on the question of whether spirituality, loosely defined as some desire or perceived connection with the unexplained and attributing it as a necessity to something supernatural, is something worth keeping after rejection of organized religion. Mine focuses generally on religion and religious belief, and Greta Christina’s focuses on spirituality. After you’re done reading her article, take a listen to her interview at Secular Nation, and then visit the Blowfish Blog for some of her excellent articles on sexuality (like her recent “My Partner Cheated On Me With Their Right Hand“).

The first part of Reed Braden’s refutation of the teen book “Extreme Answers to Life’s Tough Questions” deals with abortion. Extreme Questions for Extreme Answers 1: Abortion, at Homosecular Gaytheist.

The first question the book asks is, “When does life begin?” Rather than examining the scientific and medical arguments for the beginning of life or trying to create a working definition of the word, it jumps straight into the Bible:

Psalm 55:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

(ESV)

It then interprets this as saying, “The Bible makes it clear that life begins at conception, not merely at birth.” It makes it clear? In that verse? Really? Clear, as in lucid, cogent, well-explained? And what is this, “merely at birth,” nonsense? Whatever happened to “the miracle of birth?”

Learn some of the hogwash being fed to Christian teens from this review that makes even the most progressive of us want to burn a few particular books.

Transplanted Lawyer proffers a more realistic Resolution For Religious Freedom at Not A Potted Plant.

In response to the proposal pending in Congress to adopt a seventy-five article resolution containing a laundry list of violations of the principle of separation of church and state, this is what I would have Congress adopt instead.
…Whereas, William Penn, the founder of the colony that later became the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, decreed as Governor of that colony that “perfect religious tolerance of all” be extended even to atheists…

I’m a fan of the Transplanted Lawyer, and although this article is meant to show how asinine it is to proffer government resolutions to acknowledge Christianity, the points are valid and true enough that perhaps there should be a resolution to have taught “the real foundation of the United States” in schools, based on TL’s list.

I was pleased to see another post from Tree Dreamer guest poster Mathurine in one of my COTGs, and sadly it seems this may be her last post at Tree Dreamer. When You Leave Islam contains “advice for people who have quit or want to quit Islam and living your life to the fullest.”

You’re going to feel like you were lied to, betrayed, bamboozled. This is natural, and you have to confront it and deal with it. I guess there are a few people who can walk away cleanly, and my hat is off to them. But for the most part, you’re going to have some very negative emotions to deal with.
…You were lied to. You were betrayed. You were fooled. You have the right to be angry.

Even though Mathurine suggests that she’s writing to ex-Muslims, her words ring true for every former believer. Additionally, even those who have never experienced some of the harsher religious practices can gain some insight into the emotional turmoil felt by people who are trying to shed the anger, regret, and feelings of betrayal felt by so many worldwide.

Magdalune rants familiar about the Nature of God in The Nature of God Part I: Plagues, Infanticide, and War … oh my! at Sowing Seeds in Winter.

God is the God of sickness. He has caused plagues, hardened hearts, inspired insanity. He is a God of death as well as life, yet I hear none praising him for that, in part because Christians do not tend to pray for more pain.

Magdalune shares the frustration we have dealing with Christians who characterize God inconsistently in order to perpetuate their unfounded delusion.

Mikkal Travvis asks, American Christians Approve Of Torture? at The Last Days.

One of the most shocking things in these memos is that they recognized that the techniques that they were authorizing were ones that we condemned other countries for using.

However, the reality of American torture goes far beyond what was described in those four memos.

Travvis examines a Pew poll indicating that the majority of Americans felt that torture was sometimes or often justified against suspected terrorists. In an emotional rapid fire fact attack, Travvis expounds on the released torture memos and an investigative report into the actions of the military police, ultimately asking from where comes the support for such heinous acts.

Bryan Perkins’ title says it all: American political opportunities are loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest. at Science. Why not?.

I was looking over my blog archives when I came across a lecture by Richard Dawkins in which he urges all atheists to openly state their position — and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. About 17:50 into the video, Dawkins comes to a depressing conclusion.

Bryan (with a ‘y’) cites the poll numbers to show what we all know in our hearts to be true: gotta lie to be a politician. Well, a smart one, anyway.

RagingRev offers Job: An Assault on Logic and the Character of God at RagingRev.

What Job does defies all logical thinking, he worships God, he barely questions God and he submits to God…while everything in me would be giving YHVH the finger Job is on his face before him. Job neglects his own need for real answers and justice…My guess is that he does this out of a mixture of fear and devotion.

RagingRev explains further his assertion that the book of Job makes God look like a “huge asshole,” using examples from the biblical text while clarifying some common misconceptions about the characters involved in Job’s trials and tribulations, finally asking the obvious question: Does this make any sense?

Yvette argues that “Objective Morality Proves God”? at Blue Linchpin.

You’ve probably heard the argument that revolves around “objective morality exists, therefor God exists”. I’ve read various attempts at refuting this argument, which theists tend to ignore completely it seems or scream “GOD IS A MYSTERY HOW DARE YOU TRY TO COMPREHEND HIM OH PRAISE JEEZUS!”.

This one is easy, since I commented on it! I’ll just be lazy and use my comment:
Good indirect point about how the Christian argument that the bible is still inerrant because when it was written, the culture was different (and therefore, dashing babies against the rocks was okay then, but not now) is self-defeating because it shows that either God changes his mind (and is therefore not objective), or that if God does really have an objective morality, no one has ever consistently followed it or even knows what the hell it is. What’s the point in having an objective morality if even within the same religious sect, the specific rules of that morality are ambiguous, at best?

Jen attempts to offer up An uncontroversial atheist ad? at Blag Hag.

We all know the only reason Christians don’t go around killing, raping, and stealing is because of the reward of heaven and the threat of hell. Ask any Christian what they would do if they were suddenly certain that their was no God, and I’m sure they’ll confidently state that they’ll go on a murderous rampage and take part in drunken orgies (two of the favorite past times of atheists).

There aren’t many articles that make me laugh out loud, but Jen’s falls clearly into that category.

Another one from Jen at Blag Hag, Boobs and Atheism.

Are we not allowed to joke about anything sexual at all because of the fear of not being politically correct? My friends and I make jokes that uber-feminists would consider sexist, but you know what, it’s about context. We’re not making them because we think it’s true that women are dumb or emotional or whatever – we make them because we think it’s ridiculous that people actually do think that way. We’re mocking people’s intolerance.

I must say that prior to this COTG, I had not visited Blag Hag, but after reading this article, I subscribed to the RSS feed. Jen is a down-to-earth realist with a great sense of humor, and I need an intellectually-stimulating laugh at least once a day, or life isn’t worth living.

Ron Britton presents Comedy Gold at Bay of Fundie.
collecting-pants

Cartoon captions, ftw!

Finally, Andrew Bernardin offers up a serious piece (of flesh?), The Devilish Penis and Curbing Desire at the evolving mind.

“Thou must be circumcised” is quite a creative commandment. It says, To follow me and have a relationship with me (formalized via our covenant) you must take a knife to your reproductive organ and trim a bit off.

The final question is a great one.

If you made it this far, I hope you enjoyed COTG #117. It was really fun and informative to write it, and I thank all who submitted, and all who partook. If you’ve been enjoying COTG, why not host it?

Right to Think is hosting the next Carnival of the Godless. Go Submit something!

Note2

  1. On a forum I frequent, I recently noticed that a Christian forum member was finger-pointing at an atheist member, accusing him of violating one of the commandments. I then challenged the Christian to name the commandments, where they’re cited, and to name the prescribed punishments for them. That was weeks ago, and despite being an active participant in his and other forums, he has, to this day, only listed one commandment, with citation, and with an ambiguous apologetic explanation (excuse) of why the biblical punishment (stoning to death for adultery) was no longer valid. The inconsistency among Christians is indicative of the lack of an authoritative, reliable, consistent, absolute, objective doctrine of morality. The other religions have the same problem. If anything, go read Paul’s article to make up for my using this occasion to vent. ;) [<]
  2. There was a contest on my blog where the winner would have a pic put in this COTG, but I received no entries, so, I guess I win. Yay. [<]

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage1 and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures. 

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

  1. IMDb: Outrage [<]

WTF, Olbermann?

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Keith Olbermann tonight added a new feature to his Countdown show: WTF?

I mean, it’s called The WTF!?! Moment.

For the debut, he readdressed Carrie Prejean’s tragically famous emesis and her claim to “free speech.”

Some excerpts:

It’s no longer about her opinion, it’s about her.

God and Satan battling it out for the future of freedom of speech…

Where were God and Satan when you posed in your panties when you were a teenager?

Satan’s Wind!

You were not exercising freedom of speech during the pageant. You were an employee of usa inc, or donald trump inc, … the pageant people have the right to take that right away from you at any moment.

Cites First Amendment.

Clues Prejean in on the fact that employers don’t have to honor freedom of speech.

“I was punished for doing so.”

How exactly were you punished?

She assumed she didn’t win the pageant because of her answer.

Wah.

WTF!?!

The end.

Hope I captured the moment there. Prejean is definitely a good target for the WTF moment. As good as Ben Stein, but much better looking. Right? I mean, if you like viciously ambitious, Christian fundamentalist, artificially enhanced, mindless, hypocritical sellout walking vaginas. I think I’d rather screw one of those Japanese cans with lips things.