Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 28, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Republican Lawmakers on Strike
Paul Ryan’s New Clothes




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar

Mekong Diaries

By Sherry Buchanan
$19.80

Geronimo

Geronimo

By Robert M. Utley
$30.00

more items

 
A/V Booth

Website Compares Stephen Baldwin to Job, Asks for Money

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 23, 2010
Baldwin brothers
youtube.com

Much like the biblical Job, the actor and official member of “the famous Baldwin brothers Hollywood clan” believes in God and has endured hardships. Now, although this particular Baldwin apparently hasn’t suffered from a plague of boils (and far be it from us to wish such things upon him), a website devoted to making him whole again following some financial hardships has miraculously sprung up. Witness the new movement, RestoreStephenBaldwin.org, and believe!

YouTube via Salon:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Jim Effect, July 29, 2011 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

By restoring Stephen Baldwin whose carrier apparently suffered due to his convictions to God, believers can finally prove to the non-believers that God exists and does not abandon anyone, even for the guy who has a role in Threesome! In our tumultuous world today we all can do with experiencing a miracle such as this. Hallelujah!

Report this

By christian96, May 13, 2010 at 10:47 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis—-Your comment to Manni “like a real man”
sounds like something straight out of a John Wayne
movie.  If John was speaking to you he would have
said, “Well, pilgrim, if you got the guts, I’m going
to give you a test to see if you are a real man.
Now, ya go home, take those raggedy clothes ur
wearin off till ur butt naked.  Then, stand up
straight before your mirror.  If you see somethin
dangling between ur legs ur A REAL MAN.  If ya don’t
then ur not.”

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 13, 2010 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

By Maani, May 12 at 9:11 pm

”As usual, you miss the point.  You don’t owe me respect for my opinion; you owe me respect because I am a fellow human being.  However, you have never learned how to separate the person from the position, which is why you cannot engage with people with whom you disagree without yourself engaging in disrespect, condescension and bullying.
Nice try.”

No maani, I haven’t missed any point. Respect has to be earned. Do you respect someone like Jeffery Dahmer just because he’s a human being? Do you respect Osama bin Ladin because he’s a human being? That’s bullshit.

Your blaming me as the excuse for not answering is cowardly and a copout. But that is no longer here or there, because I’m through with this article.

I did leave you a little something on the veil article. Let’s see if you can deal with a topic like a real man when it doesn’t concern your faith.

 

By christian96, May 13 at 1:40 am

”If your left eye is the good one then
you must be predominantly using the right side of
your brain.  If your right, then you would be using
the left side of your brain.  Since it is the
middle eye I can only assume you are not using your
brain at all.”

Whatever you say Christer96; of course that doesn’t speak well of you, that an individual not using his brain can make such a great defender of the faith run like a child to his mother rather than take a stand defending his belief system.

 


@ maani, Christer96, & migrantLurker:

It’s a shame that you great defenders of the Faith weren’t leading the way in the first century because with cowardly lions like you 3, Christianity would have been quickly flushed down the toilet and multimillions of human beings would have been spared the horrors that that religion and its adherents have inflicted upon humankind.

Relax gentlemen, you don’t have to worry, your boy Steven is going to make millions for Jeebus and pass it all through that tax shelter known as a ministry. It might take a little longer than first expected though because I see that old Ted Haggard is back! Yep, seems like jeebus has cured him of his desire for young, well-muscled males and meth. He’s going to split the fleecing of the stupefied flock with Steve. Do you think he’ll blow it again? Bwaaaaaaaaaaa!

Ciao gents!

Report this

By christian96, May 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis—-If your left eye is the good one then
you must be predominantly using the right side of
your brain.  If your right, then you would be using
the left side of your brain.  Since it is the
middle eye I can only assume you are not using your
brain at all.

Report this

By Maani, May 12, 2010 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

As usual, you miss the point.  You don’t owe me respect for my opinion; you owe me respect because I am a fellow human being.  However, you have never learned how to separate the person from the position, which is why you cannot engage with people with whom you disagree without yourself engaging in disrespect, condescension and bullying.

Nice try.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

By Maani, May 12 at 4:48 pm

”After reading your posts here, and your post today on the thread re Islamic veils in France, it is clear to me that you are unquestionably the most angry, fearful person I have ever met on these boards.”

Well maani I hate to tell you this but once again you’re wrong on just about every count.

Far from being angry I’m one of the most happy-go-luckys you’ll ever encounter. Perhaps the real problem here is that you’re shocked that I don’t render the unearned respect that the religious and religions have enjoyed for millennia. Everyone, including you, has the privilege of being able to maintain and voice an opinion. The problem is somewhere along the line, and probably due to AmeriCorp’s metro-sexualized and ultra-liberalized society, some thought that all opinions should be equally respected. That’s bullshit! That’s insane!

You dare to say all those ugly things about me because I have a much different world view from you based on comments; cold written words. How can you possibly know my family life, my business life, and almost everything about me by comments mostly designed to get you out of your myopic mindset and start thinking like a human being?

What you and those of your ilk do not like maani is that I don’t play with kid’s gloves on. I also won’t sit here and say stupid crap like: “While I don’t agree with your position I respect your right to have that opinion.” What a crock of poop! Not all opinions are equal. There are a lot of very stupid and dangerous opinions out there.

If you can’t answer whether or not genital mutilation of infants and small children is child abuse then you deserve no respect because you’re at the very least a coward. Everyone reading that knows that the problem is that your psychopathic desert god ordered—according to your book of fables—that they be circumcised and that they do it to their offspring as a sign forever. I don’t have a problem with stating unequivocally that I believe infant and child mutilation is child abuse and should be outlawed. I don’t hesitate to admit that there was a point in my life—regrettably—where I thought nothing of circumcision because I too was once insane. I face-palm when I think of how some decry the cropping of ears on Boxers and don’t think anything about penile and clitoral circumcision and vaginal infibulation. 

What you see manni with me is a low tolerance for the stupid.

Look at the Vatican; all that child abuse and do you see a single comment from them calling it a crime? No! They say that it’s sin! Automatic immunity! It’s not sin, it a crime. In our society it’s one of the most horrendous crimes that can be committed because it’s committed against children. Yet because it’s the Church—dah Lawd jeebus’ Church, no less—it’s being treated as sin!

If that were you just being accused maani, not even guilty, just accused, you’d be ruined for life and people would be out there calling for your head!

You’ve quite some nerve to say those things about me. But relax maani, I’ve skin thinker than a Nile crocodile and I know never to expect any less from Christians because…well, let’s leave it at that, okay?

So tell us maani, is mutilating the genitalia of infants and small children a psychopathic disorder and child abuse?

One new question for all you believers: Where was your all-powerful god when those children being molested for decades cried out; “Please god make him stop!”

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 12, 2010 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

By christian96, May 12 at 1:32 am

” Nemesis——Which eye is your good eye?  Left or
right? ”

Don’t you know? The middle one!

Report this

By Maani, May 12, 2010 at 12:48 pm Link to this comment

First, today being Steve’s birthday, I wanted to wish him a happy one, and hope that things work out for him.

Second, Nemesis:

After reading your posts here, and your post today on the thread re Islamic veils in France, it is clear to me that you are unquestionably the most angry, fearful person I have ever met on these boards.  And your anger and fear lead to an uncontrollable denigration, vituperation, malice and hatred - to a degree that I have never seen here, even from some of the other radical atheists on the site.

I truly, seriously and sincerely feel sorry for you, and hope that one day you will find the kind of peace that will allow you to engage from a place of calm, confidence (not arrogance) and control.  And yes, I realize you don’t want or need my prayers or sympathy, but, hey - that is what “true Christians” do.  LOL.

Peace.

Report this

By christian96, May 11, 2010 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis——Which eye is your good eye?  Left or
right?

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 11, 2010 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

Maani said that he came here to debate and learn yet he never responded to any questions that would have given me an idea of what type of religious doctrine I was dealing with. That’s proof positive that religion has no business in the realm of science.

Manni and others of his mind set should have learned something from his refusal to answer whether or not mutilation of infant and child genitalia is child abuse and a psychopathic mental and/or behavioral disorder. I believe I know why maani, as well as many others that I’ve asked that question to, refuse to answer. It’s embarrassing to have to face the fact that your 21st century and enlightened moral construct is many times more moral than that of the mythological desert god that you worship.

Since you have deigned to interject migrantLurker, why don’t you answer the following questions?

1. Were Adam and Eve real humans or metaphorical?

2. Is the creation story to be taken literally or metaphorically? Which of the two versions is correct or are they the same despite the discrepancies?

3. How should I understand the following verses; literally or metaphorically?

Romans 5:12 – 14: “So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned—for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.”

4. Where is or what became of, the canopy of water over the earth?

5. In your opinion is the mutilation of the genitalia of infants and small children (both males and females) a psychopathic mental and/or behavioral disorder?

6. Are all Jews that have not accepted Jesus as YHWH’s son and messiah, anti-Christs, deceivers, liars, Christ killers, murderers of the Jewish prophets, not real Jews and of the synagogue of Satan?

7. Can you provide evidence of atheists promoting genital mutilation of infants and small children in the name of atheism?

8. Can you provide us with a theory and mathematical model of how an inanimate object, a staff, can be transformed into an animate object, a snake, by simply throwing the staff to the ground?

9. Can you provide us with a theory and mathematical model on how snakes and donkeys can talk and what language are they likely to use?

10. Can you provide us with a theory and mathematical model describing how a chariot of fire can exist, not burn to death the rider, and how that chariot and the horses pulling it can fly?

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 11, 2010 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

By migrantLurker, May 10 at 11:22 am

”And nemesis this principle applies to you too.  All the vehement arguing just makes you look defensive; We could even say its a good theory.  But like my physics prof taught me, “Even the best theories are still theories. The moment you believe a theory, you become useless to science, for you are no longer scientist, but priest.”
I think both of you need to rest in whatever belief you choose.  I’m guessing this forum isn’t the only place where you get defensive about your respective religious beliefs.  ”

Being an atheist I don’t have any religious beliefs to defend. Calling atheism a religion is the same as saying bald is a hair color.

One does not defend “disbelief.” That’s all atheism is, disbelief in a divine. It’s not very complicated. You’re an atheist. Do you believe in Zeus or Athena? Do you believe in Quetzalcoatl the god of the Toltecs and Aztecs? There still exist codices not destroyed by the murderous Christian hoards that say he existed. They sacrificed hundreds of thousands to him. If you don’t believe in any of these gods then does that not mean that you disbelieve their existence? If so, you’re an atheist! 

Your presentation and misuse of the word theory is a perfect example of how believers in superstition use subtlety and equivocation fallacy in order to deceive others into accepting your unfounded arguments as sound. Your use of theory betrays your ignorance of the meaning of the word in science or your willingness to use deceit in order to make your baseless argument appear sound. Asimov was correct when he said: ”Creationists make it sound as though a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”

Scientific theories are based on known facts, they’re mathematical models. They evolve and are refined as evidence is collected. Theories, or hypotheses, are subjected to pear review and always open to scrutinizing by other scientists with opposing theories. Religion is exactly the opposite. Religion is dogma. Religion is closed to questioning. Religion offers no answers and keeps you from asking the questions. Put religion under a magnifying glass and you see what the world is now suffering; fanatical adherents trying to destroy what man has gained through enlightenment in the name of one imaginary being or another. If mankind was depending on god, we’d still be suffering polio and small pox. 

The three monotheistic religions all have their roots in Bronze Age Hebraic tribal mythology. Yet despite having the same roots you cannot agree on who the hell your god is much less anything else. The Christians believe that Jesus, a person for whom there is absolutely no proof of having existed, is not only god but part of a bizarre divine ménage à trois. The Jews laugh at such absurdity and think that Christianity is baseless. The Muslims accept your Jesus only as a great prophet and also reject the idea of a trinity.

Even if science does eventually say that there was intelligence behind the creation of the universe that does not mean it is YOUR god. (Christians not only have to present evidence that god exists, but also that it is an intervening god.) Intelligence being responsible for the universe doesn’t mean that it is a god, much less god as you define it. The next question then becomes who is responsible for that intelligence? And you cannot argue the question because it is based on the same argument that creationists want to use against evolution! Your own argument comes back to bite you in the arse.

If science does say that there was intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe it’ll be presented as a theory based on facts and mathematical models; not the bible and childish imagination.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 11, 2010 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

By migrantLurker, May 10 at 11:22 am

”A long time ago, an old missionary wrote some words of advice to a couple of younger missionaries.”

That’s touching migrantLurker, it brought a tear to my one good eye.

Why did you leave out all the anti-Judaism that that misogynist, slavery condoning, insane f—k wrote? Go back and read Titus 1:10-16 and the only thing missing is that all Jews have big noses and breed like rats. Except for the nose and breeding derisions the rest of Dark Ages Catholic and Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda is all there.  Add John’s books and Jeebus’ words and there’s little doubt about how one should view Jews, right M.L.?

Paul’s arguments were every bit as foolish as those he condemned being he was arguing for an undead Jewish zombie being god incarnate. Christianity was founded by fanatical Jewish believers who believed that the world was flat, that this Jesus was the promised messiah, (a word and concept that Jewish rabbis say Christians haven’t a clue about), and that the end was near. They were wrong on all counts! 

People today do take that guy’s advice. Those same people are the ones that constantly attack our once secular, constitution based, representative republic in the hopes of “taking back” a theocratic America that has never existed except in the minds of the pompadoured pulpit pimps and their fleeced, stupefied flocks.

Report this

By migrantLurker, May 10, 2010 at 7:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A long time ago, an old missionary wrote some words of advice to a couple of younger missionaries.  To one named Timothy, he wrote the following:

“Don’t pay attention to speculations and anecdotal histories, which really only force you to ask more questions, rather than do anything to build up your faith.

After all, the whole commandment of our belief is to love all people, simply because we were so loved; not for material gain, out of a true faith toward Christ.

Some have swerved from that simple principle and turned aside rather unto empty hypothesizing; trying to invent their own justifications for our beliefs, when they patently have no idea what they’re talking about, nor any idea why others should believe them.”

To another young missionary named Titus he wrote something similar:

“Do your best to avoid foolish arguments and anecdotal debates, and oppositionality and quarreling about what “true” Christian belief is; all such conversations are a total waste of time and really only an exercise in reassurance for your delicate ego.

If you come across someone who says you’re full of shit after you’ve tried to enlighten him twice, move on.”

If only the so-called Christians of today would take some of this guys advice.

I still pastor, but argument strings like this one remind me why I got out of organized religion years ago.

And nemesis this principle applies to you too.  All the vehement arguing just makes you look defensive; like you’re trying to desperately reinforce your own atheistic views, which to be fair require an equal measure of faith to wholly accept.

We don’t have anyone who was around to tell us that the big bang happened; its a working theory.  We could even say its a good theory.  But like my physics prof taught me, “Even the best theories are still theories. The moment you believe a theory, you become useless to science, for you are no longer scientist, but priest.”

I think both of you need to rest in whatever belief you choose.  I’m guessing this forum isn’t the only place where you get defensive about your respective religious beliefs.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 7, 2010 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”’It is absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.  I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.’  Charles Darwin“


I often see the opportunity that you have just handed to me pass in debates between non-believers and Christians and always wonder why atheists don’t knock it out of the park.

Please notice the very subtle use of the definite article “a” before the word god in the quote. Darwin is clearly speaking of “a” god, not your god; Spinoza’s god perhaps? He also said that back in the 1800s based on the minute amount of evidence they had at the time. It is very doubtful that he’d voice the same opinion today.

Your problem is that being a Christian there is no other god but your ménage à trois god. Even if science determines in the future that yes there was an intelligence responsible for the creation of the universe that does not mean it’s your sky daddy. Then the follow up question will be who created the intelligence.

Before you start jumping up and down and screaming like a banshee, read the two Darwin quotes below:

”I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”



There’s also another problem that too many allow you Christers to get away with. The creation story is not about evolution. It touches upon abiogenesis, astronomy, and cosmology; sciences that ignorant, knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, desert herders hadn’t a clue about.

Questions to answer:

1. Were Adam and Eve real humans or metaphorical?


2. How should I understand the following verses; literally or metaphorically?

Romans 5:12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned— 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

3. Where is or what became of, the canopy of water over the earth?

 

It is time that you put up or shut up maani. You remind me of the cowardly Rev. Otto Witt of the movie “Zulu.” I seriously doubt that you are, as you claim, an evangelical minister. (see “By Maani, April 26 at 12:41 am”) I have two neighbors who are real evangelical ministers and they—after reading your comments—say that you aren’t a real Christian. Now answer those 3 questions (above) and let’s test your theology.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 7, 2010 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”It DOES, when you attempt to come across as erudite and learned.  You are not.  You have made numerous comments and claims that are incorrect, particularly with respect to religion and theology.
“How do I know that he didn’t ride a horse into the clouds? Well maani, in the same way that I know all blue unicorns are hollow.”
There are no blue unicorns.  Only pink ones.  And they are quite solid.“

 

No maani it isn’t important except to believers in superstition. To someone who doesn’t believe it is one imaginary individual being compared to another imaginary individual; neither exists and the cute little story is made up. It’s fable maani. Horses don’t fly. 

The really hilarious part here maani is that you believe in unicorns, don’t you? I do recall the Bible saying that YHWH was as strong as a unicorn. That’s not very strong for a supreme being is it maani?


” One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” -Robert Heinlein

 

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”What you call fairy tales believers call miracles.  And almost every faith tradition - even those that are not strictly “religious” - includes such events.  You are free to not believe in them. “


” If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing.” –Bertrand Russell

” Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” -Robert Heinlein

”No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” -David Hume

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 7, 2010 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”Please provide your source for this claim.“


I sure will maani, as soon as you either provide evidence that atheists promote infant and child genitalia mutilation in the name of atheism or admit that you were talking through your rectum spreading hateful propaganda meant to denigrate decent human beings in order to promote your Christian superstition.

 

 

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”Actually, although I do not agree with C96’s generalized comment in this regard, there are in fact things that the Israelites “knew” that science had not yet explained.  For example, curing meat to prevent it from spoiling, and a number of other things related to health and food.  That is just one example.  Oh, and by the way, although it will be as much of a surprise to conservative Christians as to atheists, passages of the OT suggest a heliocentric (not geocentric) solar system.“

Maani I hope that you’re not about to insult our intelligence by making the claim that Bronze or Iron Age Hebrews invented or received revelation by a sky daddy on how to cure meat? The curing of meats and other foods were widespread knowledge. There was no “science” at the time that could be compared to the “science” of today. Most of science at the time was intertwined with religious superstition. 

The origin of meat curing can be traced back to the 3rd century BC. when Cato recorded careful instructions for the dry curing of hams. “Meat science and Applications” by Y.H. Hui.

It’s tough to always have to be back-tracking and making like a frickin Veg-O-Matic trying to diminish the shame of always being wrong. To avoid being accused of bloviating I’ll let others do the talking with respect to the geocentric vs. heliocentric bible.

Cretinism or Evilution? No. 2
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part7.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part8.html

Until Copernicus, the scientific view of the earth corresponded to the Torah’s point of view. The earth was considered static and the whole universe revolved around the earth-center. However, Copernicus proved empirically that the sun is actually the center of the universe and we on earth, together with the other planets, are moving around the sun-center.
http://www.inner.org/torah_and_science/torah-scientific-progress-heliocentric-geocentric.php

(Please note the error in the above quote by the Jewish writer(s). Our sun, a star, is NOT the center of the universe.)

As science discovers through the scientific method the wonders of our world and the universe, the Bible is always caught with its pants down and bent over. As the evidence begins to poor in, believers of superstition begin slicing and dicing in a desperate attempt to make the Bible fit the evidence. The Bible is not a book; it’s a compilation of many different books written, rewritten, edited, and redacted and translated innumerable times over great expanses of time, and without a doubt, most—if not every single one— who had a hand in it were flat-earthers and completely ignorant of astronomical and cosmological fact.


”All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” C. Hitchens

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 7, 2010 at 11:30 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 6 at 5:38 pm

”Actually, it is YOU who have some explaining to do.  You clearly say that God “cursed him to crawl…and eat dust.”  If so, that means the “serpent” did NOT crawl and eat dust prior thereto.  Thus, the serpent was not yet a “snake” when God cursed him.  What happened to your vaunted powers of logic?  LOL. “


No maani I don’t have to explain anything because I’m not the one making the unrealistic claims that there exist a devil named Satan, that he shape-shifts into an animal and can fool the Almighty into thinking he’s conversing with a talking snake or that there even existed a place called the Garden of Eden.

I don’t recall saying that I have vaunted powers of logic or otherwise maani. But here’s how I look at it.

serpent (sûr´pent) noun

1. A reptile of the order Serpentes; a snake.
2. Often Serpent a. The creature that tempted Eve. b. Satan.
3. A subtle, sly, or treacherous person.
4. A firework that writhes while burning.
5. Music. A deep-voiced wind instrument of serpentine shape, used principally in the 18th century, about 2.5 meters (8 feet) in length and made of brass or wood.
6. Serpent. Serpens.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin serpêns, serpent-, from present participle of serpere, to creep.]


snake (snâk) noun

1. Any of numerous scaly, legless, sometimes venomous reptiles of the suborder Serpentes or Ophidia (order Squamata), having a long, tapering, cylindrical body and found in most tropical and temperate regions.
2. A treacherous person. Also called snake in the grass.
3. A long, highly flexible metal wire or coil used for cleaning drains. Also called plumber’s snake.
4. Economics. A fixing of the value of currencies to each other within defined parameters, which when graphed visually shows these currencies remaining parallel in value to each other as a unit despite fluctuations with other currencies.

verb
snaked, snaking, snakes verb, transitive
1. To drag or pull lengthwise, especially to drag with a rope or chain.
2. To pull with quick jerks.
3. To move in a sinuous or gliding manner: tried to snake the rope along the ledge.

verb, intransitive

To move with a sinuous motion: The river snakes through the valley.

[Middle English, from Old English snaca.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Now the book clearly states that the serpent was the most subtle and definitely one of the beasts of the field that the lawd god YHWH had created. That’s a snake, a serpent. When he curses him he clearly alludes that the serpent is just another beast of the field; if he is Satan then that means that Satan has no legs and crawls on the earth eating dust. 

You could help me out here by telling me whether or not I should take the creation story literally or metaphorically, and which of the two differing accounts is the correct one?

The problem in dealing with you believers in superstition is that you’re constantly changing the goal post positions. And with anywhere between 22,000 to 38,000 different Christian denominations, sects, cults, etc. who the hell knows what one is dealing with? The only thing one can be sure of is that you will all have a different interpretation of your scripture. I can stir the pot even more by involving a Jewish rabbi who will undoubtedly assure me that none of you have a frickin clue as to what you’re talking about. Throw in a Muslim Imam and the stew will be so thick that we’ll need a cement mixer to stir it.


” Where questions of religion are concerned, people are guilty of every possible sort of dishonesty and intellectual misdemeanor.” –Sigmund Freud

Report this

By Maani, May 6, 2010 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

“According to the Bible it is definitely a snake as there is no mention of shape shifting or Satan being around to talk through the snake. Also if we’re to believe as you say that it was Satan then Satan fooled the lord god into thinking he was really talking to a snake because he cursed him to crawl (like a reptile) and eat dust. You’ve quite a bit of verse-shifting ahead of you to explain this one so I’d advise you get started a.s.a.p.”

Actually, it is YOU who have some explaining to do.  You clearly say that God “cursed him to crawl…and eat dust.”  If so, that means the “serpent” did NOT crawl and eat dust prior thereto.  Thus, the serpent was not yet a “snake” when God cursed him.  What happened to your vaunted powers of logic?  LOL.

“Did you know that genetically it is the female that is the prototype and the male the alteration?”

Please provide your source for this claim.

“Have you found all that evidence where science just proved what was already in the Bible?...If you’re having trouble you can ask maani for help because as you know; he knows more about the hard sciences than me and most atheists.”

Actually, although I do not agree with C96’s generalized comment in this regard, there are in fact things that the Israelites “knew” that science had not yet explained.  For example, curing meat to prevent it from spoiling, and a number of other things related to health and food.  That is just one example.  Oh, and by the way, although it will be as much of a surprise to conservative Christians as to atheists, passages of the OT suggest a heliocentric (not geocentric) solar system.

“I’d much rather you study your Qur’an maani and just correct me whenever I make a mistake. It being Gabriel instead of Jeebus makes all the difference in the world.”

It DOES, when you attempt to come across as erudite and learned.  You are not.  You have made numerous comments and claims that are incorrect, particularly with respect to religion and theology.

“How do I know that he didn’t ride a horse into the clouds? Well maani, in the same way that I know all blue unicorns are hollow.”

There are no blue unicorns.  Only pink ones.  And they are quite solid.

“The point is maani that you give credence to their fairy tales.”

What you call fairy tales believers call miracles.  And almost every faith tradition - even those that are not strictly “religious” - includes such events.  You are free to not believe in them.

Re Einstein, I was not intending to get into a battle of the quotes.  Rather, I was making a point.  However, once again, your need to “win” is evident: you learn nothing, you simply respond defensively in an attempt to justify yourself.

Try this one:

“It is absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.  I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”  Charles Darwin

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 6, 2010 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

By Maani, May 6 at 12:25 am

”First, Mohammed never spoke with Jesus.  It was the angel Gabriel who is supposed to have given him his revelation.  There is only one passage in which the two of them (Mohammed and Jesus) “cross paths,” and it is solely to pray: Jesus never speaks to Mohammed.
You would do well to actually learn your Qur’an before you attempt to discuss it.
Second, how do you know he DIDN’T ride a horse into the clouds?...”

1. I’d much rather you study your Qur’an maani and just correct me whenever I make a mistake. It being Gabriel instead of Jeebus makes all the difference in the world.

2. How do I know that he didn’t ride a horse into the clouds? Well maani, in the same way that I know all blue unicorns are hollow.

I could also mention things like gravity, propulsion, stabilizers for flight, etc. The point is maani that you give credence to their fairy tales. And that’s all they need is more encouragement in the rightness of their cause.

By Maani, May 6 at 12:25 am

”Again you show how narrow-minded you are.  S/he and I may disagree about fine points of our faith, but that does not mean we do not share the “fundamentals” (a word I use loosely here…LOL).  Thus, there is no need for either C96 nor I to “cringe” about anything the other might say.
Peace.
“Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”  Albert Einstein

I’ll have to take your word for that maani as you refuse to answer any questions about your Christian tenets, dogma, or whatever.

Believing in flying horses and chariots and talking snakes and jackasses doesn’t mean one is open-minded maani. It means one is childishly simple-minded.

I’m glad you like Einstein quotes.

” To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.”

”...The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.”

–Albert Einstein

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 6, 2010 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

By christian96, May 6 at 1:56 am

”Nemesis—-I see the serpent is still talking through
you but Manni recognized the serpent and enlightened
you that Jesus did not talk to Mohammed.  The Muslims
believe Jesus was a prophet but they don’t believe
he was the only begotten son of God(Allah).  As to
the flying chariots don’t you see program after
program talking about UFO’s on TV.  Is it possible
those flying chariots were actually UFO’s in our
modern language?  How do you think structures like
the pyramids got built?  Is it possible the flying
chariots(UFO’s) had something to do with it?”

I don’t know Dick Cheney and there’s no way that I’d allow him to talk through me.

Oh… Christian99… did you happen to read that part with the serpent in Genesis? It definitely says that that serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the lord god had made. According to the Bible it is definitely a snake as there is no mention of shape shifting or Satan being around to talk through the snake. Also if we’re to believe as you say that it was Satan then Satan fooled the lord god into thinking he was really talking to a snake because he cursed him to crawl (like a reptile) and eat dust. You’ve quite a bit of verse-shifting ahead of you to explain this one so I’d advise you get started a.s.a.p.

So now they’re UFOs. Okay. (<- cringing yet maani? ROFLMAO!)

I think the pyramids were built by orthodoxy and autocracy working hand in hand and oppressing men. Much as most things were built in antiquity.

Did you read that part about the woman being made or created after the man and from one of his ribs? Did you know that genetically it is the female that is the prototype and the male the alteration? How do you explain Genesis’ getting it all backakwards?

Have you found all that evidence where science just proved what was already in the Bible? How long before you begin posting some of it? If you’re having trouble you can ask maani for help because as you know; he knows more about the hard sciences than me and most atheists.

Report this

By christian96, May 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis—-I see the serpent is still talking through
you but Manni recognized the serpent and enlightened
you that Jesus did not talk to Mohammed.  The Muslims
believe Jesus was a prophet but they don’t believe
he was the only begotten son of God(Allah).  As to
the flying chariots don’t you see program after
program talking about UFO’s on TV.  Is it possible
those flying chariots were actually UFO’s in our
modern language?  How do you think structures like
the pyramids got built?  Is it possible the flying
chariots(UFO’s) had something to do with it?

Report this

By Maani, May 5, 2010 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

“When Christians claim that all those Harry Potter-like tales about flying chariots of fire, and flying horses and talking animals are true you inadvertently give credence to your brethren…of the Islamic faith who believe that their prophet Mohammed rode a flying horse into the clouds and actually spoke to Jeebus in the clouds…and that Jeebus gave the real truth to him, Mohammed, and that truth was basically that Jews and Christians…got it all wrong.”

First, Mohammed never spoke with Jesus.  It was the angel Gabriel who is supposed to have given him his revelation.  There is only one passage in which the two of them (Mohammed and Jesus) “cross paths,” and it is solely to pray: Jesus never speaks to Mohammed.

You would do well to actually learn your Qur’an before you attempt to discuss it.

Second, how do you know he DIDN’T ride a horse into the clouds?...

“I’d be willing to bet that every time you post a comment maani cringes for fear and embarrassment of what you might have the audacity to say.”

Again you show how narrow-minded you are.  S/he and I may disagree about fine points of our faith, but that does not mean we do not share the “fundamentals” (a word I use loosely here…LOL).  Thus, there is no need for either C96 nor I to “cringe” about anything the other might say.

Peace.

“Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”  Albert Einstein

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 5, 2010 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

christian96, May 4 at 4:31 pm

“Nemesis—-Excuse me.  I had to leave yesterday to
take a sleep study.  I know I was sorely missed.
Let’s get down to your serious questions.  How does
a snake talk?  You are a perfect example of a talking
serpent.  I jest not.  Time for Bible 101.  It wasn’t
a snake in Genesis that conned Eve(Genesis 3:1).
It was a serpent.  Serpent is a nickname for Satan
(Revelation 12:9). Satan spoke through Peter, one
of disciples of Jesus(Matthew 16:23). Satan is
capable of talking through humans.  Sadly, it is
this fact that accounts for much of the misery on
planet earth.  Where do you think the thoughts come
from when a grown man rapes an infant?  Since Satan
is capable of talking through humans and assuming
you are a human, Satan is capable of talking through
you.  Therefore, you are a talking serpent.  It’s
time for me to go workout and walk a couple of miles.
I’ll continue our discourse when I return.

I feel that I need to remind you of what exactly it is that you stated just a few days ago.

By christian96, May 1 at 9:53 pm

“ After 32 years of studying the Bible I don’t see a
conflict between Science and the Bible.  Scientists
just discovered the principles and forces already
taught in the Bible.”


You are to provide evidence that science just discovered principles and forces already taught in the Bible. Calling me a talking snake—while very Christian of you—is not evidence of science finding proof and/or principles in the Bible that snakes and jackasses talk. Albeit one might consider any Christian speaking of his beliefs as proof positive that jackasses do talk.

Also you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible.

I wanted to caution both you and Pastor maani on what could be a very critical oversight by two of the finest representatives of the deliri et insani of AmeriCorp Christendom that I’ve ever encountered.

When Christians claim that all those Harry Potter-like tales about flying chariots of fire, and flying horses and talking animals are true you inadvertently give credence to your brethren deliri et insani of the Islamic faith who believe that their prophet Mohammed rode a flying horse into the clouds and actually spoke to Jeebus in the clouds—as opposed to on my grilled cheese sandwich—and that Jeebus gave the real truth to him, Mohammed,  and that truth was basically that Jews and Christians are deliri et insani and got it all wrong.

I’d be willing to bet that every time you post a comment maani cringes for fear and embarrassment of what you might have the audacity to say..


”Ignorance is to religion what horse manure is to posies. But it’s still horse manure.” -Kewlgurl

 

@ maani:

During editing of my last series of posts I inadvertently edited out: “It’s not called semantics but “equivocation” which is both a formal and informal fallacy. That’s the purposed misuse of a word with more than one definition. Christians do that all the time with “theory” when getting their butts stomped trying to defend either creationism or its façade, “Intelligent Design.”

That Christians would resort to such deceptive practices should surprise no one as their own Lawd said “let your yea be yea; and your nea, nea.” or something to that effect. Wait… uh… oh what the hell… you guys do what you want regardless of what Jeebus had to say.


”Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.” -Voltaire


Does Yahweh have a penis and if so, is it circumcised?

Report this

By christian96, May 4, 2010 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis—-Excuse me.  I had to leave yesterday to
take a sleep study.  I know I was sorely missed.
Let’s get down to your serious questions.  How does
a snake talk?  You are a perfect example of a talking
serpent.  I jest not.  Time for Bible 101.  It wasn’t
a snake in Genesis that conned Eve(Genesis 3:1).
It was a serpent.  Serpent is a nickname for Satan
(Revelation 12:9). Satan spoke through Peter, one
of disciples of Jesus(Matthew 16:23). Satan is
capable of talking through humans.  Sadly, it is
this fact that accounts for much of the misery on
planet earth.  Where do you think the thoughts come
from when a grown man rapes an infant?  Since Satan
is capable of talking through humans and assuming
you are a human, Satan is capable of talking through
you.  Therefore, you are a talking serpent.  It’s
time for me to go workout and walk a couple of miles.
I’ll continue our discourse when I return.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

@ Maani & Christian96:

I was wondering if you two could help me out here. Christian96 said in an earlier post that after 32 years of studying the Bible he/she didn’t see a conflict between Science and the Bible and that Scientists just discovered the principles and forces already taught in the Bible. I really need to be brought up to date on my biology, cosmology, physics, etc.

What principle did science find in the Bible that proves plants can grow without photosynthesis?

What principle did science find in the Bible that proves that snakes and donkeys can talk, sticks can be turned into snakes and revert back to a snake. Oh… how does science handle the flying horses and chariots of fire and water burning?

I especially like the water burning principle because we can now tell those muslims to take a flying F and eat their oil because we now have in our possession the principle of burning water to fuel our plants and autos! Thank you jeebus on my Ritz cracker!

But the one that really fires my curiosity is the principle that science found explaining how many—not just two—undead Jewish zombies can return from the grave, all with different stages of decomposition and walk around town drinking beer and nailing P’tang.

Then you can explain to me how the Bible says that are only two deaths when there are obviously some that face the possibility of three?

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 4 at 12:31 am

“Re the genital mutilation question and the “which is worse” question, please explain to me why you are asking them and I may very well answer.”

Nice try maani. There are actually two questions on genital mutilation. They are:

1. In your opinion is the mutilation of the genitalia of infants and small children (both males and females) a psychopathic mental and/or behavioral disorder?

2. As an evangelical pastor which do you think is worse: a neighbor inappropriately touching the genitalia of a small child or a religious functionary cutting and tearing off the foreskin of an infant male, with a sharp fingernail, then filling his mouth with wine and placing the penis in his mouth and sucking the wound to remove the surplus blood and in the case of a female; an older, unprofessional female, performing clitoral circumcision and infibulation on young girls under 8 or 10 years of age, usually in a shack or a room in the house of the poor victim and not in a hospital?

Then there are these that you’ve been dodging also:

3. Are Jews who have not and refuse to accept Jeebus antichrists and liars and deceivers and of the synagogue of that same Satan that Christian96 said has me deceived?

4. Can you provide evidence of atheists promoting gentital mutilation of infants and small children in the name of atheism?

You were asked #3 because of your comments to me when I dared to question your claim that ” SINCE the founding of the “Jewish” people, the “Jews” - as a “people” (and that includes everyone from sabras to the European Jews of which you speak) - have been the target of more hatred, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide than any other “people” in all of recorded history.” and had the audacity to suggest that perhaps the, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide of which you speak may have something with Jews’ behavior. In other words maani, that perhaps they might not be totally innocent.

Of course you do not provide any verifiable evidence of that claim just as you have still yet to provide us with evidence that atheists promote genital mutilation in infants and small children in the name of atheism. So the question about the Jews being antichrist, liars, deceivers, and of the synagogue of Satan is a very relevant one because of your unsubstantiated claim that they have been the ”target of more hatred, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide than any other “people” in all of recorded history.”

So please maani provide us with that answer and evidence that atheist promote the genital mutilation of infants and children in the name of atheism.

The answer to your question about why I ask is simply that I enjoy watching Christians wriggle and finagle their scriptures to make them fit their particular sect’s interpretations. It’s a trap maani and I’m interested in knowing whether or not I should rip out additional sections of my Bible because they no longer apply, never did apply, are in error, etc.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 4 at 12:31 am

“ First, I am not obligated to answer anything: if I choose to answer, that is my prerogative.  And as I said, if you choose to infer something from my unwillingness to answer - particularly “cowardice,” “embarrassment” or “fear” - that is YOUR prerogative, but you would be wrong.”

That’s right maani you aren’t obligated.

Maani, May 4 at 12:31 am

“Second, your choice to paint with a broad brush is, as I noted, a CHOICE.  It is not - and should not be - dependent on whether or not I answer specific questions.  You can use that 2” brush anytime you like - whether or not I answer every question you ask.  Stop blaming your predilections and choices on me.”

Yes maani it is a choice and since I’ve been addressing “religion” from my very first statement a wide brush is necessary. There are—reportedly—as many as 38,000 Christian sects. The lowest number I’ve seen lately is about 22,000. However many there really are is not that important because we know that there are many thousands. Then there are the mother religion’s (Judaism) different schisms and those of the other spawned prostitute daughter Islam. Those are just the big three monotheistic, albeit Christianity is actually a three-for-sale on divines, or as I like to call it; a divine ménage a trios. There’s also the possibility of a 4th monotheistic brand as many consider Mormonism a monotheism unto itself; and, of course, the too many others to be named here.

A wide brush is definitely necessary when the topic is the deluded of the world.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:05 am Link to this comment

Anyone considering sending their hard-earned money to Republican Jesus Christianity’s latest pseudo—martyr should view this very short—less than 2 min.—video and ask yourself: In the dumbed-down AmeriCorp in which we live, is the obviously clueless Steve Baldwin the kind of person that we want influencing others?

Steve Baldwin: Why are there still monkeys duh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?hl=en&v=OSmTPThWD_c&gl=US


Perhaps Steve Baldwin can’t get a job because unlike most actors, instead of just reading his lines he has opened his mouth and joined with the Right, neo-conservative, evangelical, batshit crazy wing of AmeriCorp politics.


”most stupidest” WTF?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CziPgqhkwrw&feature=fvw


The Christers had to dig really deep up their sorry arses to pull this “token-gifting” bullshit out of them.

”There is no opinion so absurd that a preacher could not express it.” -Bernie Katz

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:03 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 1 at 9:05 pm

Those “subtle…differences” are usually referred to as “semantics.”  Thus, my equation of communist ideology with atheism - and that atheism is part and parcel of it, and is as responsible for the atrocities perpetrated by it as are the socio-political and economic factors - remains true.

You didn’t associate atheism with communist ideology; that’s the point. You associated communist ideology with atheism. It’s a very subtle but tremendously important difference. “Subtle differences” in the context in which I have used the term throughout this bizarro world discussion, with two of the most dim-witted Christians I have ever had the misfortune to encounter, clearly means a difference and/or dissimilarity so slight as to be difficult to detect or analyze, elusive and or not immediately obvious; abstruse.

Maani, May 1 at 9:05 pm

“This is why I found your approach to me more amusing (and, frankly, sad) than annoying or upsetting.  At the risk of sounding decidedly un-Christian, what you have shown me over the past few days is that you are a joke.  As noted, you are a bloviator who loves to hear himself speak, someone who thinks that the more he repeats something, the more it makes him right, and a person whose immaturity in discussion and debate is made obvious by the fact that he has never learned how to engage with people with whom he disagrees.

Create all the broad-brush, generalized boxes you want, and set up all the straw men you feel you need to in order to “win” debates.  But if you think you somehow have me “pegged” by doing so, you are engaging in a fantasy far more self-delusional than you accuse faith and religion of being.”

I know I’m a little slow on the uptake maani, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but I do believe that in this post you have called me an immature, stupid, big mouth. Is that right Pastor maani?
I’ve been called a lot of things in my life, most not very flattering either, but I can’t recall ever being called stupid or a big mouth. My mom used to say that I was acting immature when I was a young boy, but I don’t recall being called immature for the past half century or so. Interesting.

So let’s see if I understand your position; I’m stupid, a big mouth, and immature and you’re smart and know more about the hard sciences than me and most atheists, yet you believe in a book that you have stated on this very thread is errant, and which has all sorts of magical stories like talking animals, snakes with legs, trees that grow 12 different kinds of fruit yearly, sticks turning into snakes back into sticks, food falling from the sky, water coming out of a rock by hitting it with a stick, men flying up into the heavens in fiery chariots, water being turned into wine, water burning, flying horses, stars falling from the sky onto the earth, (excepting the closest star, our sun) angels with fiery swords, giants, a virgin giving birth, humans walking on water, and undead Jewish zombies coming out of their graves and walking around, one of whom was god incarnate, and somehow I’m the one who’s stupid and immature.

Okay. smile

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 4, 2010 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

Maani, May 1 at 9:05 pm

“ It is not simply your “need to win” that is so transparently evident, but also your need to be able to simplify things for yourself, for example by putting every believer in a box labelled “flat-earth, anti-evolution, anti-choice, Republican, conservative, Christian Right loony-tune.”  Doing this makes it easier for you to attack the straw men you build.
Would it surprise you to find that I am neither Repulican nor conservative?  That I believe the earth is round, revolves around the sun, is ~5 billion years old (in an ~13 billion-year-old universe), that dinosaurs and humankind never shared the planet at the same time, and that I am pro-choice (but anti-abortion - and yes, one can be both without being hypocritical), and that I spend more of my time debating members of the Christian Right than I do debating atheists like yourself?
I am guessing that you think all believers fall into two camps: those who were “indoctrinated” in religion from birth (or shortly therafter), and those who use it as a “crutch.”

What in the hell are you talking about maani? It’s best not to make comments after hitting the communion wine with as much enthusiasm as you obviously have. 

Maani, May 1 at 9:05 pm

“ So would it surprise you to find out that I did not even become a believer until I was nearly 20, and that my first 20 years were spent in a rational, scientifically-minded, intellectual household, with a mother who is a Ph.D. scientist and a father who was a Ph.D.-equivalent mathematician?  That I almost certainly know more hard science (including Darwinian theory) and psychology than you (or most atheists) do?  And that I did not “reject” my rational upbringing when I became a believer?

No, maani it wouldn’t surprise me. Should it?

You might want to be a bit more cautious with all them smarts though maani; remember what your famous, now deceased, sistah in dah lawd said…

”You can educate yourself right out of a relationship with God.” –Tammy Faye Baker

You’re not going to tell me that Tammy Faye wasn’t a real Christian either, are you maani?

Report this

By Maani, May 3, 2010 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

“Your refusal to answer specific questions about your particular brand of Christianity or Evangelicalism forces me to have to make assumptions, presumptions, and/or inferences that I really prefer not to have to make. So I’m asking while simultaneously hoping that you won’t once again dodge questions whose answers can help me pull that little 2” corner brush from my paint brush collection.”

First, I am not obligated to answer anything: if I choose to answer, that is my prerogative.  And as I said, if you choose to infer something from my unwillingness to answer - particularly “cowardice,” “embarrassment” or “fear” - that is YOUR prerogative, but you would be wrong.

Second, your choice to paint with a broad brush is, as I noted, a CHOICE.  It is not - and should not be - dependent on whether or not I answer specific questions.  You can use that 2” brush anytime you like - whether or not I answer every question you ask.  Stop blaming your predilections and choices on me.

Re your question about my “brand” of Christianity, I will not answer that because you have already responded to it in saying that the very fact that there ARE “different brands” is inherently a “flaw” in religion.  In other words, you have already set up this particular straw man, and happily destroyed it (or so you believe).

Re the genital mutilation question and the “which is worse” question, please explain to me why you are asking them and I may very well answer.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 2, 2010 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

@ maani:

I have activities planned for today and haven’t the time to address your latest screed until tomorrow.

I would like you to answer a couple of questions in the interim if you don’t mind. The answers will help me to paint with a smaller brush. Your refusal to answer specific questions about your particular brand of Christianity or Evangelicalism forces me to have to make assumptions, presumptions, and/or inferences that I really prefer not to have to make. So I’m asking while simultaneously hoping that you won’t once again dodge questions whose answers can help me pull that little 2” corner brush from my paint brush collection.

Since we’re being honest here maani I have to admit that your dodging the questions that have been asked no longer appears to be oversight but rather cowardice, or embarrassment or fear or all of the aforementioned, should you state—honestly and publicly—your opinion or belief tenets with respect to the areas covered by those questions.

My questions today are:

1. In your opinion is the mutilation of the genitalia of infants and small children (both males and females) a psychopathic mental and/or behavioral disorder?

2. As an evangelical pastor which do you think is worse: a neighbor inappropriately touching the genitalia of a small child or a religious functionary cutting and tearing off the foreskin of an infant male, with a sharp fingernail, then filling his mouth with wine and placing the penis in his mouth and sucking the wound to remove the surplus blood and in the case of a female; an older, unprofessional female, performing clitoral circumcision and infibulation on young girls under 8 or 10 years of age, usually in a shack or a room in the house of the poor victim and not in a hospital?

@ Christian96:

Please feel free to answer the questions if you wish as your opinion is held in the same high regard as that of Pastor Manni.

Report this

By christian96, May 1, 2010 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Manni—-WOW!  What a post.  I have to take my hat
off to you for that one.  I didn’t become a Christian
until 37.  I was raised in a classic Protestant
church and learned all the Sunday School stories but
as I grew older I fell away from the church.  I
thought the Bible was just another book written by
a group of men.  Of course, I reached that conclusion
without really studying the Bible.  I just grew old
enough that I wanted to do things the Bible said
I shouldn’t do.  So what easier way to do those
things than just reject the Bible.  Then I could do
what I wanted.  Pursuing my selfish wants got me and
a lot of other people hurt.  It took my father having
a heart attack when I was 37 to finally wake me up.
After 32 years of studying the Bible I don’t see a
conflict between Science and the Bible.  Scientists
just discovered the principles and forces already
taught in the Bible.

Report this

By Maani, May 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

I am breaking my promise not to engage.

“Perfect examples of this need to deprogram and reeducate are the 3 days of posts (nearly 1,200 words) that were required to get an obviously well-educated individual to understand that the suffix “ism” had more than one meaning and recognize the subtle—but important—differences.”

Those “subtle…differences” are usually referred to as “semantics.”  Thus, my equation of communist ideology with atheism - and that atheism is part and parcel of it, and is as responsible for the atrocities perpetrated by it as are the socio-political and economic factors - remains true.

It is not simply your “need to win” that is so transparently evident, but also your need to be able to simplify things for yourself, for example by putting every believer in a box labelled “flat-earth, anti-evolution, anti-choice, Republican, conservative, Christian Right loony-tune.”  Doing this makes it easier for you to attack the straw men you build.

Would it surprise you to find that I am neither Repulican nor conservative?  That I believe the earth is round, revolves around the sun, is ~5 billion years old (in an ~13 billion-year-old universe), that dinosaurs and humankind never shared the planet at the same time, and that I am pro-choice (but anti-abortion - and yes, one can be both without being hypocritical), and that I spend more of my time debating members of the Christian Right than I do debating atheists like yourself?

I am guessing that you think all believers fall into two camps: those who were “indoctrinated” in religion from birth (or shortly therafter), and those who use it as a “crutch.”

So would it surprise you to find out that I did not even become a believer until I was nearly 20, and that my first 20 years were spent in a rational, scientifically-minded, intellectual household, with a mother who is a Ph.D. scientist and a father who was a Ph.D.-equivalent mathematician?  That I almost certainly know more hard science (including Darwinian theory) and psychology than you (or most atheists) do?  And that I did not “reject” my rational upbringing when I became a believer?

This is why I found your approach to me more amusing (and, frankly, sad) than annoying or upsetting.  At the risk of sounding decidedly un-Christian, what you have shown me over the past few days is that you are a joke.  As noted, you are a bloviator who loves to hear himself speak, someone who thinks that the more he repeats something, the more it makes him right, and a person whose immaturity in discussion and debate is made obvious by the fact that he has never learned how to engage with people with whom he disagrees.

Create all the broad-brush, generalized boxes you want, and set up all the straw men you feel you need to in order to “win” debates.  But if you think you somehow have me “pegged” by doing so, you are engaging in a fantasy far more self-delusional than you accuse faith and religion of being.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, May 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

@ Dr. Sigmund and Dr. Freud:

Whenever reason crashes head on into fantasy the result is always cataclysmic. Emotions fare, feelings are hurt, incredulity besets. This is especially true when those fantasies are considered sacred by the adherents—true believers—of the particular mythology with whom reason is clashing. Reason always, and without fail, exposes fantasy’s fallacies; it’s unavoidable and painful.

What you have seen and been a part of is not a need to win but rather a need to deprogram and reeducate victims of lifelong religious inculcation, political indoctrination, brain-washing, spinning, and deception.

Perfect examples of this need to deprogram and reeducate are the 3 days of posts (nearly 1,200 words) that were required to get an obviously well-educated individual to understand that the suffix “ism” had more than one meaning and recognize the subtle—but important—differences.

Entities of Power in AmeriCorp—Corporations, the Church and the State—have been indoctrinating, inculcating and propagandizing the population of AmeriCorp for decades by misusing such subtle differences to keep the masses obedient, pliable, and fearful of the other for their financial and political gain.

One way in which this indoctrination and inculcation of the Church and State has worked to keep the masses obedient, pliable, and fearful of the other is the misuse of the word atheism. In AmeriCorp—one of the most religious nations on earth—it was advantageous for both the State and the Church to paint the rather recent (historically speaking) events of the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China as atheism in action. This benefited the Church in that it could point to the atrocities of those States and claim that this is what happens to a society without god. (Conveniently forgetting that the U.S.A. was the first secular government in history)

The State used a similar technique by deluding the masses to believe that communism was the inverse of democracy. Thus the lie became truth and serves both the Church and the State quite well.

It is this indoctrination and inculcation that birthed a new form of Christianity; Republican Jesus Christianity. In Republican Jesus Christianity one finds a intertwining of Church and State comparable only to the Muslim world. In Republican Jesus Christianity the Jesus of the New Testament is replaced by whomever Big Corp decides to be the front man or woman of the Republican Party and the Christian tenets of the New Testament are replaced by Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, or I as I like to call it: “Greed R Us.” It’s the “Greed is Good” moral guidelines of Republican Jesus theology that equates shameful pandering and fleecing of the flock for one’s own personal and material gain with martyrdom.

Of course when reason is allowed to prevail one soon learns that atheism while being one of the many attributes of the communist ideology is not communism. Atheism is simply disbelief in a divine.

Communist ideology is not the inverse of capitalism but rather a competing ideology among many others. Actually if allowed to run its course unimpeded, a nation like AmeriCorp, where predator capitalism runs amok, ends very much like a communist state; with the people impoverished and a small very wealthy elite running and owning everything. Ironically, this is exactly what the 1st century Christian church was not—predator capitalist—as the one window into their economic practices clearly and unarguably shows them to have been socialistic.

The wars and atrocities that Homo sapiens perpetrate on one another are not due to atheism, quite the contrary, they are due to Homo sapiens’ “belief” in the rightness of their ideological causes whatever the hell they might be.

”God and country are an unbeatable team; they break all records for oppression and bloodshed.” - Luis Buquel

Report this

By Maani, April 30, 2010 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

Christian96:

I certainly agree that the “need to win” behavior can come from a feeling of inferiority; more generally, it is a form of “overcompensation” for some sort of self-perceived (though not always self-realized or accepted) inadequacy. It can also come directly from a blatantly “aggressive” attitude, though this does not seem to be the case here, despite some slightly aggressive tendencies.

In either case, I like your “games vs. life” metaphor.  Nice call.

Peace.

Report this

By christian96, April 30, 2010 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

Maani—-By reading the posts of Nemesis you have
astutely ascertained the “need to win” characteristic by Nemesis.  I’ll leave Christianity
and switch to Psychology.  The “need to win” desire
can be a compensation for feelings of inferiority or
perhaps a failure to discriminate between the structure of games(me versus you) and life(me and
you).  Alfred Adler, a contemporary of Freud, said
the best strategy to follow when involved in a
“power struggle” is to withdraw. To continue to
dialogue rationally with Nemesis just confirms their
“need to win.”

Report this

By Maani, April 30, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

“I don’t get excited about these things maani, and I don’t let them affect me.”

No, you don’t get excited - you just take up three full-length posts to say what you could say in one.  This is because you like to bloviate, and think that the more words you use, the smarter you are, or the more “supportable” your position is.

“I don’t even make veiled or direct threats like you and your brother in the lawd, Christian96.”

Please cite anything I said that you feel is a veiled or direct threat.”  You cannot, because I have not done so.

“Personally I believe you’re looking for any excuse to bail a.s.a.p. because you know that you’re on sinking sand.”

I do intend to bail (at least on you), and you can chalk that up to anything you like: if you wish to accuse me of cowardice or anything else, that is your prerogative.  However, it doesn’t make it true.  Some people may agree with you, others will not.  You have clearly come here to “win” a debate, rather than to learn anything or simply engage in a respectful back-and-forth.

“Perhaps in your brand of evangelicalism the Catholic Church and Catholics aren’t Christians either?...A very large number of Nazi soldiers… were Protestant[s], willingly obeying and executing the Nazi regime’s orders and working toward the final solution and participating in the plan for a master race. Perhaps they weren’t Christians either?”

Certainly none of them were acting in a very “Christian” manner.  However, anyone can be caught up in misguided notions and ideologies, including Christians.

“Now, even if you say that Hitler, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and Catholics were not or are not Christians you’ve still more hurdles to overcome.”

This is what I mean about your need to “win”: I am not here to jump over your hurdles.  I am here to engage in stimulating discussion and debate, and, yes, learn things as well.  You are here to show your smarts and “win.”

“Totalitarianism and Religion are bedfellows. They’re two sides of the same coin.”

That’s a pretty strange statement.  True, theocracies are totalitarian.  But if you ask the average Joe to name a totalitarian regime, the names Stalin and Mao will come up LONG before any “religious” name.

“I can understand your contempt for Hitchens. I imagine it’s tough to watch Hitchens mop the floor with the top Christian apologists all over the world.”

First, I never indicated any “contempt” for him.  Contempt is something in YOUR arsenal, not mine.  I merely indicated that I disagree with him.  And no, he has not “mopped the floor” with anyone; in fact, he has often been bested, and even some of his pals in the “New Atheist” crowd consider him off the charts.

“How is it that you, and those of your faith, can presume to know that a Jewish carpenter from 2,000 years ago—whose existence you cannot not even prove—was god incarnate, and that failure to accept him as one’s savior condemns one to an eternity of hell fire and unimaginable suffering?”

Here again you are unable to draw clear distinctions, in this case between “presuming to know” and “believing.”  We “believe” that Jesus is who He said He was.  Hegel, Marx et al “presume” that faith = “illusory happiness” or “woe.”  In other words, without any evidence whatsoever, they take it as “axiom.”  That is the difference between “faith” and “certainty”: they proceed from certainty, we proceed from faith.

Also, when did I mention anything about “an eternity of hell fire and unimaginable suffering?”  Maybe Christian96 did.  But he and I may not agree on that.

And that about wraps it up.  Since you simply cannot play nice in the sandbox, I will (to mix my metaphors) take my ball and go home.  Again, you can chalk this up to anything you want, and I realize there is nothing I could say to convince you otherwise.

I leave you to your certainty and need to “win,” and hope that it makes you happy.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 30, 2010 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

3.

Maani, April 30 at 1:09 am

<i>“You’ve GOT to be kidding!  How on God’s great earth would Hegel, Marx or Hitchens know whether the happiness that comes from people’s faith is ‘illusory,’ much less that it is really a form of ‘woe?’  This type of presumptuousness is breathtaking!” <i>

Well, you’ve got me there maani; I don’t know how they know. With respect to Marx, I think he was theorizing, wasn’t he? And one can accept or reject a theory based on the evidence or lack thereof. I mean, it’s not like you go to hell if you don’t accept Marx as your Savior, correct?

I can understand your contempt for Hitchens. I imagine it’s tough to watch Hitchens mop the floor with the top Christian apologists all over the world. I personally enjoy the many hours of video available on YouTube with him doing that.

Your comment on how could they could possibly know does make me wonder though: How is it that you, and those of your faith, can presume to know that a Jewish carpenter from 2,000 years ago—whose existence you cannot not even prove—was god incarnate, and that failure to accept him as one’s savior condemns one to an eternity of hell fire and unimaginable suffering? How can you possibly know that? smile

You were asked to provide the stats on the Inca and the Moche; not to confirm whether or not they were included in them. You were asked that because you have not provided your source for your figures. Some tend to pull stats out of their lower posteriors.

Twice you have been asked to provide evidence—because of your comments—of atheists promoting genital mutilation in the name of atheism. You’ve neither provided the evidence nor retracted the statement. Atheists do not promote—in the name of disbelief—genital mutilation of infants and small children. For that one needs a psychopathic butcher like the Hebraic desert god YHWH (or Allah) and deluded adherents who believe it an honor to mutilate their children’s genitalia in the name of an imaginary being. In the name of their god(s) there is no atrocity too great for true believers.

Twice you have been asked if—according to your belief system—Jews who do not accept Jesus are antichrists, liars, deceivers, and of the synagogue of Satan.

Well maani, are they or are they not?

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 30, 2010 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

2.

Continuing…

Many of the people that those Christian soldiers of the 3rd Reich were fighting and killing were Orthodox Catholic Christians. They in turn killed the Protestant and Roman Catholic Christian soldiers of the Reich. How does all this work out? Do you label all of them atheists in order to hide the truth about Christianity’s atrocity-soaked white robe of righteousness and its whoring with the Beast State? In your theological world view, when Christians slaughter Christians is that atheism in action also?


We haven’t even touched on the fascists in Italy who were probably all Catholics (Christians) and the Japanese who were fighting for a Divine Emperor and what can be seen as liberation theology!

Mussolini feared the power of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in Italy and by making many concessions to it he finally received official approval of his fascist State by the Holy See; the universal Christian church.

There is documentation that provides evidence of religion/state cooperation in Japan also. Shinto and Buddhist priests were the recruiters of the Kamikaze. Japanese fighters in the South Pacific were insanely fanatical because they were dying for their Divine. One could say that they were that era’s jihadists. The Japanese were so religiously fanatical that the U.S. (according to some a Christian nation) felt it necessary to drop two atomic bombs on Japan to force its surrender.

The evidence shows us systemic cooperation between two entities, government and the church, to share power over the masses. Their only problem was/is dividing up the spoils; each wants a bigger piece of the pie! They’re both totalitarian, they’re both dogmatic, they’re both oppressive, and most importantly; they are both man made.

Men don’t sacrifice themselves for atheism. Men die and commit horrendous acts on each other because of “faith.” You have to really believe in something to be willing to surrender all to it and that requires faith; not disbelief.

Totalitarianism and Religion are bedfellows. They’re two sides of the same coin. And the first century church, as described in the book of Acts, has a lot more in common with communism and socialism than it does with the Republican Jesus theology of AmeriCorp where the Ayn Rand objectivist “greed is good” ideology reigns supreme.

Republican Jesus theology is how we end up with Steve Baldwin on a video huckstering phony martyrdom to the weak minded, fearful, dupes that fill the pews of Christian churches across America.

What ever happened to the Christian tenets of giving all that you have to the poor and following Jeebus? What happened to the eye of a needle and the rich entering into heaven and taking no care for tomorrow? Didn’t Jesus say blessed are those that weep and mourn? Will collecting millions from the fleeced flock have Baldwin falling on the floor weeping and mourning or rolling on the floor laughing his arse off at just how stupid the flock is and taking advantage of all that tax avoidance that so-called “ministry” provides?

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 30, 2010 at 12:19 pm Link to this comment

1.

Maani, April 30 at 1:09 am

” However, once again, your responses - and particularly your unfounded personal accusations - show not one iota of human respect.  I don’t care if you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the monotheistic God, or nothing at all: your inability to engage with me on anything resembling a mutually respectful level is not exactly the way to keep me debating, if that is what you want to do.
Either take a chill pill and learn how to play nice in the sandbox - even with people with whom you may vehemently disagree - or get out of the sandbox, or be prepared to play alone.”


I don’t agree, I believe that I’ve been very respectful of you. I don’t get excited about these things maani, and I don’t let them affect me or have a bad day from what someone says. I know who I am and I’m content with that.

I don’t even make veiled or direct threats like you and your brother in the lawd, Christian96. Your skivvies have been tied in a knot since your first comment and your brother in the lawd Jeebus has just suggested that you (3rd person pl.) take me out and burn me at the stake until I repent, accept Jesus, and act like a Christian. If anyone needs chill pills it’s you two.

Personally I believe you’re looking for any excuse to bail a.s.a.p. because you know that you’re on sinking sand.

You don’t get to make up things as you see fit or need them to be; you, like most Christians in AmeriCorp, are confused by, or lack understanding of, or are deliberately misconstruing, the definition of a suffix. That suffix is “ism.”

Atheism is not a doctrine, a philosophy, a creed, a world view, a belief system, a religion, or an ideology. Atheism is simply disbelief in a god or gods. The suffix “ism” also means a state, attribute, condition, or quality. Is stigmatism a theory?

Therefore, all that you have vainly tried to attribute as atrocities in the name of atheism is pure, unadulterated, bullshit. The atrocities of Stalin and Mao are attributable to a communist totalitarian state, not atheism. Communism is all of those things that you incorrectly attribute to atheism. Your inability to get your head around subtle distinctions is your problem, not mine. And that lack of proficiency does not give you the right to distort reality to fit your mythologically based world view.

You say that Hitler claiming he was a Christian doesn’t make him a Christian. I clearly stated in the previous post that I can cede that point to you easily. I do. Take it. But now you have to explain why it is that the universal church, the Holy Roman Catholic Church—whose head is Vicarius Christi and infallible—not only never publicly questioned Hitler’s Christianity (when that could have really helped to prevent much of the slaughter) but also celebrated his birthday every single year that he was in power.

Perhaps in your brand of evangelicalism the Catholic Church and Catholics aren’t Christians either? I’m just asking because with a reportedly 38,000 different sects and denominations (definitely need a wide brush to paint over all that) I haven’t a clue what your brand might be. You tell me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Now, even if you say that Hitler, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and Catholics were not or are not Christians you’ve still more hurdles to overcome.

Germany of that era was only 33% Catholic and 66% Protestant. That means that a very large number of Nazi soldiers (many millions) were Protestant Christians, willingly obeying and executing the Nazi regime’s orders and working toward the final solution and participating in the plan for a master race. Perhaps they weren’t Christians either?

Report this

By Maani, April 29, 2010 at 9:09 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

Your semantics with respect to atheism and communism are absurd.  Communism is, in every aspect and to every real effect, the socio-politico-economic system of atheism.  Period.  You can try to dress it up, offer apologias, whatever.  Nice try.

Re my 25-75 million figure, I admit an error: the actual estimate was 50-75 million.  And yes, it included the Nicas and everyone else.  You seem to forget that the entire population of the WORLD during the largest portion of this number was only a few hundred million, so I am at least admitting that, propotionally, the number murdered in the name of religion was pretty darn high.

Re Hitler, Christian96 puts it perfectly: Hitler could sit in a garage and call himself a car, but that would not make him one.  ANYONE can CLAIM to be ANYTHING - but that doesn’t make it so.  Again, nice try.

“The eternal copout for Christians is that someone or some denomination or some groups aren’t really Christians.”

Perhaps.  For some.  But, again, this is not an across-the-board situation.  And I would argue that it is not even the rule, but the exception.

“[Various sects] also convolute historical events—as you’ve done here—in order to delude the masses into believing the rightness of their mythological beliefs. In other words maani, like communists, socialists, conservatives, and other political ideologues, religious true believers have no problem using deception (lying) to promote the cause.”

You’re treading dangerously close to libel, my friend: I did not convolute anything, much less “lie.”  In fact, I would argue that it is you who has provided incorrect (or at least weakly, if at all, supportable) historical information.  Yet even if you did, that would not make you a “liar,” it would simply make you ill-informed.

And, pray tell, what “cause” am I “promoting” in my debate with you?  Have I suggested that you convert?  Have I made that suggestion to anyone?  Or is simply DISCUSSING religion “promoting” it?  If so, then you are just as guilty of its “promotion” as I am.

Re my citation of Marx’s “religion is the opium of the people,” you cited Christopher Hitchens (of all people!) citing and commenting on Hegel/Marx:

“Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion.”

So my citation of the quote itself was actually PERFECT.  As well, Hitchens (as usual) begins with a presumption that is as stupid as it is denigrating: that “faith/religion = “illusory” happiness or “woe.”  You’ve GOT to be kidding!  How on God’s great earth would Hegel, Marx or Hitchens know whether the happiness that comes from people’s faith is “illusory,” much less that it is really a form of “woe?”  This type of presumptuousness is breathtaking!

However, once again, your responses - and particularly your unfounded personal accusations - show not one iota of human respect.  I don’t care if you believe in the flying spaghetti monster, the monotheistic God, or nothing at all: your inability to engage with me on anything resembling a mutually respectful level is not exactly the way to keep me debating, if that is what you want to do.

Either take a chill pill and learn how to play nice in the sandbox - even with people with whom you may vehemently disagree - or get out of the sandbox, or be prepared to play alone.

Peace.

Report this

By christian96, April 29, 2010 at 8:15 pm Link to this comment

Maani—-Nemesis2010 said, “At least when communists
tell children that there is no god they are correct.”
Does that sound like a rational intelligent comment
coming from a great mind?  Not even close. Nemesis
also quoted Hitler calling himself a Christian. You
are familiar enough with the Bible that Jesus said
you shall know the true from the false by WHAT THEY
DO not by what they say.  Hitler could sit in a
garage and call himself a car but that doesn’t make
him one.  You are wasting your time on a weak biased
mind. I say, “Let’s burn Nemesis at the stake at
high noon unless he repents to not only accept Jesus
but to BEHAVE like a Christian.”  Better get out the
rope!

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

”Maani, April 28 at 11:47 pm!

”since religion, as the “opium of the masses,”

Oh… maani, you might want to stop quote mining and misrepresenting what Marx REALLY wrote and meant about the “opium of the people.”

“Probably the most popular misquotation of modern times—certainly the most popular in this argument—is the assertion that Marx dismissed religion as “the opium of the people.” On the contrary, this son of a rabbinical line took belief very seriously and wrote, in his Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, as follows:

‘Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of woe, the halo of which is religion. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers from the chain, not so that man will wear the chain without any fantasy or consolation but so that he will shake off the chain and cull the living flower.’

So the famous misquotation is not so much a “misquotation” but rather a very crude attempt to misrepresent the philosophical case against religion. Those who have believed what the priests and rabbis and imams tell them about what the unbelievers think and about how they think, will find further such surprises as we go along. They will perhaps come to distrust what they are told—or not to take it “on faith,” which is the problem to begin with.”

-Christopher Hitchens, “God is not Great”

”A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.” –George Orwell, “The Prevention of Literature”

”Dogma demands authority, rather than intelligent thought, as the source of opinion; it requires persecution of heretics and hostility to unbelievers; it asks of its disciples that they should inhibit natural kindness in favor of systematic hatred.” - Bertrand Russell

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 29, 2010 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

”Maani, April 28 at 11:47 pm!

” I do not believe it is the “inerrant” word of God.”

Thank you. I think that I should have mention infallible also, but we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

Now we have a problem maani. Any conclusion made based on the bible is now suspect because it is an errant source. 

”Maani, April 28 at 11:47 pm!

” my understanding of Scripture, as a Christian I believe that both of the books work together to form the basis of what might be called the Judeo-Christian construct - a combination of the “laws” (dogma/doctrine/“legalism”) and the moral and ethical “values” that undergird both Judaism and Christianity (though obviously in different ways). ”

There’s the cherry-picking because the Judea-Christian construct is not written in stone (no pun intended) and each Christian denomination or sect will cherry-pick it according to whatever dogma, doctrine, and/or religious guideline meets their needs. Not to mention, that the Jews reject the Christian redactation of the book altogether.

Your position on the Bible and convoluted interpretation of history are perfect examples of why one has to paint with a broad brush when dealing with any religious body. Every sect, every denomination, every true believer, has a different opinion as to what their holy book is, says, and how it is to be interpreted. They also convolute historical events—as you’ve done here—in order to delude the masses into believing the rightness of their mythological beliefs. In other words maani, like communists, socialists, conservatives, and other political ideologues, religious true believers have no problem using deception (lying) to promote the cause.

The eternal copout for Christians is that someone or some denomination or some groups aren’t really Christians. There is no doubt in my mind that some Christians reading your comments about the Bible being errant are convinced that at the very least you are in deception and possibly not really a true Christian either. And who the hell is to say that they aren’t right? 

Are Jews antichrists, liars, deceivers and of the synagogue of that same Satan that Christian96 said has me deceived?

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 29, 2010 at 12:02 pm Link to this comment

”Maani, April 28 at 11:47 pm!

”Hitler, despite what he wrote in Mein Kampf and “claimed,” he was not - and never was - a Christian.”

Re Hitler:

As you know I can load the board up with quotes by Hitler from Mein Kampf and other writings where he leaves no doubt that he believed and professed himself to be a Christian. I can also present many gigabytes of memory on the very close—albeit tumultuous—relationship between Hitler’s Nazi regime and the Catholic Church, as well as mainline Protestant churches within Germany. But I’m not going to waste my time.

The reason is that I can cede Hitler being a Christian and you’ve still no case against the fact that most of the German people were Christians. Catholicism is the State religion! The German Army had a partial verse from Psalms (“Gott mit uns”) on soldiers’ belt buckles in both WWI and WWII. But I can also cede that to you and you still have to deal with the fact that Hitler was at the very least a believer in a divine. That’s religion! It may not be YOUR brand of religion, but it is religion. The best you can hope to do here is classify Hitler as a pantheist. He definitely believed in a creator and, as a matter of fact, his religious beliefs—not Darwinism—were the driving force of his desire to establish a master race.

”Christ is the genius of love and as such the most diametric antipole to Jewry, which is the incarnation of hate. ... Christ was the first anti-Jewish opponent of stature. ... The Jew is the lie that became flesh. He nailed Christ to the cross, and thus for the first time in history nailed the eternal truth to the cross.” –Joseph Geobbels

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

”Maani, April 28 at 11:47 pm!

‘ Now, before you tell me that they did not do their dirty work “in the name of atheism…’

You can’t possibly be serious?

Re Lenin, Stalin, and Mao: Communism is the driving ideology, not atheism. Atheism is simply the disbelief in or denial of a god or gods, maani. Nothing in not believing in a god—or gods—drives one to set up a pure communist state. Disbelief in a divine does not drive me to hate capitalism or democracy or think that we should build a workers’ paradise. That’s ludicrous!

Communism requires that there be no organized religious establishment because organized religion vies with the State for control of the masses. The religious, because of religious dogma and faithfulness to their religion, represent a threat to the State. Communists’ fear of any religious organization is understandable when one realizes that for most of human history the State has always been intimately intertwined with organized religion. The two, the State and organized religion, have always worked hand in hand in oppression of the human race while simultaneously struggling for dominance. The communists don’t want the competition.

The one time in Western civilization where organized religion—the Christian Church—reigned supreme is known to us as the Dark Ages!

Communist regimes persecuted all of a differing ideology, be it political or religious, not just Christians. Much of the former Soviet Union, as is the case with China, was non-Christian. Those with control of the reins of power persecuted their own true believers just as mercilessly as they did the religious. They wanted to eliminate all possible competition for the reins of Power. It had nothing to do with atheism!

Communism and religion are Jacob and Ishmael, they’re strange bedfellows. Both want to perfect human society, both are totalitarian. Atheism is simply the disbelief in divinity. The main difference between monotheism and communism is the top party boss. At least when communists tell children that there is no god they are correct. They didn’t inculcate school children with atheism; they inculcated school children with political ideology.

Maani, you can’t go out to a book store and buy a book on atheism that has economic, social, and political theory. But you can purchase books on communism, socialism, capitalism, Judaism, Christianity, Islamism and many other “isms” that will present you with their ideas of the perfect version of those systems. Atheism is simply disbelief in a divine.

I do find your bogus 25-75 million figure intriguing. Why don’t you provide evidence for the numbers of pre-Columbian era deaths caused by the Inca in wars, sacrifices, etc. and while you’re at it—since you’re in the same area—the same figures with regards to the Moche.

I notice that you have not provided evidence of atheists promoting infant and child genital mutilation in the name of atheism. Has it slipped your attention?

Report this

By christian96, April 28, 2010 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment

Excuse me——Last Sunday, April 25th, CNN brought
coverage of the memorial to the 29 coal miners killed
on April 5th.  President Obama spoke at the memorial
aaking families and friends of the miners to seek
comfort through seeking the face of God.  Pres.
Obama then quoted Psalm 23 from the Bible.  The next
day, April 26th, I decided to watch Pat Robertson on
The 700 Club to see what he would report about the
memorial and President Obama’s speech.  He reported
nothing.  Just completely ignored the memorial and
Pres. Obama’s speech.  Of course Pat Robertson is a
Democrat and Pat Robertson is a Republican.  Do you
thing Pat Robertson put politics before God and just
decided to ignore informing the Christians who watch
him that their President had mentioned God and the
Bible?  Surely not!  I need information.  How can
I find someone to publicize this neglect by Pat
Robertson nationwide.  I want Christians to know the
sly deceptiveness of Pat Robertson.  I will appreciate any suggestions.  Thank you.

Report this

By Maani, April 28, 2010 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

Re the Bible, I do not believe it is the “inerrant” word of God.  In fact, the claimed “inerrancy” of the Bible is a relatively recent phenomenon, coming in the wake of the advent of the conservative evangelical and charismatic movements of the past two hundred years or so.  Prior to that, the general understanding (of both Jews and Christians) is that the Old Testament was a combination of the commitment to paper of formerly oral tradition and the “word revealed” by the “inspiration” of God.

As for the New Testament, again until the advent of the conservative evangelical/charismatic movements, it was generally understood to be a combination of the personal accounts of the gospel writers of their interactions with Jesus, and the later writings of some of the apostles and disciples, plus those of Paul, Timothy and later converts.

Since neither book was considered “inerrant” until quite recently (and even so is seen as such only by certain denominations), you can make of that what you will.

Re my understanding of Scripture, as a Christian I believe that both of the books work together to form the basis of what might be called the Judeo-Christian construct - a combination of the “laws” (dogma/doctrine/“legalism”) and the moral and ethical “values” that undergird both Judaism and Christianity (though obviously in different ways).

However, as a Christian, my understanding is that, where there is any question about an issue, etc., the NT prevails, in the following way:

First, what (if anything) did Jesus DO with respect to that issue - i.e., what action(s) did He take.  Second, what (if anything) did Jesus SAY with respect to that issue.  Third, if He did not do or say anything with regard to that specific issue, is there something that can be REASONABLY INFERRED from something He did or said about a similar or related issue.  Fourth, if Jesus neither did nor said anything with respect to that issue, and there is nothing that can be reasonably inferred from His actions or words re a similar or related issue, does the NT address that issue somewhere else (i.e., via Paul or others).  And finally, if one cannot find guidance on that issue using any of the above four methods, what does the OT say about that issue.

Again, I believe the two books work together, but that Jesus’ life and ministry take precedence over all else.  (Otherwise, why call oneself a “Christ-ian?”)

Given this, there is no “cherry-picking” between the two books.  No matter what the OT says or suggests about any of the issues you inquire about, one (i.e., a Christian) must look first and foremost to Christ.  Thus, as noted, the eleven precepts of His ministry - love, peace, forgiveness, humility, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice, truth - override everything else.  Period.  There is no conflict, no question, no issue.

In this regard, if you want to ask me about specific issues (homosexuality, etc.), my answer will always be derived in this fashion, from this foundation.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, April 28, 2010 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

I see a trap being laid, but like Daniel in the lion’s den, I will walk boldly in!  LOL.

Estimates of the number of people murdered in the name of “religion” (Crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, witch hunts, etc.) range from 25-75 million IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY.  Yet between them, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler murdered between 100-150 million IN JUST 60 YEARS!

Now, before you tell me that they did not do their dirty work “in the name of atheism,” lets review our history.

Lenin UNQUESTIONABLY carried out HIS tens of millions of murders DIRECTLY in the name of atheism.  He stated as such numerous times, and he specifically targeted believers BECAUSE OF their beliefs, since religion, as the “opium of the masses,” prevented the creation of a “perfect” Communist state.

Re Stalin: “Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society…His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion…[Re the Russian Orthodox Church], continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938…Just days before Stalin’s death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted…hundreds of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, sacred monuments, monasteries and other religious buildings were razed.”

Enough said.

Re Mao, while it is true he never claimed to be purging believers “in the name of atheism,” the same holds true for him as for Lenin: Mao wanted a “pure” Communist state, and believers were a direct affront (if not threat) to that, so they had to be “removed.”

Re Hitler, despite what he wrote in Mein Kampf and “claimed,” he was not - and never was - a Christian.  Even setting aside that nothing he actually DID was “Christian” in any real sense of the word (Love? Peace? Forgiveness? Humility? Compassion? Charity? Justice? Truth?  I think not), he “used” Christianity as a way of getting widespread support for his scapegoating and persecution of the Jews.  Indeed, in a statement to the party faithful in 1933 (1933!), he said, “It is through the peasantry that we will finally destroy Christianity.”  In other words, once the Jews were gone, his next target were the Christians.  And before you claim he had a “cozy” relationship with the Pope, this is a historical canard: nothing could be further from the truth.  Hitler hated the Pope, not least because, although the Pope himself agreed not to help the Jews or ask Catholic priests to do so, he knew that many parishes were doing so anyway, and he did nothing to stop them.  Hitler had already attempted to “take over” (i.e., dismantle) the Protestant Church (and almost succeeded!); it was a certainty that the Vatican and Catholicism were in his sights.

Keep in mind that Hitler was attempting to create a “master race” of Aryans - but Aryan is not a religion, it is a bloodline, one that is nominally pagan, but closer to atheism than to “religion.”  So his murders were, in fact, done in the name of atheism, since believers - Jews, Christians, etc. - were anathema to his planned “master race.”

I will answer your other queries in subsequent posts.  In the meantime, you need to read ALOT more history before you try to claim that Lenin et al did not murder (including some of the specific crimes you note) “in the name of atheism.”

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 28, 2010 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment

Maani, April 28 at 7:28 pm

”No, a broad brush is never NECESSARY: it is always a CHOICE.  And it is your CHOICE of a broad brush that makes your position and points “neither laudable nor conducive to any form of discussion, conversation or even debate.”

I don’t agree maani. I attempted to obtain information in order to use a narrower brush but you haven’t responded to any of the questions. Perhaps you were too busy allegorizing me to swine.

One thing that would help at this point is knowing your view on the Christian Bible and if you’re partial to a particular version, such as KJV, NKJ, NAS, NIV, etc. that would also be helpful.

Is the Bible, according to your particular brand of Christianity the inerrant word of God? Is it, according to your beliefs, to be taken literally in its entirety or do you have a sliding scale? In other words maani, do you pick out parts that make your 21st century mind feel uncomfortable and apply different criteria of interpretation? For example: Do you use the New Testament to approve of working on the Sabbath, or in the Christians’ case Sunday, and then conveniently return to the Old Testament to determine the best way to deal with homosexuality and homosexuals? Do you go to the Old Testament to condone tithing because the New Testament does not command that believers tithe?

With several thousand different Christian sects it requires a goodly bit of conversation to learn what one is dealing with.

I’m not going to proceed addressing the remainder of your post maani until you answer these questions because I don’t want to offend you any more than I have by continuing to paint with a broad brush.

Let’s recap:

1. You’re to provide us evidence of atheists promoting infant and child genital mutilation in the name of atheism. (That’s key pastor maani… “in the name of atheism.”)

2. You’re to make clear to us your position on the Bible, as to whether or not it is the inerrant word of God and whether or not it should be taken literally in its entirety or sporadically. (It would probably be a good time to state just who this God is in order to avoid confusion with Allah or the FSM.)

3. You are to state your preference, if applicable, to version.

NOTE TO MigrantLurker: Please be patient. This will all be tied in to the video. That article is loaded with key trigger words to motivate the brethren to give and I’m going to do my best to expose them.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 28, 2010 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

Maani, April 28 at 7:28 pm

” That makes me wonder what is worse: A deity who can command human beings to engage in child abuse, genital mutilation, etc.?  Or engaging in those types of things with no “command?”  The trap you fall into is that there is - and always has been - FAR more of that type of behavior from atheists (as a whole) than from “commanded” believers.  So when all you atheists - who do far more of this horrendous stuff WITHOUT being “commanded” to do so - clean up YOUR act in these regards, only THEN do you have the right to accuse and condemn believers for doing so.

I do not fall into any trap maani because it’s all the same; gods are imaginary!

Atheists are capable of doing horrendous things also maani, after all an atheist is a big brained ape just like all other humans. The difference is that atheists do not do those things in the name of atheism. Men do those types of things to one another because of ideological and religious beliefs; be that communism, predator capitalism, Christianity, Judaism, Islamism, socialism, neo-conservatism, whatever.

Are you sure that you’re not confusing atheism with paganism? Would you provide us an example of atheists promoting infant and/or child genital mutilation in the name of atheism, please?

Report this

By Maani, April 28, 2010 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

“Child abuse, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, holocaust, bigotry, racism, etc. are things to be denigrated, demeaned and disdained. Anyone, even a deity, who can command human beings to wipe out entire populations of other human beings and order his adherents to abuse their own children and mutilate their genitalia, is a psychopath. There’s no other way around it.”

That makes me wonder what is worse: A deity who can command human beings to engage in child abuse, genital mutilation, etc.?  Or engaging in those types of things with no “command?”  The trap you fall into is that there is - and always has been - FAR more of that type of behavior from atheists (as a whole) than from “commanded” believers.  So when all you atheists - who do far more of this horrendous stuff WITHOUT being “commanded” to do so - clean up YOUR act in these regards, only THEN do you have the right to accuse and condemn believers for doing so.

“A broad brush is necessary, there’re thousands of different Christian sects alone, albeit all religions are basically the same; there’re imaginary deities, adherents to the dogma are special, all not like-minded people are sinners and doomed to one type of hell or another, be it burning for an eternity or being recycled into this one.”

No, a broad brush is never NECESSARY: it is always a CHOICE.  And it is your CHOICE of a broad brush that makes your position and points “neither laudable nor conducive to any form of discussion, conversation or even debate.”

“You’re doubtlessly a great Homo sapien, but being an evangelical, when it comes to doing something for, or in the name of, your god, you’re capable of committing horrendous acts.”

Pardon my frankness, but that has to be the single stupidest comment I have ever seen on these boards.  My being an evangelical does not “trump” my living (to the best of my human ability) a “Christ-like” life of love, peace, forgiveness, humility, compassion, patience, charity, selflessness, service, justice and truth.  In fact, it REINFORCES those attributes.  So there is nothing - NOTHING! - that would all of a sudden make me capable of “committing horrendous acts.”  And that holds true for the overwhelming majority of Christians I know and interact with.

“I know, I was once an evangelical.”  Ah!  The truth will out!  Just like a smoker or cocaine addict who finally kicks the habit, your extremist positions are a product of the rubberband theory: when you pull a rubberband all the way in one direction and let go, it goes to the other extreme before ending up in the middle.  So it goes with (many) former addicts.  And although some do eventually find the middle, not all do.  My guess is that you will ever find the middle.  How sad.

“My denigrating, demeaning, and disdaining religious beliefs and deities that promote things like child abuse, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, holocaust, bigotry, and racism has upset you so much that you feel perfectly justified in denigrating, demeaning, and disdaining me for it.”

You obviously don’t know the difference between “denigrating, demeaning and disdaining” on the one hand - all of which are broad-brush, generalized comments about a group - and offering SUPPORTABLE observations about an individual on the other.

My comment was that your “hatred, vituperation, malice and disdain is so deep, so ingrained, so much a part of your fiber that you cannot even interact in a civil manner with people who believe other than you, but don’t necessarily share the extremist positions you ascribe to some of them.  Your broad-brush, generalized comments are neither laudable nor conducive to any form of discussion, conversation or even debate.  Your worldview would be amusing if it were not so sad.”

I am not ascribing these attibutes to a group, I am ascribing them to you as an individual - based on and supported by your own comments.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 28, 2010 at 10:46 am Link to this comment

Maani, April 27 at 11:13 pm

” The type of behavior you admit to - defaming, contempt, despising, etc. - is beneath even secular humanists, of which I am guessing you think yourself one. “

Child abuse, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, holocaust, bigotry, racism, etc. are things to be denigrated, demeaned and disdained. Anyone, even a deity, who can command human beings to wipe out entire populations of other human beings and order his adherents to abuse their own children and mutilate their genitalia, is a psychopath. There’s no other way around it. Those—the aforementioned—are not desirable character traits.

Before your friend comes along to admonish; this all falls in line with the article because it’s part of the whole religion scam. Steven Baldwin isn’t doing anything out of the norm; he’s doing exactly what he has seen many other charlatans and mountebanks do. Men like Hinn, Copeland, Swaggert, Robertson, etc. they all shamelessly stand before a camera or in a pulpit, scaring the poop out of poor, hard-working people, about things that they cannot possibly know, and shilling for dollars. Today they are so shameless, that they even have the audacity to shill for multimillion dollar private jets, multimillion dollar estates, and like Wall Street bankers; to be bailed out of bankruptcy!

”The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool.” -Voltaire

Come to think of it, not too long ago Rick Warren whored himself and came up with quite a haul. You might want to consider contacting Baldwin and see if you can’t get some of that 10% he’ll have to tithe.

Do you think it possible that Baldwin’s inability to obtain roles has less to do with his love for Jeebus and more to do with his highly visible involvement in neo-con right-wing nuttery?

 

Maani, April 27 at 11:13 pm

”but don’t necessarily share the extremist positions you ascribe to some of them. Your broad-brush…“


A broad brush is necessary, there’re thousands of different Christian sects alone, albeit all religions are basically the same; there’re imaginary deities, adherents to the dogma are special, all not like-minded people are sinners and doomed to one type of hell or another, be it burning for an eternity or being recycled into this one, and of course, all the different gods have a problem with money! They simply can’t get their shit straight when it comes to money.

You’re doubtlessly a great Homo sapien, but being an evangelical, when it comes to doing something for, or in the name of, your god, you’re capable of committing horrendous acts. I know, I was once an evangelical. A fool for Jeebus I was!

The extremist positions come from the book maani, and the very fact that all of you have differing interpretations on exactly what the book says makes it impossible for one to separate the sheep from the goats. It doesn’t matter, because as we both know, eventually a small segment will interpret what they’re reading differently, feel that they’ve had an epiphany, and new sect is born.

It’s truly a wonderment isn’t it maani; my denigrating, demeaning, and disdaining religious beliefs and deities that promote things like child abuse, genital mutilation, slavery, genocide, holocaust, bigotry, and racism has upset you so much that you feel perfectly justified in denigrating, demeaning, and disdaining me for it. It’s strange world.

”The whole conception of a God is a conception derived from the ancient oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men.” - Bertrand Russell

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2010 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis: “To have dared to attack the character and reputation, to have spoke ill of, defamed, treated with haughty contempt and despised a mythological deity—and his followers, both new and old—that commands his deluded adherents to commit child abuse, genital mutilation, genocide, and holocaust, who promotes slavery, the selling of one’s own children into slavery, racism, intolerance, and bigotry is beyond the pale.”

The type of behavior you admit to - defaming, contempt, despising, etc. - is beneath even secular humanists, of which I am guessing you think yourself one.  Sadly, no.  Your hatred, vituperation, malice and disdain is so deep, so ingrained, so much a part of your fiber that you cannot even interact in a civil manner with people who believe other than you, but don’t necessarily share the extremist positions you ascribe to some of them.  Your broad-brush, generalized comments are neither laudable nor conducive to any form of discussion, conversation or even debate.  Your worldview would be amusing if it were not so sad.

“If you can find it in your heart maani, please forgive me.”

Yes, Nemesis, even with your malicious sarcasm, you are forgiven.  Because, as the man you quote (Reinhold Niebuhr) also said, “Forgiveness is the final form of love.”

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 27, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

Maani, April 27 at 6:15 pm

”that is a classic “out” for people like you who…uh…denigrate, demean and disdain “mythical” beliefs…”


I guess I’m going to have to give up the ghost and concede defeat on this one maani, you’ve got me by the short hairs; no doubt about it. You’re too sharp for me.

What was I thinking? To have dared to attack the character and reputation, to have spoke ill of, defamed, treated with haughty contempt and despised a mythological deity—and his followers, both new and old—that commands his deluded adherents to commit child abuse, genital mutilation, genocide, and holocaust, who promotes slavery, the selling of one’s own children into slavery, racism, intolerance, and bigotry is beyond the pale.

If you can find it in your heart maani, please forgive me. I’m sending Mr. Balwin $4.21 tomorrow and I know god will bless me for it. Better to be fleeced for Jeebus than to burn in hell with liars, deceivers, and all those antichrists.
 
I’m so afraid because I now see that I was wrong and that unless I repent I’ll be “left behind” and have to face the terrible antichrist and his antichrist followers……………… wait………………. hold on a minute maani……………

Aren’t the Jews who have not and refuse to accept Jeebus (for example the entire state of Israel); antichrists and liars and deceivers and of the synagogue of that same Satan that Christian96 said has me deceived? (2 John 1:7, Revelations 2:9, 3:9)

 

” The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”—H.L. Menchen

Report this

By Maani, April 27, 2010 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

MigrantLurker and Christian96:

Right you are.  However…LOL.  I must add one comment to Nemesis.

Nemesis:

In case you missed it (you did…LOL), I AGREE with you re Baldwin and the absurdity (and, if you wish, hypocrisy) of comparing him to Job since, as you note, there is not one iota of similarity in the two situations.

Re “I haven’t denigrated, demeaned or disdained anyone maani. It’s your professed beliefs and actions by believers based on those beliefs that denigrate, demean, and disdain,” that is a classic “out” for people like you who…uh…denigrate, demean and disdain “mythical” beliefs…

Peace.

Report this

By migrantLurker, April 27, 2010 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

back on topic….that’s what I’m talking about! Yeeee Haw! Come git summ!

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 27, 2010 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

<span class=“comment-body”>

Maani, April 26 at 11:45 pm

‘ You denigrate, demean and disdain Jews, Christians and their “psychopathic desert god’


I haven’t denigrated, demeaned or disdained anyone maani. It’s your professed beliefs and actions by believers based on those beliefs that denigrate, demean, and disdain.

Hypocrisy is taking the position that the book of myth in question is the inerrant word of a divine and then manipulating the scripture to benefit one’s own partisan values and ends.

You seem oblivious to the fact that Steven Baldwin is being compared to a biblical character. One might even say being presented as a martyr.

Tell me maani; did Job squander his fortune, and cause the death of all his children and wife by loose living or was he being tested for being a virtuous man? How did Steven manage to squander his fortune? Is there anything even remotely the same between the two cases except for their being believers and broke?

Why don’t all of those multimillionaire televangelists pool some of their money together and bail Balwin out? Where’s their Christian love and compassion for a brother in need? Why fleece the flock when they’ve so much more?`

” The tendency to claim God as an ally for our partisan value and ends is the source of all religious fanaticism.” -Reinhold Niebuhr

Report this

By migrantLurker, April 27, 2010 at 8:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey, hey, hey….easy there big fellers (nemesis, christian, maani, et al). No need fer us to get all huffy.
This is supposed to be a comment string about the clownish and shameless self-aggrandizement of this least of the Baldwin brotherhood.
Can I respectfully ask u to keep ur defense of ur religions (christianity or atheism) to a more appropriate space.
One might even see nemesis’ tactics as trolling, perhaps?
Not that I have any authority to make this request, nor do u have any obligation to comply.
Just thot I’d throw it oot there. Happy Trails.

Report this

By christian96, April 26, 2010 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Maani—-You are casting your pearls before swine
by trying to have a rational discussion with
Nemesis2010.  His mind has been blinded by the
god of this world(Satan).  People like Nemesis are
discussed in 2nd Tim. when characteristics of non-believers IN THE LAST DAYS are listed.  2nd Timothy
3:1 reads, “This know, also, that in THE LAST DAYS
perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers
of their own selves(their ideas), covetous, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents(authorities),
unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, no self-control, fierce, DESPISERS of those that are good, traitors,
HEADY, HIGHMINDED, lovers of pleasures more than
lovers of God.  From such turn away.”  I suggest
you follow those instructions with Nemesis.  Turn
away.  The best thing you can do for Nemesis is
pray. Like Elijah, ask God to open the blind eyes
of Nemesis before it is too late.  The Great Tribulation is rapidly approaching.

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, April 26, 2010 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

Satyan nasti paro dharmah.
Vedic sages or Gautama Buddha
take your pick.

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, April 26, 2010 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

Where the nematodes crawl I tiptoe away.

Report this

By Maani, April 26, 2010 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

You are a true classic!  You denigrate, demean and disdain Jews, Christians and their “psychopathic desert god,” yet you feel quite comfortable using that same “psychopathic desert god” to support your own positions.  Just a wee bit hypocritical, aren’t we?

Choose a side a stick with it.  If you think that all believers are nuts, that the Bible is a book of myths, and that the monotheistic God is a “psychopath,” then stay with that and don’t be such a hypocrite.

I see no point in responding to your diatribes because your hypocrisy (to say nothing of your hatred and disdain) is so…sociopathic that I would be…mmm…casting pearls before swine in doing so.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 26, 2010 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

@ maani:

No, I don’t believe that I’ve taken Christian96’s comments too literally. I think he wrote exactly what he believes. What he wrote is consistent with Christian delusion.

Could it be—I’m just asking if it is possible—that all that hatred the “Jews” have faced has more to do with them than with the rest of humanity? I mean, after all, according to their own mythology, their own God hated them so much that he was ready to do a number on them that would have made Hitler green with envy. If memory serves me, he—their imaginary psychopathic desert god—even called them a stiff-necked people, didn’t he? Didn’t they also make him repent of having created mankind?

Can you actually prove those claims you’re making about the Jews having been ”the target of more hatred, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide than any other ‘people’ in all of recorded history.”?

Have you an inkling of the history of European Christian colonialism here in the Americas? It is estimated, with a helluva lot more credible evidence than your bible, that 90 million aboriginals were wiped out by Jeebus’ European invaders within a few generations. It is estimated that there were about 30 million in the U.S. alone! This wasn’t done with WMDs maani, back then you had to get up close and personal.

In India there are accounts of British soldiers cutting the eyelids off parents so that they would not be able to shut their eyes to the butchering and feeding to the dogs their dismembered children’s body parts. Similar acts—the butchering of humans by humans to feed dogs—took place here in the Americas also. Coincidentally, most of all that genocide and atrocity were perpetrated at the hands of Christians! I do believe that it was Christian Europe that has been responsible for much of the persecution against Jews that you spoke of as well, was it not?

Actually maani, if we take it to the next logical step, much, if not most, of the hatred that the Jews have faced—at least for the past 2,000 years or so—is really Jew on Jew hatred, is it not? Aren’t Christians “grafted” from the wild olive tree into the cultivated olive tree and now with the natural branches (the Jews) have become a part of the same tree? In other words the spiritual Jews have been perpetrating all that ”hatred, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide” on the flesh and blood Jews. Isn’t Christian Europe’s hatred of their Jewish brethren the real reason behind the establishment of the rogue state of Israel? Ain’t religion grand maani?

I don’t believe that Jews have suffered any more than many other peoples throughout human history maani. As a matter of fact the Jews themselves are guilty of many atrocities in the name of their desert god; Amorites, Amalekites, Canaanites, modern day Palestinians. Hell, according to their holy book it’s perfectly all right to sell one’s own sons and daughters into slavery, even sex slavery. Of course to their credit, there is a 6 year limit on the sons.

Try reading “King Leopold’s Ghost” maani and see if after reading it you still believe the Jews have suffered more than any other. Then you might try reading “Red Rubber, Bleeding Trees” and “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”. 

There’s something I’ve had on my mind for quite some time now and perhaps you, maani, might be the one to help me out here. How long do you believe this new found love of the Jews in U.S. Christendom will last before you start putting them in ovens for not accepting the Jew zombie as their messiah; any thoughts on that?

”Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum”

Atheism,

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 26, 2010 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

@ maani:

God can’t restore anyone because there is no god. If you insist that there is a god you then have to not only present evidence of that god’s existence but also evidence that that god is the same psychopathic god of Bronze and Iron Aged Hebraic tribes.

If you’re here to promote the Christian three-for-one-sale divinity, the mountain top just got higher.

If he has a church and can’t live off the income earned from fleecing the weak and deluded then perhaps the problem is pride—his! Even Paul made fishing nets in times of hardship. Has he even tried to get another job outside of the acting and mountebank businesses? How about waiting tables? Perhaps that’s beneath him?

Apparently, given the circumstances, those whose opinion really matter on what constitutes talent in the movie industry are at odds with you with respect to Mr. Balwin’s talents.

Report this

By Maani, April 26, 2010 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

Nemesis:

Re “Why doesn’t Balwin’s god restore him? In the Job story it’s the god in that book that restores Job; not his begging for money,” you are absolutely correct.  Though one does have to take action, it is God who ultimately “provides.”  As for your suggestion re his starting a church (which should not be done with the INTENT of getting money…), he already has, but given the lifestyle he created as a multi-million dollar movie star, I can understand why whatever he does earn from that church cannot support him.  As for “blessing him with talent,” there are a great many of us who already believe he is talented.

Re “It’s impossible for people to have hated the Jews throughout all of history because there have not been Jews throughout all of history,” I think you are reading Christian96’s comment far too literally.  Of course the “Jews” did not appear until after the founding of Judea (though the Israelites existed for hundreds of years prior thereto - and they were “hated” as well).  I think his point was that, SINCE the founding of the “Jewish” people, the “Jews” - as a “people” (and that includes everyone from sabras to the European Jews of which you speak) - have been the target of more hatred, denigration, malice, oppression, scorn, and attempted genocide than any other “people” in all of recorded history.

Peace.

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 26, 2010 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

@ christian96:

I would suggest that you hook up with an atheist so that he/she can instruct you on that book of myths you believe in.

It’s impossible for people to have hated the Jews throughout all of history because there have not been Jews throughout all of history. Jews didn’t come about until after the Hebraic 12 tribes fought a civil war and established two kingdoms called Israel and Judah. The citizens of the Kingdom of Judah came to be known as Jews. What exactly are Jews today is anybody’s guess since the blond-haired, blue-eyed, European Jew would have little in common with the “Jews” of antiquity –other than belief in the same non-existent psychopathic desert god.

Now about the non-existent Satan and jeebus…

”The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.”
—Delos B. McKown

Report this

By nemesis2010, April 26, 2010 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

Why doesn’t Balwin’s god restore him? In the Job story it’s the god in that book that restores Job; not his begging for money. Why doesn’t he become a preacher, head up a bunch of loons, and build a church from whose pulpit he can beg and plead for money weekly –not to mention getting to bang a bunch of that first pew booty.

God could help restore Baldwin by blessing him with talent.

Has he tried getting a job instead of being a Job?

” Rightly are the simple so called.”
—Christopher Hitchens, “God Is Not Great”

Report this

By Maani, April 26, 2010 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

Christian96:

You are, of course, correct that a proper Christian life is not lived “in the middle of sinning and fundamentalism.”  And I realize only now that that is one way that my comment could be read.  But that was not what I meant.

We are, indeed, called to live “Christ-like lives,” which means living by His example and the precepts of His ministry: love, peace, forgiveness, humility, compassion, patience, selflessness, charity, service, justice and truth.

My point is that one need not be a strictly dogmatic, doctrinaire, fundamentalist Christian in order to do so.  Indeed, “fundamentalists” are, by definition, “legalists” - like the Pharisees.  They focus more on the “law” (i.e., “religion”) than on grace (“faith”).  In fact, as a rule (but certainly not “to a man”), I find fundamentalists to be the most UN-humble Christians I know.  And based on some of their interpretations of Scripture - which they often take out of context to support narrow, un-loving, un-forgiving and, ultimately, un-Christian positions - I would go so far as to say that many of them would not know Jesus if He bit them on the ear.

As for Hollywood, phoniness, hypocrisy, etc., this is exactly the kind of broad-brush generalization and overreaction that I am talking about.  Are you suggesting that there are no “good” Christians in Hollywood?  That one cannot be both an actor and a “good” Christian at the same time?  That these two things are mutually exclusive, and that any actor who also claims to be a Christian is de facto a “hypocrite?”

Please.  That is just silly.  You are essentially suggesting that acting talent - unlike every other talent or gift - is not God-given.  That is simply not supportable.

Peace.

Report this

By Woody Alein, April 26, 2010 at 12:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wasn’t this Stephen Baldwin pally with Sarah Palin?

Seems being on the Right doesn’t always guarantee where the money is.

Well if nothing else at least he can hug his Gun and his bible at night in bed to feel safe.

Report this

By christian96, April 25, 2010 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

Maani—-I disagree with your comment “a truly
Christian life is lived in the middle of sinning
and fundamentalism.”  You being a minister are
familiar with the scripture which encourages us to
live our lives as Jesus led his.  I don’t think
Jesus lived in the “middle.”  You also know the
Bible instructs us to not be hypocrites.  A hypocrite
is someone who is phony.  They pretend to be something they aren’t.  That’s exactly what an actor
in Hollywood does.  They pretend to be something they
aren’t. Next time you see your friend perhaps you
should advise him to get out of Hollywood and get a
real job.

Report this

By culheath, April 25, 2010 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The video is a joke, right?

Report this

By Maani, April 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

I was a friend of Stephen’s before he went into acting.  We used to hang out, get high, shoot the breeze.  He was a wonderful, smart, funny, engaging person.  He remained pretty humble when he first went into acting (his early films include Casualties of War, Born on the 4th of July, and The Usual Suspects), and when I bumped into him on a rare occasion, he seemed to have remained humble.

Stephen’s conversion to Christianity changed him in many ways - and, from my perspective, not for the better.  (And keep in mind that I am an evangelical minister…)  Certainly I am glad that he gave up drug use and other bad habits, and that he credits his conversion with this.  However, hearing him speak in interviews, etc., I saw what is very common in “born again” Christians: a swing from one extreme to the other; from a “bad” life (drugs, alcohol, pridefulness, whatever) to a truly “fundamentalist” Christian life - with no attempt to find the middle, which is where a truly “Christian” life is led (and I am not talking about compromising one’s faith, or even Christian dogma/doctrine).

As with many “born again” Christians, Stephen’s religious extremism carried over into every other aspect of his life: political, social, economic, etc.  This is why a person who I knew as center-left (even liberal) ended up supporting McCain/Palin.

Personally, I have great sympathy for Stephen.  Yes, what he is doing is questionable, perhaps even non-Christian in a certain way.  But in most cases, those who go from one extreme to the other are not truly and fully “healed”: in simplistic terms, they are “overcompensating” - like a rubber band that, pulled to one extreme, goes to the other extreme before finding its way to the middle.

I may not agree with his current action, but he has my prayers and best wishes.

Peace.

Report this

By dgvb55, April 25, 2010 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

What he can’t gat a cameo or something in another “Left Behind” movie? Or some other silly thing only only the Robertson crowd could sit through without vomiting? C’mon aready!

Report this

By Cassie, April 25, 2010 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wish I get some Sky Spook followers to pay my bills.

Report this

By christian96, April 25, 2010 at 12:23 pm Link to this comment

For those of you not familiar with the book of Job,
I’ll share a few insights. Job 6:1 reads, “Now there
was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also
among them.” Verse 7 continues, “And the Lord ask
Satan, where have you been?”  Then, Satan answered
and said, “From going to and fro and walking up and
down on earth.”  The sons of God, including Satan,
are invisible angels.  People keep searching for
aliens on various TV programs.  These verses tell
me there are aliens(angels) throughout the universe
and periodically they gather with God for a meeting
at God’s home(whereever that is).  Satan had been
on earth. Obviously God’s home is not on earth.  God
sent his only begotten Son, Jesus, to earth to educate people and to sacrifice himself for the sins
of people.  John 4:1 tells us that after Jesus was
baptized by John in the Jordan river he was led by
the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by
Satan.  In one of the temptations John 4:8 reads,
“Satan took Jesus up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of earth
and the greatness of them.” Then, Satan said, “All
these things will I give you, if you will kneel down
and worship me.”  There is one of the significant
attributes of Satan.  He wants to be worshipped!
It continues to this day.  Satan wants to be worshipped.  He hates Jesus and Israel.  Have you
ever wondered when studying history, “Why have
people hated the Jews throughout history?”  It’s
because Satan is influencing their thoughts and
they don’t realize it.

Report this

By Artful Dodger, April 25, 2010 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Too bad Job couldn’t get a website in his time.

Report this

By migrantLurker, April 25, 2010 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow.
Are there no depths that greed and self-righteousness won’t plumb?
At least other “churches”, “ministries” and “pastors” have the decency to mask their profiteering off the backs of the under-observant with some nerve-balm “God loves you” type messages.
This is totally shameless.
Again…wow.

Report this

By klem, April 25, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Was Job a douchebag? Possibly.
Is Stephen Baldwin a douchebag? Undoubtedly.
If there was any doubt before, it is now removed.
Douchebags get what they deserve.
In this case, I hope it will be [finally] extreme EMBARRASSMENT.
Followed by invisibility.

Report this

By H.., April 24, 2010 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

He is insane….he wouldn’t know g-d if he stood on his head…Baldwin is a pathetic loser…who has no shame…

Report this
photoshock's avatar

By photoshock, April 24, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

Sure, I’ll give my money to Stephen Baldwin, when and if he first gives me money to start my life anew.
I am disabled, with 3 debilitating diseases of the spine and no one out there is clamoring to give me any money.
We live, in America, in a ‘cult of personality’ country. Why should I give what little money I have to anyone let alone someone who is fit of body but not so of mind? He says he is a ‘christian,’ well then, why doesn’t his G-d, give him the money without anyone asking for it? I’ll tell you why, even G-d, doesn’t suffer fools gladly.
I don’t give a tinkers damn about the state of Stephen Baldwin’s finances or his ‘ministry,’ he can ask his G-d for the money and if his G-d exists let him prove himself.
G-d doesn’t heal amputees, why then should I give any money to a profligate son of a wealthy family.
His family can help him if they want to. NOT ME!

Report this

By anonymous, April 24, 2010 at 6:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

now I see why God made the internet

Report this

By sliderossian, April 24, 2010 at 1:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This guy was supposed to leave the country with Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/01/stephen-baldwin-on-fox-
ne_n_110169.html

Report this

By Marc Schlee, April 24, 2010 at 1:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wasn’t he in that Kevin Spacey movie?

Report this

By christian96, April 23, 2010 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment

I don’t watch movies so I’m not familiar with
Stephen Baldwin.  I just finished watching “The
Real Hillbillies” on the History Channel.  Part of
the documentary covered the incidence years ago when
coal mine owners in Southern West Virginia hired the
Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to evict coal miners
from their homes to stop them from joining the union.
What a scum some men are to sell their bodies to an
outfit like Baldwin-Felts.  I wonder if this fellow
is related to that scum of an agency.  If so, he
better find God.  God isn’t real pleased with people
who sell their body for money.  He calls them “whores.”  Sort of like the male and female whores in Hollywood.

Report this

By RubberPimple, April 23, 2010 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

Fuck You.

Report this

By Skysailor, April 23, 2010 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Religiosity is what I hear, paranoia is suspect.  My faith is about the “Golden Rule”, not a set of fundamentals.  Stephen, get some help.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.