  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Jesus ‘Love-Bombs’ YouPosted on Apr 23, 2007
By Chris Hedges There is a false, but effective, fiction that one has to be born again to be a Christian. The Christian right refuses to acknowledge the worth of anyone’s religious experience unless—in the words of the tired and opaque cliché—one has accepted “Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.” The meltdown, often skillfully manipulated by preachers and teams of evangelists, is one of the most pernicious tools of the movement. Through conversion one surrenders to a higher authority. And the higher authority, rather than God, is the preacher who steps in to take over your life. Being born again, and the process it entails, is more often about submission and the surrender of moral responsibility than genuine belief. I attended a five-day seminar at Coral Ridge in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where I was taught, often by D. James Kennedy, the techniques of conversion. The callousness of these techniques—targeting the vulnerable, building false friendships with the lonely or troubled, promising to relieve people of the most fundamental dreads of human existence from the fear of mortality to the numbing pain of grief—gave to the process an awful cruelty and dishonesty. I attended the seminar as part of the research for my book “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” Kennedy openly called converts “recruits” and spoke about them joining a new political force sweeping across the country to reshape and reform America into a Christian state. “I would always go in first, introduce myself, Jim Kennedy,” he told us. “I’m checking the lay of the land and I will look around the living room and see if there’s something there that I can comment about. Frequently, there will be a large picture somewhere and where did they put it, this picture ... why would they put it over the fireplace? Significant.” “In Fort Lauderdale you don’t find too many fireplaces,” he added, smiling, “but there’s some kind of central focus. Maybe ... golf trophies ... I’m over here looking at these golf trophies ... painting ... I say… beautiful painting, did you paint that? The first rule about looking at trophies, don’t touch them ... did you win all those trophies? So we have a little conversation about golf, but I know enough about golf to have this conversation ... now what have I done? I’m making a friend.” “Compliment them on whatever you can,” Kennedy said, “discuss what they do, you’re going to find out what are their hobbies, maybe right there in the living room. Then you’re going to ask them about what they do, where they’re from, how long they’ve been there ... something to discuss with them ... in doing this, you have made a friend.” We are told to “emphasize the positive” and “identify with your prospect.” We are encouraged in the green “Evangelism Explosion” instruction manual to use sentences such as “It is wonderful to know when I lay my head on my pillow tonight that if I do not awaken in bed in the morning, I will awaken in paradise with God.” We are told to paint graphic pictures of personal tragedy that God has helped solve, such as: “I had a Christian son killed in Vietnam, yet my heart is filled with peace because I know he has eternal life. Even though he was killed by an enemy mortar, he has a home now in heaven, and one day we’ll be reunited there.” We are instructed to pepper our testimonies with words like love, peace, faithfulness, forgiveness, hope, purpose and obedience and remember to talk about how we have found, in our own conversion, “courage in the face of death.” Kennedy warns us not to carry a large Bible, but to keep a small one hidden in our pocket, saying “don’t show your gun until you’re ready to shoot it.” The conversion, at first, is euphoric. It is about new, loving friends, about the conquering of human anxieties, fears and addictions, about attainment through God of wealth, power, success and happiness. For those who have known personal and economic despair, it feels like a new life, a new beginning. The new church friends repeatedly call them, invite them to dinner, listen to their troubles and answer their questions. Kennedy told us that we must keep in touch in the days after conversion. He encouraged us to keep detailed files on those we proselytize. We must be sure the converts are never left standing alone at church. We must care when no one else seems to care. The converts are assigned a “discipler” or prayer partner, a new friend, who is wiser than they are in the ways of the Lord and able to instruct them in their new life. The intense interest by a group of three or four evangelists in a potential convert, an essential part of the conversion process, the flattery and feigned affection, the rapt attention to those being recruited and the flurry of “sincere” compliments are a form of “love bombing.” It is the same technique employed by most cults, such as the Unification Church or “Moonies,” to attract prospects. It was a well-developed tactic of the Russian and Chinese communist parties, which share many of the communal and repressive characteristics of the Christian right. “Love bombing is a coordinated effort, usually under the direction of leadership, that involves long-term members flooding recruits and newer members with flattery, verbal seduction, affectionate but usually nonsexual touching, and lots of attention to their every remark,” the psychiatrist Margaret Thaler Singer wrote. “Love bombing—or the offer of instant companionship—is a deceptive ploy accounting for many successful recruitment drives.” The convert is gradually drawn into a host of church activities by his or her new friends, leaving little time for outside socializing. But the warmth soon brings with it new rules. When you violate the rules, you sin, you flirt with rebellion, with becoming a “backslider,” someone who was converted but has fallen and is once again on the wrong side of God. And as the new converts are increasingly invested in the church community, as they cut ties with their old community, it is harder to dismiss the mounting demands of the “discipler” and church leaders. The only proper relationship is submission to those above you, the abandonment of critical thought and the mouthing of thought-terminating clichés that are morally charged. “Jesus is my personal Lord and Savior” or “the wages of sin are death” is used to end all discussion. Rules are incorporated slowly and deliberately into the convert’s belief system. These include blind obedience to church leaders, the teaching of an exclusive, spiritual elitism that demonizes all other ways of being and believing, and a persecution complex that keeps followers mobilized and distrustful of outsiders. The result is the destruction of old communities, old friendships and the independent ability to make moral choices. Believers are soon encased in the church community. They are taught to emphasize personal experience rather than reasoning, and to reject the reality-based world. For those who defy the system, who walk away, there is a collective banishment. There is a gradual establishment of new standards for every aspect of life. Those who choose spouses must choose Christian spouses. Families and friends are divided into groups of “saved” and “unsaved.” The movement, while it purports to be about families, is the great divider of families, friends and communities. It competes with the family and those outside its structure for loyalty. It seeks to place itself above the family, either drawing all family members into its embrace or pushing those who resist aside. There were frequent prayers during the seminar I attended for relatives who were “unsaved,” those who remained beyond the control of the movement. Many of these prayers, including one by a grandmother for her unsaved grandchildren, were filled with tears and wrenching pain over the damnation of those they loved. The new ideology gives the believers a sense of purpose, feelings of superiority and a way to justify and sanctify their hatreds. For many, the rewards of cleaning up their lives, of repairing their damaged self-esteem, of joining an elite and blessed group are worth the cost of submission. They know how to define themselves. They do not have to make moral choice. It is made for them. They submerge their individual personas into the single persona of the Christian crowd. Their hope lies not in the real world, but in this new world of magic and miracles. For most, the conformity, the flight away from themselves, the dismissal of facts and logic, the destruction of personal autonomy, even with its latent totalitarianism, is a welcome and joyous relief. The flight into the arms of the religious right, into blind acceptance of a holy cause, compensates for the convert’s despair and lack of faith in himself or herself. And the more corrupted and soiled the converts feel, the more profound their despair, the more militant they become, shouting, organizing and agitating to create a pure and sanctified Christian nation, a purity they believe will offset their own feelings of shame and guilt. Many want to be deceived and directed. It makes life easier to bear. Freedom from fear, especially the fear of death, is what is being sold. It is a lie, as everyone has to know on some level, even while they write and rewrite their testimonies to conform to the instructors’ demands. But admitting this in front of other believers is impossible. Such an admission would be interpreted as a lack of faith. And this too is part of the process, for it fosters a dread of being found out, a morbid guilt that we are not as good or as Christian as those around us. This dread does not go away with conversion or blind obedience or submission. This unachievable ideal forces the convert to repress and lose touch with the uncertainties, ambiguities and contradictions that make up human existence. We were instructed to inform potential converts that Jesus came to Earth and died “to pay the penalty for our sins and to purchase a place in heaven for us” and that “to receive eternal life you must transfer your trust from yourself to Jesus Christ alone for eternal life.” We were told to ask the convert if he or she is willing “to turn from what you have been doing that is not pleasing to Him and follow Him as He reveals His will to you in His Word.” If the covert agrees to accept a new way of life we are to bow our heads and pray, with the convert repeating each line after us. “Lord Jesus, I want You to come in and take over my life right now. I am a sinner. I have been trusting in myself and my own good works. But now I place my trust in You. I accept You as my own personal Savior. I believe you died for me. I receive You as Lord and Master of my life. Help me to turn from my sins and to follow You. I accept the free gift of eternal life. I am not worthy of it, but I thank You for it. Amen.” And when it is over the new believers are told “Welcome to the family of God.” They are told to read a chapter a day in the Gospel of John and that they will be visited again in a week to talk about the Bible. They are encouraged to pray, because God “promised to hear and answer our prayers.” They are told to find “a good Bible-believing church and become a part of it.” They are told to join a Christian fellowship group. They are told to witness to those in their family. With this, the process of deconstructing an individual and building a submissive follower, one who no longer has any allegiance to the values of the open society, begins. Chris Hedges, who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, is the author of “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” He is a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and a Lannan Literary Fellow. On May 22, Chris Hedges and Sam Harris will debate “Religion, Politics and the End of the World.” Click here for details and tickets. Previous item: Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Patrick Leahy Next item: Life, Death and Politics Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By Danny, March 19 at 8:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
BTW, Annie, I just realized that my two replies to your last post were listed in reverse order, maybe that’s why I wasn’t to clear about my beliefs, the one that came first, which I feel was more important, is below the other one and I probably wouldn’t have even read it if I were you. But if you are interested in what I feel is the most logical explanation I can give for believing in God, I give it there.
Report thisBy Danny, March 19 at 7:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t think I was too clear before. I was Christian, I don’t know that I can call myself Christian anymore, but I am 100% confident that what I adhered to was Christianity. The idea that Jesus was cool with slavery is false, however. The verses you cite are taken out of context and are meant as analogy or parable, comparing serving the Lord to being a servant or slave. In another parable Jesus compares himself to a thief who overpowers a strong man and robs his house. Clearly he was not claiming to be an actual criminal. You can find verses where he tells servants to obey their masters, but this is consistent with his overall teachings of turn the other cheek, walk a mile, discouraging open rebellion against Rome, etc… But the ones you cited were completely out of context (perhaps you found them on the internet). Another thing you may have gotten wrong is your story about the death of Thomas Paine. It smacks of urban legend to me. I mean, you’d either have to wait a while until his flesh decomposed, or tear him up to get at the bones. Wikipedia has an explanation that makes much more sense to me, and maybe shows how the legend, be it a legend, got started. He had an ill-attended funeral, in part due to his controversial beliefs, and some English guy a few years later wanted to take his bones back to England, but never got around to it, so they were lost.
All said, I feel much more comfortable as a defender of Theism and predeterminism (or is it just determinism?) then I do of Christianity, and I would recommend visiting one of those Christian websites if you are hungry to debate Jesus or the Old Testament.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, March 19 at 5:06 am #
Danny,
Have you ever read “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine? I am asking because I wonder if it ever occurred to you that you’re a Deist and not a Christian at all?
I say this because your belief that God is a different entity from JC, and therefore it’s okay for JC to say “Blessed are the merciful” when he claimed to be God and is accepted as such in Christianity, makes me believe you adhere to just a “god” in general.
Thomas Paine did the same and wrote about it in “The Age of Reason”. He wasn’t allowed a Christian burial because he wrote this book. Consequently he was flung bone by bone into the sea. That’s a Christian concept for you. “If they don’t believe like I do, let’s disgrace them”.
Jesus was the kinder face of God, true. But he was all for slavery. Luke 12:45 But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken;
Luke 12:46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
Luke 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Matthew 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
Thomas Paine believed in a God. He simpley blew holes in the gods of the Bible, Koran and Tanakh.
As far as me giving you one verse that can’t be the same, try this from OT God,
“God is not like men, who lie; He is not a human who changes his mind. Whatever he promises, he does; He speaks and it is done.” - Numbers 23:19
“So the Lord changed his mind and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.” - Exodus 32:14
I don’t see how you can compartmentalise these statements. They are what they are. God either changes his mind, or he doesn’t because he’s not like men.
Let me know about the Deist standpoint. Because what you’re adhereing to is not Christianity. Christianity holds 30,000 different denominations worldwide--haha--not quite as much as there are people, but this is kind of telling of how confusing the Bible is. No one can make their opinion meet with their priests or pastors so they make up a new denomination, etc. Has been that was since the 16th century and the Reformation.
Report thisBy Danny, March 19 at 12:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
PS: Sorry for the double post, Annie, I rambled on and ran outta space. But on the contradiction thing, if you really want to show contradiction, find two passages that describe the same event, and show that A and B cannot be true at the same time. The Gospels would probably be a good place to start.
As for the one you’ve shown, I don’t like it to much. Even from a literal standpoint, it would be possible for Jesus to bless those have a merciful disposition and God to bless a lack of mercy in one instance. Besides, God recommends being kind to foreigners later in the OT (maybe in Deuteronomy itself, I just got this off the net). So if anything, we have God disagreeing with God, more than God disagreeing with JC. If you really want to debate things like this, I’d recommend going to a Christian website like dogchurch.org or that Christian think tank place, from what I’ve seen both are pretty honest and intelligent. I’ve got a pretty shaky grasp of and commitment to Scripture to get into this stuff to deep so I’m not to comfortable as a defender of the Church.
And as for me being worse than others, I am absolutely sure I was, from first grade till prob my first year of college. No Christian guilt here, I was a sociopath, just trust me on this one. Really. No joke. It probably wasn’t all my fault, for starters I was surrounded by white people which is never easy, but there you have it. But man I was a passive aggressive little punk. I had everyone around me fooled, for the most part. Every now and then I would get caught in a lie, but I could project angelic like nobodies business. I was also naturally kinda spacey, which gives lends the air of innocence and I utilized that, make no mistake. And turning to God saved me from that in a way that was remarkably guilt free after the initial pain. I really feel completely distant from my old self. So, while I have utter contempt for the idea that Christianity works for me, or anyone, if it is a fraud, somehow I changed, and not in the negative, Southern-fried, charismatic born again way that the article makes reference to.
Report thisBy Danny, March 18 at 11:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Annie,
What follows is as detailed an explanation for my theism as I can give you. Now I believe, that the world is just basically one thing after another, meaning that there is no such thing as true randomness, and that that which we perceive as random (movement of subatomic particles) we only do because we lack as yet the science to explain it. In other words, the universe is an isolated and determined system, complex to be sure, but there is only one way it is going and only one way it can go. The only way I can, with my human mind, square this with free will (and to a lesser extent my perception of self-evident moral law, and what I see as the “beauty” of the universe) is to believe in a God. I simply cannot conceive of how anyone can conceive of free will or even true consciousness without a God. This belief is distinct from any religious doctrine which makes me “feel good”.
Now onto Christianity. Christians have always believed in many different things, probably as many different things as there are Christians. No matter WHAT you believe some people are gonna think you’re going to hell. When I first accepted Christianity, it was a Christianity that saw Hell as the willful rejection of God’s presence, and Heaven as being in the presence of God. To accept Heaven, you had to be down with JC no matter who else was there, even if it meant Hitler, and no matter how else wasn’t there, even if it meant Mother Mary, Mother Theresa, and your own Mom who cooked rice for you every day. And I had personally, from the inception of my Christianity, held the belief that all men were saved. I reasoned it like this: we were all in the same world together, all hurting, loving, fighting, laughing, living, dying together. Man needs man and woman to be fulfilled. Sort of a “universalist” take I guess. So yeah, I believed in Heaven and Hell. It just wasn’t the most important thing to me. Like existence of hell= existence of God, and that’s alright by me.
On to some more of your points, I don’t know if I explained this right, but a God who kills firstborn doesn’t bother me. A relatively painless death, and even if it wasn’t, many die very painful deaths anyhow, and since this God is omnipotent, I would say that by allowing this to be, He may as well have caused it. And that would be MY problem.
So what does bother me about religion? Its that the world seemed not fallen, as Christians hold, but designed to die. Everything is going to a state of greater disorder. I would go both further and not as far as Richard Dawkins, who says that this is the kind of world we would expect with no God. Without a God, I WOULD expect a world tending to greater disorder. On the other hand, without a God I probably wouldn’t expect any kind of a world at all.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, March 18 at 6:12 pm #
Hi again, Danny and thanks for that answer. It does seem like you believe yourself to be worse than the average person; this doesn’t surprise me.
I guess if Christianity works for you, then it does! But I think what you’re practicing doesn’t fall under the guidelines of Christianity. Christians believe in heaven and hell. They believe that if you say you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven. To say contrary to that, damns you to hell for all eternity.
The point about God killing people, well, yes, all people are going to die but nature is taking care of that. Why in the world would a loving God destroy(drown, rip open wombs, kill sleeping firstborns in their beds,)innocent women and children etc., just because he’s pissed at another group of people?? That doesn’t spell out the same omnibenevolent God that the Christians say they worship.
IF you want to turn away from the glaring and obvious contradictions from Jesus and YHWH, then you’re just cherry-picking, OR you may not have read the Bible for yourself.
Either way, spiritual awareness of one’s self should come from within each person since we’re all different. There shouldn’t be just ONE code for any ONE person. That would lump everyone in as the same. And that’s not justice.
Mercy
“Blessed are the merciful” Jesus [Matthew 5:7]
“Leave alive nothing that breathes. Show them no mercy.” YHWH [Deut. 7:2]
As I stated and as you can see from one verse, they’re nothing alike. Jesus stated that a house divided against itself cannot stand [Matthew 5]. He is now divided from, and has a differeing opinion than the OT god.
The house has just fallen.
Report thisBy Jim H., March 18 at 3:53 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: Intelligent Design: The Debate
Report thisWednesday, March 19 at 1:00 PM University of Central Florida, Orlando
THE UNIVERSE
Mass/energy never disappear Ever were ever here!
With nothing to ‘create’, a “so-called “Creator-God”
Is an impossible superfluous nonentity!
J.H. © 5/8/07
The ‘so called’ “Intelligent Design Theory” is “Creationism” re-visited! And, merely one more attempt to ‘invent’ a “Supreme Creator-God”, who supposedly “Intelligently Designed” and “Created” everything from “NOTHING”?
But, there is absolutely no reason to believe “there once was “NOTHING”!
But, ‘IF’ there once was “NOTHING”, There would be no such entity as a ‘so called “Timeless Spaceless Being of Unfathomable Power” or a “Supreme “Intelligent Designer” Creator God”!
Saying that ‘some entity’ “always was”, or “always existed”, is to describe the “Infinity of the Universe”!
Any ‘so called’ “Beginning Force” must have a “Beginning Force” unless it be “infinite”! Such IS the UNIVERSE!
And, the so called “Big Bang Theory” merely describes an occurrence resulting from “mass/energy” evolving turmoil that may have occurred ceasless, billions of times!
THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Beginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there’s no beginning or end
Religion’s pollution is no solution for Darwin’s Evolution
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
J.H. © 8/29/06
Religions are absolute bigotry, and contagious disease-like criminal conspiracies!
By Danny, March 18 at 12:41 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Annie, You are right, it is about emotions, thats all I’ve got when it comes to God. Is there right or wrong, or just evolutionary herd tendencies? The crazy thing about it is, whatever the case, as humans we can’t overcome our programing to look at it objectively. As for my parents, they would NEVER have told me what religion to choose or that God was angry with me or anything like that. They don’t even have the same religion themselves, one is agnostic from a Buddhist background, the other devoutly Christian, but neither is religious in a “bad” way, if you know what I mean.
As for me, I was just a punk a-- kid in high school, no other way to look at it. Objectively pretty lame, and yah, a habitual liar. Most people aren’t this way, even if they never believe in God, but it took a belief in something greater than me, real or not, to overcome this. And NOT, I gotta stress, NOT the fear of hell, or even the reward of heaven. These things never really meant a whole lot to me. I’ve always kinda looked at it, like, when you die you die, and you’re gonna die sometime, so its just important to give yourself some kinda framework to live by while you are still alive. Christianity was important to me because it gave me a code. And I believed in Christianity because this code was a better one than society had to offer. Even some of the more archaic seeming stuff, like “don’t jerk off"--- I’m still convinced that is good advice, liberating rather than repressing, no matter what the prevailing opinion out there is.
Anyways, I was much worse kid then other kids in high school, you’re just gonna have to trust me on that, and the magnificent specimen of humanity you would see sitting in front of you if only you were in the same room as me came about because of my religion. I don’t know much about Cat Stevens, but Malcolm X, experienced “rebirth” through the Nation of Islam, a group whom he totally repudiated (though he remained Muslim) also had that life altering experience. So yeah, if all “spirituality” is fraudulent (something the writer of the article argues against in his debates with atheists) it isn’t worth preserving lies (better word then ‘myths’, I think) just so we can feel good. The truth is all we have, if we have anything. I’m just saying that being “born again” to me never meant listening to some creepy preacher, it was an internal experience.
As for feeling bad, I don’t really. Thinking there is a God makes me feel good. Thinking there isn’t doesn’t really make me feel bad, but the good feeling I get from thinking there is a God kinda goes away. Now if there isn’t a God, I really don’t think there is right from wrong either, those feelings would just be evolution trying to tell us what to do.
As for your atheism, its strange but we have completely different problems when it comes to the Bible. I have no ish aligning what Jesus teaches with what the OT says. To me, it seems like your problems with the Bible are less logical and more what you would call emotional. My faith began to shake because Matthew quoted prophesies that didn’t seem to be actual prophesies (more like poems, and such), and apologists were not able to offer anything but the lamest reasons for why this was so. I still believe in God, but there are issues with that too. I’ve always wondered why unbelievers point to passages in the Bible where God kills masses. Why not simply look at the world? Hasn’t God killed, or allowed to die, everyone who has ever existed? Forget about why God allows us to hurt one another… even without human intervention, we’re all gonna die, and some of us very painfully.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, March 17 at 4:23 am #
Well, Danny, you’re talking about emotions, not facts. It makes me wonder if your parents or someone you loved made your FEEL guilty and bad. Or maybe you did that to yourself.
The reason I say this is because my dad had the same “experience” as you are talking about. But I know what his childhood was like and it helps me to understand why he had this emotion and I didn’t.
Also, Cat Stevens shares a similar story--only about Islam.
I am an atheist. I see tons of problems with the Bible. The first and most obvious being that Jesus said he was God but didn’t act anything like YHWH. He was a completely different face of the OT God. You have to wonder why an omniscient being would need to impregnate a virgin (yep, there’s that virginal obsession again) and then give birth to himself so that he could then kill himself in order to save mankind. This is the only thing he could think of?
Myth.
Report thisBy Danny, March 16 at 12:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I have to disagree with the author’s notion of the detrimental effect of being “born again”. My “rebirth” which occurred not among a charismatic congregation but in my own room, really changed my life, and in exactly the opposite way the author of this article seems to fell it would have, by making me beholden to another moral authority. Up until that point I was really morally bankrupt. After that point, I felt my conscience, really felt it, for the first time in a long time, and it hurt. I had to start telling the truth again, no matter how hard it was. I got over my depression, and my longer term anti-social tendencies. I began to notice that I was forming some strong independent character for the first time in my life. I began to act out of compassion for others. Now I’m struggling with my faith. I don’t see any way I will cease to be a firm theist, and to the extent that I learned of the teaching of Jesus they seemed more imbued with the divine than any others, but I am having trouble reconciling what I see as problems in the Gospel. Nonetheless, cliched as it may be “turning my life over to God” was the best thing that ever happened to me, and as I have started to lose faith I also feel that these changes in myself have started to erode along with my beliefs.
Report thisBy Jim H., July 12, 2007 at 9:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 86470
Stumbler
“Know the TRUTH and it shall make you free!”
I say: Lying does not make ‘it’ so!
If you could read, you would know the “Homeland Terrorist” in ‘this’ Country is one Right Wing ‘Republican’ sadistic wartime military deserter, bigot (like you) who delights in sending Americans to die in a foreign country so he could stop the flow of ‘cheap’ Iraq crude oil that was limiting OPEC’s Gordian Knot control of world oil, and preventing the PRICE gouging profits that OPEC, THE BUSH OIL DYNASTY, AND THE CHENEY OIL DYNASTY are now enjoying while enriching themselves for the price of 6,000 american lives, 40,000 dismmembered, and dissabled American Military members, and hundreds of thousnds of innocent women and children.
Your reference to your fairytale makebelieve “God” is no doubt responsible for your delusional assertions, your indicated bigotry, and your rapid flight to avoid your well deserved comeupance which I dutifully hereby perform, though I realise your numb skull is unable to absorb, nor shall you comprehend the facts which ‘soundly’ dispute your mindless blabbering!
Mass/energy never disappear
Ever were ever here!
J.H. 5/8/07
Without something to ‘create! a “so-called “Creator-God”
is an impossibel superfluous nonentity!
THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Beginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there’s no beginning or end
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
JH 8/29/06
And, GET LOST!
Report thisBy American, July 12, 2007 at 7:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
you say: These same Religious “Faith” Organizations also use bundles of money to pay lobbyists, and influence all Congressional actions that are destructive of our Democratic way of life and detrimental to all US citizens!
Sir it is the left (a.k.a. Homeland Terrorist) that you should focus all of your extreme bottled up anger toward. They are the true enemy of this country. When you have an individual in this group stating they would kill our President if they could get away with it. These my friend are scary times. I could go on with other examples but I really don’t think I have to explain.
As for intelligence on these pages HA!HA!HA!HA! its all pretty much in house debate and could all just go round and round and round and round were it stops only our Lord God knows.
Go ahead and respond all you want on this one but I will not see for I only stumbled upon this site and will not be back.
Good Night and GOD BLESS!
Report thisBy Jim H., July 11, 2007 at 3:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
COPY
Report thisNOTE: This was first sent to several MENSA email addresses including “National, International, Australia.
--------------------------------------------
TO MENSA;
RE: “Mensa’s goals”
“Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity; to encourage research in the nature, characteristics, and uses of intelligence;?) and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.”
-------------------------------------------------
Hello You-all; With the above stated aims in mind,
What, if anything is MENSA and their Members doing to enlighten the world about the EVILS caused by the propagation of the criminal ponzi-like racketeering scheme ‘Religion’, that indoctrinates, and enslaves innocent childrlen and fools and converts them to shills to proslytize and spread their infectious plalgue-like disease that causes delusional thinking, and an absurd child-like fairytale conception of the world that is a constant threat to those of us who live in the ‘real’ world and are ceaselessly threatened by their illogical TAX-FREE AND (faith-based!) GOVERNMENT-FUNDED, BIGOTRY?
By Jim H., July 9, 2007 at 9:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 83666
DSA
Thank you for your good ‘thoughts’ about Sam Harris!
At:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070529_sam_harris_ fights_back/
He ‘too’, like Rushdie, has taunted a gigantic man-eating octopus, and must take many precautions to prevent a repeat of the Madalyn Murray O’Hair debacle that the “Religious “faithful” fanatics do a dance of joy over!
Although I too am thankful for “The End of Faith”, I believe no one has come within a ‘light year’ of pointing to, or discussing the ‘epic’ proportions of the ever broadening destructive criminal influence, evil intentions, designs and calamitous results of the Religious “Faith” Organization’s unwavering pursuit of total Theocratic domination our once Democratic, USA, and the entire World!
How many people can even imagine: any ‘one’ organization of any kind, that can, and does accumulate, free from taxes, every day, more money, including donations of taxpayers hard earned funds that are contributed to them by G. W. Bush’s “Faith"-based" operations, than any other company, business, or other type of honest enterprise in the world, accumulates in one month?
And, how many people can even imagine: the amount of influence all this ill gotten wealth is able to purchase?
Through the use of all type “Holding Companies” and many other similar methods of hiding ownership, the Religious Organizations own, or control a major portion of all Media, including newspapers, radio stations, publishing houses, television stations, and, many Congressmen, and Senators, plus G. W. Bush, and Dick Chaney!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations have repeatedly caused our ‘bigoted’ Congress, and ‘bigoted’ US Supreme Court, to deny, and violate many parts of our US Constitution, and The Bill Of Rights!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations have repeatedly supported, and influenced the installation of G.W. Bush a ‘bigot’, and Military Deserter, into the White House!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations continually object to, and repeatedly violate the Constitutional Law: “Separation of Church and State!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations repeatedly deny “woman’s rights”!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations use the “Pulpit” to electioneer and promote religious bigot candidates for elective office, and use big bushels of their money lucre to help this happen!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations also use bundles of money to pay lobbyists, and influence all Congressional actions that are destructive of our Democratic way of life and detrimental to all US citizens!
These same Religious “Faith” Organizations fight against any and all means of limiting family size, including medicines that prevent childbirth, because without innocent children to brainwash, mesmerize, brand, and indoctrinate into their fantasy world of ‘Godism’ their Religious Organizations would soon ‘dry up’ and go out of business!
Of course this is but a mere minute insight into the monstrous behemoth the ‘Ponzi-like’ racketeering Religious “Faith” Organizations embody and represent, and the perpetual horrific infectious plague-like disease they are ever more widely spreading every hour of every day through the means of newspapers, radio, and television, and even door-to-door-proselytising!
And, if we secularists, the rational ‘ones’, don’t soon confront this war on sanity and reason, before long, if it is not already too late, we will be surrounded, smothered and inundated by the horrible putrid dung these Religious “Faith” Organizations are everyday filling the airwaves, and earthly environment with!
Report thisCiao, Jim
By Harlon57, July 9, 2007 at 8:19 am #
Hello Annie and Jim,
It seems obvious that Maani uses his pretend “rabidly atheist” Phd mother as support for his position.
Maani is basically saying “Gee, Mom thinks I’m swell, and you atheists are the worst kind. It’s not just my impression, it’s the impression of my brilliant scientist mom.” His make believe mother is his authority figure that we can’t argue with.
Maani uses his supposed conversion from atheist to evangelical minister in the same way, as proof that he understands both sides of the issue better than anyone else.
On top of that, according to many different posts on many different threads, he has educational specialties in whatever is being talked about at that time.
In my opinion, Maani is a total proselytizing fraud.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, July 8, 2007 at 9:02 pm #
I also found it highly unlikely, as an atheist who attends political meetings regarding separation of church and state, thereby meeting MANY other atheists-- that his mother would be so “calm” regarding any conversion. It’s possible but it would be the first time I ever heard of any atheist in the field of science who wasn’t “destroyed” by a religious conversion of their child. Madelaine Murray O’Hair disowned her son.
Strange indeed. Possible, but unlikely that she wouldn’t try to disuade him and direct him back into rationale.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 8, 2007 at 8:54 pm #
I can prove Maani lied:
#64778 by Maani on 4/18 at 8:49 am, Truthdig, “Jesus Rides a Donkey”
“Not only was I not always a minister, but I was an atheist (okay, agnostic...) until my late teens; i.e., I was not “raised” in faith.”
#41309 by Maani on 12/07 at 9:56 pm truthdig, “Sam Harris: ‘God’s Rottweiler’ Barks”
“And until I was in my 20s, I was atheist, then agnostic”
For an event as life changing as becoming a believer in god, Maani doesn’t recall from one post to another when he said it happened.
Maani undoubtedly was lying to pretend to have been an atheist to provide some false sense of understanding. As though it adds some credibility to have grown from atheist to evangelical christian.
One can sense Maani’s fake conversation: “Gee, I understand how you feel, I used to be an atheist too. But I had a spiritual awakening, blah, blah, blah.”
Maani also makes various and different claims in different threads regarding his specialty(s) in school. Sometimes its math, sometimes “hard science” sometimes, psychology. Whatever suits him at the moment, he becomes a specialist.
Maani is a lier. Why am I not surprised a proselytizing evangelical minister is a lier?
Report thisBy Jim H., July 8, 2007 at 12:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#85067 by Jim H. on 7/08 at 10:39 am
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 84377
To: Mister Maani; “Evangelical Minister"--- to the poor(?)
You say: “Faith deals with ---the “super"-natural world.”
I say: “Supernatural” is an oxymoron!
Nature is ‘superb’, but, there is NOTHING ‘BEYOND’ “NATURAL”!
“Supernatural” is the realm of fakers, and criminal ‘charlatans’ who sell “Pigs in a poke” saying: “ Trust me!
There is absolutely nothing better than, or “super” to the natural world!
I say “supernatural” “Faith” is unnatural! And ‘Godism’ is ‘Blind Faith’ in an unnatural superfluous nonentity!
And those who believe in the “supernatural”, and ‘Godism’ are ‘blind’ to the “facts of NATURAL life”!
Dictionary: supernatural (?)
Outside the natural world.(!)
A power that violates natural forces.(!)
Of or relating to a deity.(!)
You say: “I VEHEMENTLY oppose ANY attempt by “religion” to foist on---anyone---explanations
(about Godism) ---which do not stand up to the scientific method.” (?) LIES! LIES! LIES!
As an “Evangelical Minister”, ‘Proselytizing-Preacher ‘YOU’ ARE always “FOIST"ING upon all within earshot your lying “explanations"---[about ‘Godism’] which do not stand up to the scientific method."(!) So you are an admitted liar!
You say: “---my mother---rabidly atheist---invites me to discussion-s---(at) CSI---(secular meetings)---her “ulterior motive” is---"(?) (No doubt an effort to mend your mind! And startle you back to reality!)
You say: “---my mother, while---not understanding or accepting my faith---”.
(Has no alternative but to HUMOR her once sane, but now, the victim of a warped mind, daughter, with whom she is making an effort to bring her back to reality while avoiding insulting, or offending, her once cute little innocent girl, who has somehow strayed from the ‘straight and narrow’ path of natural reality and is the unsuspecting victim of criminal charlatan thieves who may any day convince her to make an oath of poverty, then be compelled to give up all her worldly possessions to those thieves!)
Think! How would you react to a daughter who renounced sanity, in favor of an ‘addiction, to something you knew was the most evil force on the face of the earth?
What could you possibly do to ‘win her back’ without alienating her, and losing her altogether?
Your mother is smart enough to realize that; just as you are reacting to the information, and criticism provided by some of us here, you would be just as adamant and resentful if ‘she’ were to say, or imply
that you are an asinine fool to believe, or have “faith” in, a make-believe, fairytales assertion of charlatan thieves that there is such a thing as a “Creator-God”!
The very least you should do if you have any respect for the integrity of your ‘highly intelligent’ mother, is, to, ask her to tell you why she is an atheist, and why she does not believe in the “God” you believe in!
You say:"--only true God...” makes an awful lot of presumptions---”
You have said: “I am an Evangelical Minister” (!)
So! You therefore believe “There is only one True God!”
And, according to ‘your’ “faith”, “anyone who denies “God” is, in ‘your’ “faith” a “mortal sinner”!
I do not know why you would call this a “sarcastic”, “presumptuous” “accusation”!
And why do you say: “--- (the above) has no application in my life and faith.” (?)
PS: I am an Associate Member of CSI, a Member of CFI, and a subscriber of both Skeptical Inquirer, and Free Inquiry! But I haven’t seen you at any of the meetings?
Are you a momma’s boy?
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 7, 2007 at 2:31 pm #
Wow, I can’t believe it, Maani ran to his mother for help. Mommy says Harlon57 doesn’t play fair.
Maani, you still suffer under the delusion that we believe you and your story about your rabidly atheist mother loving and approving of everything her supposed little baby genius thinks and does.
That you required support from your mother says everything about you.
Are you living in her basement? I read your post saying you don’t have your own ministry, and that you work with the poor. Since the poor can’t pay your bills, it must be your mother sitting next to you who pays your bills.
What a loser.
Report thisBy Maani, July 7, 2007 at 2:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Harlon:
I did not think you could get any lower than making presumptions about me, deliberately taking my words out of context, and generally being denigrating, dismissive and deaf.
However, you have now sunk WAY below the line. Not only have you now insinuated - more than once - that I am a liar, but you have made absolutely OUTRAGEOUS presumptions about my mother: how she thinks, how she feels, what she “really” means. You do not - cannot - know the relationship between my mother and me, in ANY regard. Indeed, having read through much of this discussion over the past couple of days (at my request), my mother believes that you are the epitome of the type of a person to whom the adage “a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing” applies. She calls you an “anti-religion zealot who gives a bad name to good scientists everywhere.” I can’t wait til she sees your posts today.
However, if this is how you “debate” - by engaging in presumptuous, insulting and hopelessly insupportable attacks, not only against the person you are debating, but against their family members - then I want no part of it. And you may think or say anything you like in response, and even have the last word (and, I’m sure, raise a toast), because I will not be returning to “debate” you any further - since your definition of “debate” is clearly different from mine - or possibly anyone else’s.
Peace. (Or some fascimile thereof...)
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, July 7, 2007 at 11:33 am #
Hello again Maani,
I apologise for the time it has taken me to get set up but I just moved to a different home. But I wanted to follow up on the below statement of yours with facts. I feel I know enough of the prison system in the US just by merely being there. I also believe that personal experience beats out “stats” most any time and on any subject. However, for the sake of your argument, you may be interested in the following links: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison2.html
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html
There are many more, if you like, that state the very same tripe I was trying to sell. There are more religious people in prisons than there are atheists.
Thanks--sorry to be late in response.
“#82540 by Maani on 6/29 at 5:28 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
Annie:
What kind of tripe are you selling? You are usually far more careful about your statements.
Re the prison population of the U.S., there are actually no completely accurate statistics re religion. However, what statistics there ARE belie your claim.
According the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2003 only 54% of all federal and state prisoners claimed to be “religious,” while only 33% actually practiced their religion. As well, the most recent serious study done (in 1997) by the Federal Bureau of Prisons showed that 31% were Catholic and 28% were Protestant. Atheists came in third, at 19%. Muslim were fourth, at 6%. All others were 1% or less. So your claim that there “some atheists in prison - but not many” is incorrect.”
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, July 7, 2007 at 11:15 am #
Hey Harlon,
“Maani is clearly a man. A woman wouldn’t accidentally call herself a man.”
I haven’t followed all that closely, but I always assumed that Maani was in fact, a man. We are also not ones to “stick out our chests"--so-to-speak, in regard to our higher intelligence or IQs.
I did find it interesting that Maani parlayed into the notion that academics were ultimately important while the very bible he claims to uphold makes no such claims. In fact, intelligence isn’t celebrated at all in the bible--not anywhere. But wisdom is. Wisdom can be defined by knowing when to speak and when to stay quiet.
About the zeitgeist, I think it IS possible that Bush is (one of the men) behind the Banking Cartels and moving the world into one world order. It did state some things from his grandfather. At any rate, they’re all in deep; and Bush knows the bible well enough to know that he can use it to terrorize people. Christians in particular are afraid of the “mark of the beast” and the end times. The chip at the end of the documentary will only help them to validate the bible in terms of the chip being placed on the hand or in the forehead. <That’s biblical prophesy from Revelation. However, the contrary is true. The bible is a storybook and the head honchos are possibly going to use the fear of it to further the agenda of a totalitarian society.
That’s the part that I really didn’t like. To state it more clearly, religious nuts will say “I told you so” not realising that it’s the bible stories that are used and not the writings in the book that are correct. I recently read that GWB reads and studies his bible every morning before he goes jogging...I don’t doubt this and I am leery of the “conspiracy theories”. I certianly can’t cast it aside as just a theory when so much depends on people knowing the whole truth.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 7, 2007 at 10:53 am #
Maani must be a man, somewhere around 47 years old. I could find nothing in posts on this and other threads proving otherwise.
Maani, you say that 50 million to 75 million were killed by religious types through the years, and that 100-150 million were killed in a 60 year span by secularists or atheists.
Even with limited ability to wholesale slaughter during more ancient times, when by your admission there were about 300 to 500 million people alive, they killed between 10% and 25% of the total population.
During the 60 years you mention, there were about 6 billion people living, out of which Stalin and the rest killed 1.6% to 2.5% of the population.
So comparatively, religious killing was proportionately 10 times worse. And the horror and fear went on for hundreds of years.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 7, 2007 at 9:04 am #
Annie and Jim,
I just realized that I made an assumption about Maani that was either wrong, or we were mislead.
I thought Maani was a female. But something I read earlier just hit me. It was this text from Maani’s 07/05 8:08PM post;
“In fact, she invites me to discussion groups of members of CSI (the Center for Scientific Inquiry, publishers of Skeptical Inquirer, arguably the most respected magazine of its kind) because she likes to “show me off” as a believer (a minister, God forbid!) who can hold his own with (and occasionally out-debate) Ph.D.-level scientists and others in their own fields.”
Notice that Maani writes “who can hold his own”.
Maani is clearly a man. A woman wouldn’t accidentally call herself a man.
Jim, I know you thought the same thing, since you recently referred to her as “her daughter”.
Are we just wrong, or has Maani previously implied or stated he/she was a female?
If Maani previously stated she was a woman, then this person is a lying, and we should believe nothing he/she says.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 7, 2007 at 8:55 am #
Hello Annie,
I got the impression that they were saying Bush, and his family, have been involved in financing or starting wars to assist the world-wide bankers. It had nothing to do with Bush believing that god told him to do it, and everything to do with getting control of oil, and making money on the war.
Either way, many will see the conspiracies as the domain of nut-cases, and will then assume the religious portion was just as wrong.
The difference is that the religious portion requires no leaps of faith to accept.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, July 7, 2007 at 8:40 am #
Hi Harlon,
Personally, I wondered why they didn’t put the religious part at the END and then tie it in as the reason for the greed and corruption of governments. That way it would be easier for a faithie to follow the notion that these things take place BECAUSE of religious lies.
That was my take but the conspiracy theories were fascinating when juxtaposed with wars of the past, people speaking about the WTC buildings, etc. And I must admit, Bush did sound a lot like Hitler.
For me, there was no denying the bloodied up bodies of children, women and men lying in the streets because of one madman’s belief that his god wanted him to be in office and rule the world.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 7, 2007 at 8:30 am #
Hello Annie, thanks for the link.
I would have preferred the religious portion be separate from the other parts. I would have sent the religious part to family members. The other parts have too much speculation, and I’m afraid the conspiracy theories may make viewers discount the religious portion as well.
Report thisBy Annie Reitano, July 6, 2007 at 6:39 pm #
Hi Maani,
Please sit back and watch this movie. I promise you it won’t hurt...it’s long but extremely interesting.
Harlon, it reminded me of a couple of things you once wrote about on here regarding Mithra and Dionysus. There’s more to it than just religion, though. I thought the part about the Banking Cartels was particularly interesting. We always think it’s “them” and not us…
Report thishttp://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
By Jim H., July 6, 2007 at 6:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
You say: “Faith deals with ---the “super"-natural world.”
I say: “Supernatural” is an oxymoron!
Nature is ‘superb’, but, there is NOTHING ‘BEYOND’ “NATURAL”!
“Supernatural” is the realm of fakers, and criminal ‘charlatans’ who sell “Pigs in a poke” saying: “ Trust me!
There is absolutely nothing better than, or “super” to the natural world!
I say “supernatural” “Faith” is unnatural! And ‘Godism’ is ‘Blind Faith’ in an unnatural superfluous nonentity!
And those who believe in the “supernatural”, and ‘Godism’ are ‘blind’ to the “facts of NATURAL life”!
Dictionary: supernatural (?)
Outside the natural world.(!)
A power that violates natural forces.(!)
Of or relating to a deity.(!)
You say: “I VEHEMENTLY oppose ANY attempt by “religion” to foist on---anyone---explanations (about Godism)---which do not stand up to the scientific method.” (?) LIES! LIES! LIES!
As an “Evangelical Minister”, ‘Proselytizing-Preacher ‘YOU’ ARE always “FOIST"ING upon all within earshot your lying “explanations"--- (about ‘Godism’) which do not stand up to the scientific method."(!) So you are an admitted liar!
You say: “---my mother---rabidly atheist---invites me to discussion-s---(at) CSI---(secular meetings)---her “ulterior motive” is---"(?) (No doubt an effort to mend your mind! And startle you back to reality!)
You say: “---my mother, while---not understanding or accepting my faith---”.
(Has no alternative but to HUMOR her once sane, but now, the victim of a warped mind, daughter, with whom she is making an effort to bring her back to reality while avoiding insulting, or offending, her once cute little innocent girl, who has somehow strayed from the ‘straight and narrow’ path of natural reality and is the unsuspecting victim of criminal charlatan thieves who may any day convince her to make an oath of poverty, then be compelled to give up all her worldly possessions to those thieves!)
Think! How would you react to a daughter who renounced sanity, in favor of an ‘addiction, to something you knew was the most evil force on the face of the earth?
What could you possibly do to ‘win her back’ without alienating her, and losing her altogether?
Your mother is smart enough to realize that; just as you are reacting to the information, and criticism provided by some of us here, you would be just as adamant and resentful if ‘she’ were to say, or imply
that you are an asinine fool to believe, or have “faith” in, a make-believe, fairytales assertion of charlatan thieves that there is such a thing as a “Creator-God”!
The very least you should do if you have any respect for the integrity of your ‘highly intelligent’ mother, is, to, ask her to tell you why she is an atheist, and why she does not believe in the “God” you believe in!
You say:"--only true God...” makes an awful lot of presumptions---”
You have said: “I am an Evangelical Minister” (!)
So! You therefore believe “There is only one True God!”
And, according to ‘your’ “faith”, “anyone who denies “God” is, in ‘your’ “faith” a “mortal sinner”!
I do not know why you would call this a “sarcastic”, “presumptuous” “accusation”!
And why do you say: “--- (the above) has no application in my life and faith.” (?)
PS: I am an Associate Member of CSI, a Member of CFI, and a subscriber of both Skeptical Inquirer, and Free Inquiry! But I haven’t seen you at any of the meetings?
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 5, 2007 at 8:43 pm #
Maani, I say you are self proclaimed genius because other than your proclamation, there is no proof.
Certainly no proof of genius intellect in your debating skill. You proclaim to be smart, yet believe your atheist mother is proud of your faith. You are a bigger fool than I thought.
You said “In this regard, my mother, while perhaps not understanding or accepting my faith, admires and respects it “per se,” since it does not attempt to insert itself in the provinces of science.”
What else would your mother say? Gee Maani, I’m terribly disappointed that you fall for such obviously false dogma. This approval you need is a statement only your mother could make for you.
I’m sure your mother the atheist “admires” your faith. Let’s add delusional to your list of mental failures.
Report thisBy Maani, July 5, 2007 at 8:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Harlon:
Once again, you “hear” what you want without listening. This seems to be a pattern with you.
You say, “you, a self-proclaimed genius...” No, what I said was that my IQ was genius-level. And while this does give me some confidence in my intelligence and intellect, I did not say that I “buy into” the whole concept of “genius.”
You then say, “You say I am a fraud. You used the word fraud. Please show me where I have said something about myself which you can prove to be false. Apparently, you don’t even know how to use the word properly in a sentence. Some genius.”
Hmmm...where do I begin? It is clearly YOU who do not know the definition, or how to use it in a sentence. A “fraud” is not simply one who says something about themselves which someone can prove to be false. The definition of fraud (since you forgot to look it up) is: “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,” “a person who is not what he or she pretends to be.”
Re the first definition, your outrageous misuse of my words - cutting and pasting to make it sound like I said something that I did not - is a blatant act of fraud. Period. Re the second definition, you “pretend” to be a rational, reasoned person, and yet you have exhibited continual denigration, dismissal, intolerance and personal insult. Given that none of these are rational, reasoned approaches to debate (to say nothing of human interaction), this also makes you a fraud.
Jim:
My father died when I was 19; since I did not become a Christian until 22, he was never aware. But you are correct: he would have been horrified. However, my mother (the rabidly atheist, Ph.D., NAS geologist) does not consider my faith to be an “offense,” a questioning of her “integrity,” or an “insult.” In fact, she invites me to discussion groups of members of CSI (the Center for Scientific Inquiry, publishers of Skeptical Inquirer, arguably the most respected magazine of its kind) because she likes to “show me off” as a believer (a minister, God forbid!) who can hold his own with (and occasionally out-debate) Ph.D.-level scientists and others in their own fields. And although she is not a believer, her “ulterior motive” is to show some of the most rabid of them (like you and Harlon) that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive, that religion and science need NOT be “enemies,” that “believing” in something unprovable and “knowing” scientifically proven facts are not antithetical.
In other words, as a scientist, she is willing (as are most other scientists in most fields) to accept that the province of science and the province of faith are different. Science seeks to explain the natural world. Period.
Faith deals with (for lack of better term) the “super"-natural world. Science has every right to demand the utmost rigor in the derivation and acceptance of explanations (theories) for the natural world. And as my mother is aware, even as a believer I VEHEMENTLY oppose ANY attempt by “religion” to foist on schools, the government or anyone else explanations of the natural world which do not stand up to the scientific method.
In this regard, my mother, while perhaps not understanding or accepting my faith, admires and respects it “per se,” since it does not attempt to insert itself in the provinces of science.
Finally, your sarcastic comment that I “know better than they who are sinners, for violating the Ten Commandments, by ignoring the one and only true God...” makes an awful lot of presumptions about what I believe, and how I express my faith in my life. Suffice to say that your accusation has no application in my life and faith.
Peace.
Report thisBy Jim H., July 5, 2007 at 4:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re: 84288
Maani
You talk about “---(your) upbringing by Ph.D.-level parents---”?
If you wish everyone here to fully appreciate the benefits you have derived from your highly educated parents, why not tell us what ‘their ‘stand’ and attitude ‘is’ relative to a “Supreme Being” “Creator God”?
Are ‘they’ the cause of your failure to determine the difference between right and wrong, true and false, reality and farce, fairy tales and fact?
If your parents are non-believer secularists, aren’t you offending them, questioning their integrity, and insulting them by your ‘pedantic’ implying you know better then ‘they’, who are “sinners”, for violating the “Ten Commandments” by ignoring “The one and only true God” their “Creator”?
Report thisBy Jim H,, July 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
RE: 84258
Harlon57
You say: “I have no tolerance for fools nor charlatans.
The religious are one or the other.
Those who accept religion on faith are fools, the leaders charlatans.”
I say: BRAVO! ‘Succinct and factual!
In latin we say: “MULTA PAUCIS!”
An afterthought! Infant children are not able to “accept” or, ‘deny’! But, they suffer from the results of debilitating implantations of cancerous mind warping Religious Dogma by forced indoctrination, which is repeatedly reinforced by ‘booster-shots’ of proselytising child molesting charlatans who have spread their tentacles so far and wide, it is difficult to find something ‘their’ rotteness has not penetrated and deformed, or corrupted! Thus we have a (Bush) THEOCRACY!
Ciao, Jim
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 5, 2007 at 3:38 pm #
Maani, you say I am a fraud. You used the word fraud.
Please show where I have said something about myself which you can prove to be false.
Apparently, you don’t even know how to use the word properly in a sentence. Some genius.
You may not like my opinions, but that has nothing to do with the veracity of what I claim about myself.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 5, 2007 at 3:34 pm #
Maani, you say “Even if we accept that my “genius” IQ, my first-percentile SAT scores, my honors diploma and all the rest of my education (plus the upbringing by my Ph.D.-level parents) have absolutely NO bearing on my “rationality””
I am so sorry if I gave you the impression that I accept that you are a genius. I certainly never meant to give that impression.
The fact that you believe in bronze age myths brings into question all your supposed achievements.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 5, 2007 at 3:30 pm #
Maani, you, a self-proclaimed genius, believe myth is truth.
We need go no further. I can’t debate your belief in myth. The fact that you believe in myth, makes you weak. All your proclamations about your supposed strengths, are undercut by your belief in myth.
I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
Report thisBy Maani, July 5, 2007 at 1:39 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Harlon:
Nice try. However, by taking the coward’s way out - generalizing, and then disengaging - you show yourself for the fraud you are.
You say I am “weak in the rational reasoning portion of your mind.” Really? Even if we accept that my “genius” IQ, my first-percentile SAT scores, my honors diploma and all the rest of my education (plus the upbringing by my Ph.D.-level parents) have absolutely NO bearing on my “rationality” and “reason” (which is, of course, an absurd assumption), then perhaps you can explain how, despite my “weakness,” I could almost certainly out-debate you on such subjects as Darwinian theory, quantum physics, chemistry, biology, metaphysics, history, psychology, politics and a host of other “rational” subjects? But then, what do I know? - I’m just a “fool” or “charlatan” (or both).
You “quote” me by saying, “Like most atheists...you (are)...closed-minded...intolerant, dismissive and disdainful...” Again, nice try. However, like PR firms for films - who “cherry-pick” words from the bad reviews of critics in order to create “good” reviews - you string together a series of words and phrases that were NOT used by me with the intent you provide. This is, in fact, a truly sleazy form of debate, and I will not even honor it with a response.
You close, “In these blatant assertions about atheists, you demonstrate your bigotry!” Since, as noted, I never put those words and phrases in that order, they are not “blatant assertions” of ANYTHING, except that you are desperate to find a way to out-think me. (Oh, I forgot - I’m not able to actually “think” with any degree of rationality or reason...)
Rather, those words were used specifically about YOU. Indeed, just so people don’t have to scroll down to find it, here is the original cite, in its entirety:
“Excuse me? When did I disparage those who use reason and logic - for anything? I myself use it, no matter what your intolerance might lead you to believe. And, again, I do not ‘disparage’ you for ‘awaiting proof before following a god’ (though, as noted, I believe that, given the accepted definition of ‘faith,’ doing so is...irrational, illogical and unreasonable). I ‘disparage’ you for being intolerant, dismissive and disdainful, and for the blatant hypocrisy of being just as ‘zealous’ and ‘fundamental’ in your own thinking as those you accuse of same.”
Note the subject: “you.” Not “atheists.” I have no problem whatsoever with atheists when they offer views and positions backed by reason, logic, common sense, etc. - even if I do not agree with those views or positions. However, you back YOUR positions with statements like “That statement proves your mental deficiency.” Hardly the world’s most intelligent, rational, much less supportable, statement.
Let the people here decide who between us has been more “reasoned” and “rational” in their responses and debate - even if they disagree with our separate positions.
Peace.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 5, 2007 at 11:52 am #
Maani,
I have no tolerance for fools nor charlatans.
The religious are one or the other.
Those who accept religion on faith are fools, the leaders charlatans.
Report thisBy Jim H., July 4, 2007 at 10:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:83962
Maani
You say: “---to apply “reason”---to---the existence of God---is...irrational and unreasonable.” (!)
I say: I agree!
You say: “The very definition of “faith” is “the belief in things not seen---"(!)
I say: Like a “pig-in-a poke”? That statement proves your mental deficiency(!)
You say: “---to seek “proof” --- for God is anathema---"(!)
You ask: “ Please define how I am “weak” or an “addict.”
I say: You are a weak minded ‘compulsive’ religious fanatic, weak in the rational reasoning portion of your mind(!)
Dictionary
addict
To occupy or involve oneself in something ‘habitually’ or ‘compulsively’(!)
I say: Your religious zealotry increases your blindness, prejudice and intolerance.
You say: “Like most atheists--- you (are)---closed-minded---intolerant, dismissive and disdainful---”
In these blatant assertions about atheists, you demonstrate your bigotry(!)
Report thisBy Maani, July 4, 2007 at 10:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Harlon:
Like most atheists, you “hear” what you want to hear and then respond. But you don’t actually “listen.”
You say, “While not every person who drinks is a drunk, every person who has gone past the point of waiting for proof of a god is a religious drunk.”
Are you listening to yourself? “Proof” of God? This is exactly where atheists begin at the wrong starting point. The very definition of “faith” is “the belief in things not seen, the certain of things hoped for.” Now, by this definition you may certainly consider faith “irrational” from a purely scientific standpoint. But to seek “proof” (i.e., verifiable scientific evidence) for God is anathema to the very definition of what you are pursuing. If you would like to change the definition of “faith,” be my guest, and feel free to apply “reason” and science to proving or disproving the existence of God. But doing so given the accepted definition of “faith” is...irrational and unreasonable.
You add, “You are not a casual consumer of your religion, you are a full on drunk. Therefore, we see you as the weak religious addict that you are.”
Please define how I am “weak” or an “addict.” Apparently, you have chosen to ignore the entire educational and personal history I offered (which was only a beginning, by the way). This is SOP for atheists, who (in a classic example of “the pot calling the kettle ‘black’") pick and choose what they wish to address. There is not a single person in my life - believer or non-believer - who would agree with you as to my being “weak” - in ANY way. Nor do even my most rabidly atheist friends (or family) consider me an “addict” of my faith. They have their issues (on occasion), and we discuss and debate as...rational people. But like Jim H, your zealotry increases your blindness, prejudice and intolerance to a point that equals, on “your” side, the zealotry of those on “my” side whom you abhor.
You then say, “You think you are rational, yet you think I am narrow minded for not accepting your belief without proof.” No, that is NOT what I said, or even implied. I am not suggesting that you should (much less “must") accept my belief without proof. What I implied was that your INTOLERANCE FOR believers - no matter how they were raised, what their upbringing and education, or whatever other facts about them might be true - makes you far more closed-minded and self-limiting than many of those you accuse of same. This is neither rational nor reasonable.
Finally, you add: “Please feel free to continue suspending logic in your attempts to disparage those who use their reason and logic awaiting proof before following a god.”
Excuse me? When did I disparage those who use reason and logic - for anything? I myself use it, no matter what your intolerance might lead you to believe. And, again, I do not “disparage” you for “awaiting proof before following a god’ (though, as noted, I believe that, given the accepted definition of “faith,” doing so is...irrational, illogical and unreasonable). I “disparage” you for being intolerant, dismissive and disdainful, and for the blatant hypocrisy of being just as “zealous” and “fundamental” in your own thinking as those you accuse of same.
Peace.
Report thisBy Harlon57, July 4, 2007 at 8:52 am #
Maani, none of what you submit is proof.
While not every person who drinks is a drunk, every person who has gone past the point of waiting for proof of a god is a religious drunk.
You are not a casual consumer of your religion, you are a full on drunk. Therefore, we see you as the weak religious addict that you are.
You think you are rational, yet you think I am narrow minded for not accepting your belief without proof.
Were you actually rational, you would realize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A person who is rational does not accept myth just to pretend to be open minded. They wait for proof, of which in your case there is none. I am open to evidence, not your claims of faith.
The vast majority of children of geniuses have average intellect. Your claims are not only not proof, but from your claims to faith, they become questionable.
Your claim that people who don’t accept faith are less open minded than someone who believes without proof is evidence that you don’t understand rational thinking, nor reason, and that you are not thinking rationally. That is what religion does to you. You suspend reason yet think your are rational.
Your world-view contains room for belief in something that is myth, unsupported by facts, and requires one to ignore all the inconsistencies in the background material. That may seem open minded to you, but I think it is base credulity.
My lack of acceptance of beliefs unsupported by fact does not mean I am not open minded. I just see all the inconsistencies for what they are. Man-made myth. I remain open to evidence.
In fact, all evidence points to the fact that all gods are man-made.
You, of course, are allowed to think you are being rational and open minded believing things without proof. Please feel free to continue suspending logic in your attempts to disparage those who use their reason and logic awaiting proof before following a god.
Report this