Prominent Atheist Reportedly Vows to Whip the Koran Over ‘Year of Religious Diversity’ Resolution
- Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:24pm by
Erica Ritz
- Print »
- Email »
(Photo: AP File Photo)
Ernest Perce has drawn major fire in recent months after dressing as “Zombie Muhammad” for Halloween, and facilitating a billboard that implies Christianity is pro-slavery.
The state director of the American Atheist organization in Pennsylvania, the man is set to reach a whole new level of notoriety with his most recent stunt.
Claiming Pennsylvania’s “Year of Religious Diversity” measure illegally intertwines church and state, Perce says he will “thrash the Quran with a nine-tail whip 85 times, and a single whip six times” if the resolution is not rescinded, according to PennLive.
He explained that he plans to perform the act on September 24 in the Capitol Rotunda, and the peculiar number of times is a reference to the number of the bill.
(Photo: YouTube/ABC)
“I am a nonbeliever and for (the House) to assume we respect these books is asinine,” the Harrisburg resident reportedly said. “I will let other atheists come with me (to protest). I want Christians to lash the Quran, too.”
(Related: 5 Killed in Violent Riots Over Koran Burning on U.S. Air Base in Afghanistan)
However, local sources also emphasize that Perce is making the threats as an individual, and does not represent the American Atheist organization.
The group confirmed for The Blaze that they are “pleased” to have Perce for their state director, but are not endorsing the stunt.
Perce's organization also drew fire for this billboard. (Photo: American Atheists)
Philly.com writes that “it is unclear” why Perce is singling out the Koran, but commenters have their own theories.
“To gain headlines,” one pointed out, presumably referring to Terry Jones, who became a national figure after making similar threats.
However, it is possible that there is still some lingering animosity over the previously-mentioned “Zombie Muhammad” incident.
Perce was reportedly attacked by a Muslim while wearing the provocative costume and, though the attacker admitted to the crime, the judge dismissed the case and proceeded to lecture Perce on the joys of Islam.
The judge said:
“Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it… Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture, their culture. It’s their very essence their very being. They pray five times a day towards Mecca to be a good Muslim…
“Then what you have done is you have completely trashed their essence, their being. They find it very very very offensive. I’m a Muslim, I find it offensive…”
Perce claims to have received a total of 571 death threats, including one from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Though there isn’t statistical analysis to back up the statement, the site Weasel Zippers notes that Perce appears to be an aberration among atheists in going after Islam, instead of Christianity.
Several of the site’s commenters speculated that this is because Christians seem less likely to behead detractors, or “knife [them]” on the street.
(H/T: Weasel Zippers)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 577 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 345 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 345 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (184)
freedomisasfreedomdoes
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:35pmI‘m sure this won’t lead to trouble. dumbo
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:28amIt would be a great pay per view event, Atheists vs Muslims , the atheists will find out that the muslims will not be as forgiving as the Christians, they will get no love there. Go for it all the atheists you like attacking Christians how about muslims or are you scared in you unbelief .
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 10:00am‘It would be a great pay per view event, Atheists vs Muslims’
Considering humanity has been forced to watch the Christians vs. Muslims channel for most of recorded history, this would be a nice change because at least one of the combatants has the truth on their side. Your faith is just as imbecilic, barbaric, irrational, and anti-historical as their faith, christians have simply been better tamed by atheists over the last 300 years.
Report Post »ChildOfTheKing
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 2:08pmIt is all about this guy’s 15 MINUTES OF FAME, that’s all. So far as I know, it is still a free country, so let’ move on……..
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 6:25pmPeople hold their religious beliefs very closely. Violently attacking the things they hold dear will induce an emotional response. That should not be the goal of anyone trying to persuade others. Treating someone’s religion with the respect you would give that person while presenting reasonable argument against it is far more effective than being militant.
Report Post »dmerwin
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:49pmGood! Please do this in Mecca or the Dome of the Rock. Get back to us on who was the more tolerant religion.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:27pmDidn’t know it was a tolerance contest. Maybe you could go to Mecca and teach them this “tolerance” you christians espouse. Seeing as how your magical sky daddy is on your side and you believe you have someplace to go after your head is detached from your body. No, not going? Huh…
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:53pmPontiac
The ideal behind religion is to live a good life not to become a martyr.
God didn’t say make like a moth heading for the light.
I got to ask you Pontiac. What is the difference between you and an earthworm?
You got a few more nerve cells & you might drink beer?
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:46amWalkabout, the ideal behind religion is to make life simpler and less confusing for the meekest intellects among us. It protects you from having to ponder the great existential questions on your own like a rational person might do, and judging by your attempt at humor here that might not be a bad thing.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 5:52pmA long life living as Jesus had intended should place you in the pantheon of Saints, but it doesn’t
But then again most martyrs were not martyrs by choice
Report Post »Chromo200
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:50pmhe doesn’t have to go to Mecaa just got to Dearborn MI. He has no guts to do such things because he know he will not be alive. So he take shis chances in Christian communities know that we are tolerant of idiots and lost soles like him.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 8:53am[He has no guts to do such things because he know he will not be alive.]
Report Post »I’m still trying to figure out why you so called christians “require” or “expect” atheist to do stupid things you mouthy and loathsome christians wouldn’t even do.
drphil69
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:32pmFinally an athiest with BALLS! Not like you wimpy athiests that attack ‘turn the other cheek’ Christians. You guys make me sick – you claim you’re against all religions, but somehow leave the Muslims out of it. You put a Crucifix in urine and call it art. You smear a painting of Jesus with feces. Yet ONLY ONE OF YOU is brave enough to mock Islam. You got balls, dude. I totally disagree with you, but you got balls.
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:40pmYes, because it is so “ballsy” to focus on a faith that consists of only .06% of the American public.
Report Post »WickedJ
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:57pm@ Bruce P A third of the world is Muslim you nitwit. And they’re the only religion that sends death threats on that kind of scale (as well as seeing those death threats through to the end). Christianity gets bashed on a daily basis in popular media, but Christians are the “turn the other cheek” religion. I used to be Christian before I turned atheist, strictly because of personal beliefs. I went through the childish phase of atheism when I attacked Christianity, and I know every attack atheists use against Christians. What changed my mind about everything was simply common sense. The idea that atheists would first go after Christians before Muslims is absolutely ridiculous. The Koran has 10 times more hate in it than the Bible. And as a former Protestant, I consistently notice that atheist attacks focus on passages from the Old Testament, which I don’t feel I need to defend. I’m still an atheist, but I will stick up for Christians in nearly every argument they face, especially if it’s against atheists. Atheists who aren‘t going after Muslims and focus specifically on Christianity have turned Atheism into it’s own religion – which isn’t even atheism, it’s just bigoted Christian bashing.
Report Post »sct989
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:01pmOK Bruce lets do some quick simple lazy math. 350 million people in the US, 1 percent of that is 3.5 million. Lets go low and say that there are 1.75 muslims in the US. Do you have the balls to mock 1.75 million nut jobs willing to die for their wackiness? Think before you speak dummie.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:53amWicked – Modern day Islam is 13th century Christianity with 21st century weapons. They’re all in bed together, it‘s just that Christians have been living among atheists long enough that they’ve become far more domesticated. The perpetrators of the inquisition, the crusades, the witch hunts, etc. aren’t guiltless, they’re just learning a bit more quickly that their religion is incompatible with civil society. Keep in mind that this dichotomy did not always exist, at one point Muslims were inventing mathematics while Christians were still storing bodies in the drinking water.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:39amANDYETITMOVES
Love it…
Report Post »Mr.Fitnah
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 10:42am@ ANDYETITMOVES
I detect you are enjoy basking in the fruit of other peoples revisionist history.
This popular propaganda could be dismissed by you if you had taking the time to study history.
Try History of Babylonian Mathematics, Neugebaue.
or: A History of Science
Henry Smith Williams and Edward Huntington Williams
It will produce the facts that the fundamentals of modern Mathematics including the knowledge of the concept of zero and the Pythagorean Theorem .had be in use thousands of years before being expropriated by muslim invaders.
Report Post »Muslim science never created a heliocentric model of the solar system.
Im sure you image the great muslim astronomers,, all Chaldeans and Babylonians with a millenium of renowned research behind them in what today is Iraq ,wiped out existence by muslims by 750 AD their master works now attributed to Islam.
and where ever the bloody Islamic glacier moved on next science died off in a generation.
There was no Golden Age of Islam.
There has only been genocide theft and lies.
Try
How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs
O‘Leary’
of the 22 scholars listed 20 were Assyrians ,1 Persian, 1 Arab.
SamIamTwo
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:26pmPeople who come out and hate scare me…especially misguided so called atheists.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:54amIf you are a christian you might have just torn a hole of irony in the ozone layer.
Report Post »Dougsopinion
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 10:44amChristians, why are you giving your time to the athiests? What fellowship does a believer have with a non-believer? Do not cast your pearls before swine, do not give that which is good to dogs, and finally, answer a fool as his folly deserves lest he be wise in his own eyes.
Report Post »nativetexanne
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:02pmRemember…in November!!! How long, how long must we sing this song? How long???
Report Post »Sunday, bloody Sunday
There’ll be fighting in the streets…’Townshend, the Who’
‘Those that bend their swords into plowshares will be servants to those who done’ Benjamin Franklin
Make sure that everyone who can vote gets to the polls in November, and be ready to take down those bumbs that want to beat us away from the polling machines, and lets get our country back.
Look at East Berlin, look at Cuba, look at any communist regime, and see what this demigod wants to do to our country. He does not have a vision for the American way, he has a vision for the socialist way, the way of the 1% being the government that controls us all. Orwell saw this long ago.
AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:56amIf you had actually read Orwell you would probably know that he considered undiscerning religious sheep like the blazers to be totalitarianism’s most dangerous weapon.
Report Post »Victoria
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:50pmAlthough I am an Agnostic Libertarian, I do try to respect all religions. What angers me is the continual assault on Judaism and Christianity while Islam gets a pass. Some of the “edgy leftist comedians” who repeatedly go after Christians have openly admitted they are too frightened to insult Muslims. While I do not necessarily agree with him, Mr.Perce is showing a degree of courage. I hope there is no collateral damage from his actions. All too often innocents pay the price.
Report Post »SamIamTwo
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:24pmKool you actually know that you are an agnostic…you are the first one I’ve seen on the net…congrats on getting it right. At one time I thought I was atheist, then realized I was agnostic and later in life became a believer in Christ.
Excellent post BTW. Very well stated.
Report Post »davecorkery
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:09amTo be boringly technical, everyone is agnostic. The definition of an agnostic is someone who says there is no evidence either way of the existence of a god. Since no one can prove it , we are all agnostic. Therefore there are agnostic believers and agnostic non believers. It sounds like i”m splitting hairs, but the distinction is important. An vowed atheist, then, is on the same level as an avowed believer: Neither can prove their side, but have taken a political stance. Saying there is no god is as valid/ non-valid as saying there is one. They are both opinions. It tells people what side they are on. I am an atheist (and conservative/libertarian). I do not respect religions, and I don’t care if anyone offended. All the words in all the “holy” books were written by men. Not god. Not one word. Ever. I respect people. I will gladly and calmly debate the issue with anyone who wishes to learn, or who might teach me. It is not only islamic violence we should be concerned about. Pat Tillman was the only atheist in his unit, and was murdered by one of his own team, a christian. Don’t tell me there is a difference. People who have imaginary friends are dangerous, period.
Report Post »dcarls00
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 2:05pm@ DAVECORKERY – You’ve just created the most self-refuting argument I’ve read today. You say you’re an agnostic (someone who says there is no evidence either way of the existence of a god). Yet, you go on to say “All the words in all the “holy” books were written by men. Not god. Not one word. Ever.” – A statement of absolute, irrefutable truth, thus denying your agnosticism. Then you say that “People who have imaginary friends are dangerous, period.” – again, another absolute statement that focuses on the dangers of religion without the courtesy of pointing at the same claims against atheism. Either admit you’re a struggling atheist and that true agnosticism is an untenable position to base ones life on, or that you want to believe in God but have found your sources unconvincing, and need to find new ones. You, my friend, are a very confused individual. I pray that you figure these things out.
Report Post »alinmatt
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 5:57pm@dcarlsoo, you said “that you want to believe in God but have found your sources unconvincing, and need to find new ones”, perhaps you could provide new and convincing sources.
Report Post »Also, how is “true agnosticism an untenable position to base life on“? Admitting that we can’t prove that there is or isn’t a god is not a position, it’s an acknowledgement of fact. If you don’t believe it’s a fact, then provide undeniable evidence that your god is real. Reality is a great position to base one’s life on.
Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:42pmNote that the Judge sided with the moo-slum and gave this guy a lecture about respecting islam, but the same judge would probably deny any Christian their rights.
I remember this kind of thing whenever I get called for Jury Duty.
Remember in November.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 10:06amAh yes, the age-old Christian ‘right’ to political and cultural hegemony. Kindly grow up, there’s nothing more pathetic than an 80% majority full of sheep that loves to throw its hands up and feign victimhood. If you’re tired of your ideas being ridiculed, find some ideas that are not so abjectly ridiculous.
Report Post »luke9.54_56
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:11pmIslam emphasizes killing people brings you closer to allah, while Jesus emphasizes bringing life to people through Him….
Report Post »macpappy
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:38pmIslam emphasizes killing people brings you closer to allah, while Jesus emphasizes bringing life to people through Him….
Yeah, and if you don’t you spend eternaty in Hellfire, and Damnation. Not much of a choice either way.
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:43pm@MCPAPPY- The difference is the Christian will not murder you in this day and age because you do not believe in Christ. The Moo-slum will. Learn this……
Report Post »Bruce P.
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:44pmLuke 19:27 — But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me
Report Post »DLV
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:53pmBruce- if you had done your research before drawing conclusions you might find out more about this parable. This parable is widly considered to be an end of times judgment parable. People’s rejection of Jesus as King is death or seperation from God. We all fall short. We are all sinners and do not deserve heaven but yet God gives us mercy. When we spit in God‘s face about his gift when he didn’t even need to do it is well… not good to say the least. This parable is not a command to people to go kill others who do not believe rather it is about the rejection of Jesus at the end times. Do your homework please. Who else would the King be in this story if not God? It‘s pretty obvious it’s a reference to the final judgment.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 3:40pmSwift correction, I love it.
Report Post »SiToNiTsOrOs1
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:56pmI must say that the atheist oppinion about the Qu’ran IS CORRECT in this instance. Bring it on, by all means BASH THE QU’RAN!!!! True Qu’ranic Islam IS TYRANICAL SUBJUGATION, OPRESSION, AND DESPOTISM. IT IS ABSOLUTE CONTROL. A FREE MAN/WOMAN WILL HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER SUCH A SYSTEM.
Anyone who wants to bash this IDEAOLOGY and back up the bashing with the Qu‘ran’s own words then BRING IT ON! I will be watching this and I hope the BLAZE continues to follow it.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:30pmThe Bible does the same amount of slavery and subjugation.
I think the guy said it best, ““I am a nonbeliever and for (the House) to assume we respect these books is asinine”
Holy Bible, book or Mormon, the Quran. I respect these books all the same, not at all.
Report Post »John655
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:41pm@ Moderation
I suggest you understand something before you pass judgement on it. Slavery in the time of the Bible was nothing like slavery became in America. You could think of it more as indentured servitude. It was not racialy motivated. And many slaves earned their freedom through loyal service.
Report Post »Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:55pmFirst off, remember who the first slave owner was in the United States…
In 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. In his freedom suit, he claimed that he was an indentured servant who had been held past his term. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life and “owned” by his master, the free black colonist Anthony Johnson.
Second, slavery existed long before the United States ever became a nation. Yet people seem to think that the US is the only place it ever existed.
Third, Islam has supported slavery for 1400 years. The Muslim Brotherhood is talking again about how it is right and justified to take slaves in war.
I do not support slavery at all, nor do I support Islam. If they want to live under Sharia, let them do that in the Middle East. When they try that here in the US, then it will be time for us to stand up or bow down. I will stand for the Constitution and freedom!
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:59pmMODERATION is not interested in learning just disparaging that which he does not like…Seems to me he is a bit hypocritical as well…..he wrote the following when someone made a similar statement about evolution and Darwin’s theory. No refernce to slavery or evidence. No insight into the cultural context and slavery and how radical the bible was in its protection of slaves compared to their typical treatment by owners or mention of the fact that many sold themselves into slavery to pay for their debts and were often freed before their debt was paid off in the year of Jubilee, etc….
@GOODSTUFF
You made a claim about evolution and something that Charles Darwin, yet you didn‘t actually quote him and you didn’t provide a reference where I could check the veracity of your claim.
Why do I continually have to point this out on The Blaze?
If you’re going to make a claim, at least attempt to provide some kind of proof or evidence — Moderationisbest 7/10/12
Not trying to be contentious but trying to maintain consistent standards across the board.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:48pm@JOHN655
Hahaha, I always love this, “culturally different” BS people say that the Bible spouts.
“44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
” “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”
Exodus 21:20-21 : When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Need I go on?
It‘s a joke to say it’s “indentured servitude.”
Not to mention how pitiful and weak your God must be to allow his “inerrant word” to be so distorted by translations….translations that are made by supposed believed translating the Bible into other languages.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:03pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
You are right, I shouldn’t have said that without providing evidence. I did so in the post above.
I don’t think I need to go on, and I also think it’s silly to say how “radical” it was in the protection of slaves. Again, I showed how silly that is above.
That is just old Christianity. I have also heard common day Christians say they are a “slave” to Jesus Christ.
I have seen numerous Christians say that they will never let a woman Pastor lead their church. Why is it that America is one of the nations that hasn’t had a woman President? I have women friends who say they would never vote for a woman for President. Would you vote for a woman Pastor to come in and lead your church? If so, why or why not?
Why would a country that almost everyone on here proudly says is a “nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles” be a country that held slaves and didn’t allow women to vote until 1920?
Most of the current day religions are textbook definitions of slavery, subjugation and “defined” roles.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:25pm@ MODERATION,,,your argument is illogical because it is not based in its cultural context which any reputable scholar of works of antiquity would tell you is necessary to evaluate appropriately. You are guilty of presentism and apparently have not read or objectively examined the situation as is revealed through your comments. You supplied verses and I knew those already but when they are not understood in their cultural context their meaning is quite arbitrary. The cultural context is what provides their meaning. BTW we did not say it was exclusively indentured servitude but that it included these situations. You really need to do more reading on this subject from some objective sources not the ones with an atheistic agenda….True scholarship is not to bend something in the direction of your ideology it is to see it for what it was…..
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:37pmI personally would not have a woman in a pastoral role because biblically it is not approved and for a good reason. The different sexes created by God represent different things spiritually. The man is a representative as Christ and the woman is representative of the true church. The man is to lead as Christ is the head of the church. He is also to give himself up for her as Christ did the church. She is to lovingly submit as the church does to Christ. The woman is not inferior she just has a different role that reflects even in the physical sex and relationship spiritual realities of Jesus and his chuch. For a woman to assume a pastoral role is to corrupt the representation of the spiritual order of things that I believe God intended to be reflected in the sexes and relationship between men and women. I believe that all of creation is meant to reflect spiritual realities. That is the purpose for things being created in the way they have been. When the woman was cursed with pain in child birth because of sin it was meant to reflect the spiritual reality of the pain God (in the person of Jesus and not just physical, but the emotional agony for becoming sin and receiving the judgment of God for that sin) would have to go through to give birth to his children (the church). I believe slavery in this country was sin and the nation was disciplined by God for it as many many men died. Why are defined roles bad in your sight? ….CONTINUED…..
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:42pm@ MODERATION…God firmly hates slavery….of course you will point to those verses taken out of the context of the whole bible, but God used physical slavery to illustrate the evil and oppresion that is present spiritually to sin. That is why it is called slavery to sin. It is ugly, it is oppressive, and it is not God’s will. Men are enslaved to sin and its slavemaster (Satan) I believe and this slavery is much greater and more important. The unpleasnatness of sin was meant to draw attention to this and demonstrate the spiriual relaities. Hence, we see God allowing his people, the Hebrews, to be enslaved by the Egyptians and then freed by Him thoruhg Moses in a miraculous way, again signifying His deliverance of His people from the greater bondage of sin in the miraculous person of Jesus.
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:03pmFalse, there is no Golden Rule FOR NON BROTHERS in the Koran, or Hadiths.
It‘s pretty much open season if you aren’t a Muslim.
Not that they can’t be enlightened, and not that there isn’t extermination of entire cities in the Old Testament, just that a distressing percentage of Muslims aren’t.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:05pmSleazy- I have to say you have got to be one of the smartest people here on the blaze. Every single time I read your posts, I feel like you should be on a debate team for Christianity. You literally verbally kick the ass of anyone who spouts of nonsense against Christianity. And their responses make me laugh every time on how pathetic they are. You are truly a defender of Christ like me.
Rock on!
Report Post »Passerby
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:10pmThe Hebrews treated slaves far more humanely than anyone else at the time. They had plenty of rules about proper treatment. In fact, the oldest Hebrew in existance, is a pottery shard from 3000 years ago, at the time of David. It proves the Hebrew obsession with protecting the downtrodden didn’t come from the Babylonian Captivity, it came from the Torah…
1′ you shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord].
2′ Judge the sla[ve] and the wid[ow] / Judge the orph[an]
3′ [and] the stranger. [Pl]ead for the infant / plead for the po[or and]
4′ the widow. Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king.
5′ Protect the po[or and] the slave / [supp]ort the stranger.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107183037.htm
“Protect the Poor and the Slave”
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:40pm@ DLV..thank you so much for your encouragemnt. If I am anything, I am what I am because of Jesus Chrsit, for I have no wisdom of my own. Without Him I would still be blind to the reality of things. Fight the good fight. God Bless!!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:17am@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
“BTW we did not say it was exclusively indentured servitude but that it included these situations. ”
Oh, so you proved my point. Glad you admit that.
In your entire post trying to refute what I said; you just claimed what I said was true.
The Bible does say you can enslave someone. It may tell you when to release someone in certain instances but also says in other instances you can keep the wife and children because they are your property.
Where is the “moral absolutes” I hear religious people talking about?
Do you have a daughter?
If so, if/when she comes and asks you, “Mommy, Daddy, can I be anything I want when I grow up?” I hope you’ll be honest with her and say, “No sweetie, you can’t. See you‘re a girl and girls aren’t supposed to be spiritual leaders. You see, God put you in a specific place, and it’s best that you stay in that place. You don’t want to upset God now do you? No one would really want you to lead their church anyways, so why waste your time trying to be something you really want to be, because people won’t accept you anyways.”
You again proved that religion is a perfect definition of subjugation. It says that you can’t be something because of the way you were born.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:30am@Hippos
” Why are defined roles bad in your sight?”
I think it’s sad that you actually have to ask that question.
Uh, maybe because I actually care about people and want them to reach their potential.
I want them to actually seek out and do something they love and potentially not get to experience something they may enjoy because “The Bible said it’s wrong” or other dogmatic crap that people conjure up that is never expressed in the Bible.
Also, maybe it’s because it is men who wrote the Bible, so they have all the interest in the world to keep women under their thumb.
Religion in general is a cult of masculinity. Look at a lot of the “Gods” I think a lot of them were supposedly born of a virgin, or something else besides being conceived by sex.
Also to clear something up, I am a guy so I’m not some raging, bra burning feminist who has been hurt by the overwhelming male authority that controls religion.
I just hate seeing women torn down and feeling less of a human being because of the way they were born.
I have many Christian friends who are female, who are very bright, energetic, and full of ideas. Yet I always see them defer to their husband on important issues even when I think the women is right.
Granted it is their choice, but I think that without their belief they wouldn’t be so coerced into thinking that at the end of the day, the male viewpoint on things is the correct path.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:44amAnd no, I’m not against women being stay at home moms. I just don’t think they should be told that being at home is divinely inspired and has some ultimate higher powers authority, and that if you don’t do that, you‘re not following God’s decree.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:41am@ MODERATION you have just committed the straw man fallacy in your argument by misrepresenting what I stated and then claimed you were proved right. I never said the Bible did not talk about enslavement. I just spent several posts explaining what the context of those verses and the meaning it gives to those verses however, you have refused to address them. You do not know the cultural background and it is obvious my friend. As far as trhe ending of that particular post where you ask a serious of questions. It is really nonsensical (not being beligerant) and full of opinion not based in evidence or fact and has more the falvor of bitterness than an objective examination of the actual reality of things. And may I suggest that it is not wise for you to bring up moral absolutes in this debate. If you want to go down that road I will be more than happy, but I will wait and see if you really want to do that. As an Atheist (I assume) the moral argument is one of your most difficult areas. But if you desire to we can open up that can of worms, I will let you decide.
Report Post »Defined roles do not preclude caring about people. You live in defined roles all the time. At work, in school, in social settings. Without defined roles in the military you have chaos. If I were to use your argument then there would be no definition of anyone in any regard. Defined does not mean less than or that “full potential” (really an ambivalent term) cannot be recognized. CONTINUED…
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:50am@ MOD…if the bible prohibits something it is because God wants what is best for humanity, ie no adultery, no stealing, etc…In fact God states, I know the plans I have for you, plans to prosper you and not to do you harm. Men inspired by God wrote the Bible technically and the Bible is nothing but honring to women. Just LQQk at the story of the woman caught in adultery, woman at the well, the woman that followed Jesus, Mary Magdalene, Husbands love your wives and give yourself up for her as Christ did the church (this in a time when women were still considered property and less than in most of the world) and on and on….I assure you my wife does not feel less than in anyway. Do men abuse woman that are religuous in nature? Of course, bnut it is sinful without question. AND the husband is not always right, sometimes the woman is and men should heavily consider what their wives think about something, but in the end the buck stops somewhere and God has determined it be with the man. That is why when Eve sinned God addressed the man first, not Eve. Adam was the most responsible because He was the Head in authority. In the military the higher ranked officer may not always be right, but in the end a chain of command must be honored to maintain order. And if the man was wrong then the consequences are his to bear, hopefully we as men grow in our wisdom when we make these mistakes….tahnk you ahead.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 10:46am@Hippo
I never said you said that the Bible didn’t talk about enslavement so I don’t know where this is coming from. Your first response to my post about slavery essentially boiled down to “cultural context.”
You didn’t go into the cultural context. You just went into your “opinion” on why God used physical slavery. You say how it just represents slavery to sin, which again is just your opinion. As someone who doesn’t think such a thing as “sin” exists, it is just you trying to rationalize. Whatever way you choose to rationalize it is irrelevant to me. You can put any kind of silver bow around it, continually talk about “context” and that it might have been some kind of “God’s plan”, fact is, there are specific verses in the Bible where God condones slavery, genocide and rape.
I have no qualms with talking about moral absolutes, I’ve done that on here before. I don’t think there are such things as moral absolutes so I’m not sure where this argument would go. Fact is, your “moral absolutes” have to look at someone like Abraham, willing to gut his kid because he believed God told him to and say, “yeah, that was a righteous dude because he was following God’s orders.”
“In the military the higher ranked officer may not always be right, but in the end a chain of command must be honored to maintain order.”
Isn’t that the Nazi defense? “I was only following orders.”
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:03am@Hippo
I’m sorry, I can’t look at stories(and yes, they are stories) in the Bible where people are doing evil acts that God commands and say, “Well, they‘re following God’s order.”
“The Bible honors women.”
Didn’t your God only create Eve after realizing that none of the animals were suitable enough “helpers.”
Don’t get me started on the 10th commandment, comparing a man’s wife to ox and “or anything that belongs to your neighbor”
Even though coveting is what capitalism is all about, but that’s a different story.
I also think it’s disingenuous at best to compare someone being at work or school and being in a “role” verses what I was talking about where you‘re saying someone can’t be something because of the way they were born.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:15am@ MOD…cultural context is everything. Just like you cannot understand one paragraph in a book without understanding the context of the book. That is logic 101 my friend. Of course it is all I had to say to rebuttal your argument because you do not understand or have lQQked into what slavery was and how many rights slaves had under the OT/Mosaic law. It was radical compared to the way most slaves were treated whether endentured or captive. I spent several posts explaining this so you may need to review. It is well understood historically.
, it is just you trying to rationalize……no my presupposition is that God exists and there is sin just like your presupposition is that he does not exist and sin does not, so therefore I am not rationalizing, I am making a logically sound and coherent argument based upon my conclusion of the evidence that I believe says God exists and there is sin. Now if you want to switch gears and debate that topic you may, but simply stating you don’t believe in sin therefore it is irrelevant to you is not a logical sound foundation because I could then say the same thing to you and so on and so forth regarding any topic of which we may disagree.
You can put any kind of silver bow around it….when have I done this? I said it was brutal oppressive and and agonizing. So this is just misrepresentation again.
Condones???? I think not my misguided friend. God hates divorce but he permitted it in the OT because of mens hard hearts. CO
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:24amGod uses the evil actions of men all the time to bring about his purposes. God used the evil actions of Josephs brothers to bring about ultimately their salvation. Did that mean he condoned their actions, absolutely not. In the same way God does not condon rape. In fact he was caring for the woman because in those days if a woman was not a virgin then she would not have been married in most instances and forced to live a life in poverty and rejection by many. The verse you refer to was a way in which she could then be provided for and a hefty resititution bride price be levied. She would then be able to have children, which meant everything to women in that day, that were legitimate and accepted. Again cultural context is everything. You are very guilty of presentism and you continue to project our societal norms onto ancient cultures and this is where you drive off of the road.
I don’t think there are such things as moral absolutes so I’m not sure where this argument would go…..This is a self refuting statement and illogical position because you just stated a moral absolute in stating there are no moral absolutes. If the statement is true then it is false, not to mention you have absolutely no solid ground upon which to stand to criticize anything morally within the OT. Your position is contradictory, illogical, and hypocritical. You better rethink this if you really want to continue down this path. I am trying to give you a honorable out on this topic
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 11:49am@ MOD..
Even though coveting is what capitalism is all about……False statement. They are not the same. Covetousness is being excessively and culpably desirous of the possessions of anothers possessions… Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. You can be a true blue communist and be the most covetous person in the world or be a captialist and be the least. That was an illogical non sequitur statement.
You may think it is disingenuous, but it is not. I pointed out the defined roles are what make up societies that remain orderly. I can never have a baby because of the way I was born. It is illogical to say that is inherently bad or wrong it is again a logical non sequitur. It does not follow reason. It may be your opinion, but sense you do not believe in moral absolutes I guess it really doesn’t matter, does it? Because who are you to state what is right or wrong? If I decide differently then you what is right you have absolutely no grounds to argue aginst that and remain consistent with your assertion that there are no moral absolutes. Your position just does not hold up under scrutiny and I am not persuaded by the arguments you have made that you possess logic in your reasoning to this point. I do thank you for the exchange. I will let the posts speak for themselves. No hard feelings I wish you well.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 12:08pmLet’s stick to context. I have said this before…you like to ascribe “context” to the verses @moderation gave you regarding slavery. “Context” I assume meaning time period, culture, and your interpretation of the meaning behind the story(because obviously they can be interpreted differently).
I would just like to know based on this, and correct me if I am wrong, if you ascribe the same “context” to the creation of Adam and Eve? Also see, talking animals, living in fish, the rising dead(not just Jesus), walking on water, demons, angels. Do you personally ascribe the same historical “context”….time period and culture?
Slavery was not that bad at the time because of the time period and cultural norms…could not the same thing be said about fantastical stories about human kind and miracles? I mean if we were to put these people in “context” a lot of them were ancestors to the Greeks. What did Greece give us? Mythology. What does mythology give us? The rising dead, talking animals, virgin births, ect.
So my question is why is your standard of historical “context” differ between slavery(a real thing) and miraculous stories? As one poster said, you are extremely intelligent but sometimes that just means you are better at squaring the hole to make your belief fit reality.
A belief is not only an idea possessed by the mind, but the mind possessed by an idea.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:10pm@ DOORS…of course not, to do so would be illogical. When interpretting any literary work (these are scholarly objective standards accepted by all) one must determine what the style of language used is to understand the meaning and if it is literal or not. The creation account mixes both historical and symbolic metaphor in its original language so one has to evaluate based on what is more metaphorical in its style. For example, Jesus said I am the door. Now you and I very quickly understand Jesus was not convinced he was a literal door but that he was using metaphoric language to illustrate a spiritual idea or prinsciple (this was an easy one others aren’t quite as easy). This is not surprising because we do the same thing with young children that cannot comprehend more complex ideas that adults can, by using metaphors as examples. This is no different for an all-knowing God communicating to “knowledge limited” humanity. So we must rely on that to understand the concept of what was meant by the writer. The verses MOD illustrated are written in a historical style and therefore must then be understood in the context of the culture and time, as literal accounts, that they were written in, or otherwise we become guilty of presentism as I have been stating all along. These are very well understood and accpeted principles of interpretation among scholars, regardless of their beliefs. BTW I never asserted slavery was not that bad, go back and read…CONTINUE….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:21pm@ DOORS..You assume greek mythology came first but there is no way you or I or anyone else can prove that because both originate from oral traditions before written records existed. So to get to the question you were asking. I don’t differentiate between miracles and historical accounts culturally. Both are historical accounts with many convincing proofs. For years Jericho was mocked by scholars as even existing, until it was discovered.
It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall which had collapsed when the city was destroyed! Cross-section of the fallen bricks from the wall of Jericho. [Enlarge]The story in the Bible goes on to say that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists found evidence for a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible relates. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report,
Report Post »“The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt.” What caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake. But the nature of the earthquake was unusual. CONITINUED…..
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:23pm@ DOORS…”It struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell. The spies leave Rahab’s Jericho wall house.Rahab’s house was evidently located on the north side of the city. She was the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies who came to reconnoiter the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be saved. According to the Bible, Rahab’s house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell. This is exactly what archaeologists found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.
I don’t claim to be intelligent, far from it actually. I just know good logic when I see it and good evidence that supports a conclusion. Thank for your time…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 2:17pmIN anticipation of your next question. If a literary work staes historical events and for some I have very good evidence and for other I do not yet have much or any, other than the literary work itself, I assume the work to be credible in those areas. We do this all the time with reporters, news casts, and historians. For instance, I see very few scholars criticize or question Josephus accounts of history. Why? Not because we can back up all that he records but because we have enough evidence to support many of his recordings to classify him as a credible and relaible source. In the same manner, the bible has been proven over and over again, even when initially mocked or ridiculed, only later for it to be found correct in its description. The “city of the plains” in Genesis was mocked for nearly a century by modern scholars as never having existed, until
Report Post »The Ebla Tablets were discovered in northern Syria by two professors from the University of Rome, Dr. Paolo Matthiae, an archaeologist; and Dr. Giovanni Petinato, an epigrapher. The excavation of Tell Mardikh began in 1964 and in 1968 they uncovered a statue of King Ibbit-Lim. Since 1974, 17,000 tablets have been unearthed from the era of the Ebla Kingdom. These tablets have already made valuable contributions to biblical criticism.
One contribution is in relation to Genesis 14. ..continued
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 2:18pm@ DOORS…Critics have have described the victory of Abraham over Chedorlaomer and the Mesopotamian kings as fictitious and the five Cities of the Plain (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim and Zoar) as legendary.
Genesis 14:8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim
The Ebla archives, however, refer to all five Cities of the Plain and on one tablet the cities are listed in the exact same sequence as Genesis 14. The tablets further reflect that the region was prosperous and successful with a patriarchal culture consistent with that recorded in Genesis prior to the catastrophe recorded in Genesis 14.
Thank you ahead….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 3:43pm@SLEAZYHIPPOS ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
My stance isn’t hypocritical, it is about progress. It is about humanity coming together to try and decide what is the best possible way to live life together.
What it isn’t about is people looking back at history and after the fact saying, “oh that’s wrong, and it’s always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Look, even our God said it was wrong, forget the fact that for many years many believers said and practiced the exact opposite.”
Therefore, I can say that moral absolutes don’t exist, but still argue that slavery is something we shouldn’t go back to.
Instead of humanity coming together and trying to figure out how to co-exist and do what we think will help the human race, we have groups of people that claim to know what is best for everyone else. And how do they know this? Through well thought out, rational arguments? No, they had it revealed to them by some supernatural being. Oh and if you don’t agree with that revelation, there’s a certain place for you to go to after you die.
People always talk about the love and teaching of Jesus Christ, but then fail to admit that at the very core of his teaching was, “Love me or go to hell.”
They look at their religion through rose colored glasses.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 4:17pm@ MOD…”My stance isn’t hypocritical, it is about progress. It is about humanity coming together to try and decide what is the best possible way to live life together.” My friend this is an illogical stance. Who determines what is right and wrong? Society? Members of society agree all the time, not to mention this position is guilty of the fallay of appeal to popularity. It is illogical and simply undermines your ability to critique anything on the basis of morality because you affirm there are no absolutes, of course except for the moral absol;ute that no absolutes exist (fallacy of non-contradiction anyone?)
What it isn’t about is people looking back at history and after the fact saying, “oh that’s wrong, and it’s always been wrong, and will always be wrong…..You are dong this very thing when you sit in judgment and criticize as immoral what was done thousands of years ago even thoguh you state there are NO moral absolutes…This is a hypocritical illogical position my friend. I don’t know how I can spell it out for you any more. You are also guilty of the fallacy of chronological fallacy in this instance. Please be intellectually honest. You cannot hold up criticizing the bible on its “morality” as you see it on one hand and then on the other argue there are no moral absolutes. This is self-defeating my friend.
“Oh and if you don’t agree with that revelation.” …And what happens when someone disagrees with your morality?
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 4:27pm@ MOD…I believe you have a bitter axe to grind with religion, namely Christianity as revealed in the bible, Your arguments are not on sound logical grounds my friend. I used to be an atheist also, but upon objective examination of the evidence the conslusion is obvious. Is a parent hating or loving their child when they try to teach them discipline, responsibility for their actions, when they say no to things, when they set boundaries? In the same manner all that God does is for our benefit, not to harm us but to protect us and see us grow in righteousness. It is what we were made to walk in. It is not oppression, it is freedom in the sense that it is what we were created for. However, if we persist in our rebellion despite His many many acts of kindness, grace, mercy, and patience there will come a time that we will come into a court room, so to speak, and give an account. Don’t blame God for giving to people in the next life what they have desired in this life, separation from Him…the choice is for all of us, chose this day whom you will serve. You are either the bondservant of God or the whipping boy of the evil one. There is no such thing as a truly free man, only the perception of freedom. You will either be enslaved to sinful passions and motivations or you will be servant to God (which is actually the truest freedom as it is what we were made for). I have lost my life that I might find it. This is truly profound and life giving words. Thank you….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 5:39pm@Hippo
So you use to be an atheist, and are now a Christian, and it’s “obvious” to you now?
Guess what, I’m in the exact opposite position.
I use to be an Evangelical Christian and am now an Atheist, and it seems “obvious” to me.
I think we can both agree that our “conversions” don’t prove anything to the point we are making.
You say my points aren’t on “logical grounds” but I made a point about how religion sets presupposed roles on someone based on how they are born. You then essentially said, “well what’s wrong with that?” and then went on to make an illogical jump to, “well I‘m a guy and can’t have a baby, that’s a defined role.”
As I said, you are going to the absurd with the whole point.
It’s not about being confined to ones own physical capacity (ie, I‘m a guy and can’t carry a baby, or, I”m a white man and can’t be a black woman). It’s saying, “no, you can‘t do something that you are fully capable of doing because God says it’s wrong.”
To say, or to even imply that men not being able to carry a baby is on the same ground(in regards to “defined roles”) as a woman being told she can’t become a Pastor because God said it was wrong is silly and illogical and beneath your capacity for rational thought. I‘m kind of assuming that maybe I’m misinterpreting what you said, because based on other rational points you’ve made, that can’t be your argument and comparison.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 5:54pm@ MOD…I never asserted that my conversion proves anything, that would be an illogical statement.
You then essentially said, “well what’s wrong with that?” and then went on to make an illogical jump to, “well I‘m a guy and can’t have a baby, that’s a defined role……And your point is? It was not an illogical point, to the contrary it is very logical to raise that question given your assertion. Defined roles are not inherently wrong or evil, especially if you do not believe in moral absolutes as you clearly state you do not. So what grounds do you base your argument on? Your opinions? You have no logical foundation upon which to argue, but you go ahead and try and we will see how it turns out for you.
Report Post »I’m capable of having sex with someone other than my wife, but God does not condone it because it is harmful to me and to her and to the family. In the same way order has been instituted in the family. What potential do you think God is inhibiting? A woman leading her family or being a Pastor? I have explained from a biblical exegesis why this is not appropriate. It does not mean women are inferior they just have a differently defined role. And to this you protest claiming some evil or wrong and yet clearly state you do not believ in moral absolutes do not exist?????? Something smells and I think its the stinch of contradiction. CONTINUED….
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 6:01pm@ MOD…To say, or to even imply that men not being able to carry a baby is on the same ground(in regards to “defined roles”) as a woman being told she can’t become a Pastor because God said it was wrong is silly and illogical and beneath your capacity for rational thought…….First of all thank you for thinking so highly of my rational capabilities (I am not sure they are deserved). But let’s start with this to help you understand my rationale and why I think it is just fine. God determines if you are born male or female, just like he determines what role a male or female will fill. Since God has determined that females will have the children and not males then it is logical to place responsibility for me being male, and therefore not able to bear children, at the feet of God. That is completely logical and consistent with my biblical viewpoint. This is in essence what you are asserting by suggesting that God’s design is flawed when he states the different roles for a man or woman. I simply pointed out that God also determined the roles in the design of a man and woman for procreation and yet you seem to be fine with that distinction. So I fail to see how this is illogical. Rather I think it exemplifies your inconsistent position. Again, your presupposition of no absolute morality is really getting you into deep water here again my friend. I sure appreciate all the time you are putting in in your responses though. Thank you ahead…
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 7:44pmAre people seeing these posts? They aren’t showing up for me.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 7:52pmI see that one….
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:01pmI have no idea what is going on. I’ve posted the same response 3 different times, yet they aren’t going through.
so then I post the one asking if people are seeing these, and it goes through, then I try posting my response again and it doesn’t go through. Maybe it’s getting blocked for filtering reasons? I’m not saying any inappropriate lol.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:51pmWell I”m annoyed, so I’m not going to type out my whole response. I will only address the question I think you were posing at me. Something along the lines of, “What happens to someone who disagrees with your morality?” Forgive me if that wasn’t your question, I’m just really annoyed with the blaze.
As far as the question.
If someone disagrees with me, i will talk with them like I am you. Hopefully we can have a good discussion like we’re doing and maybe come to an agreement.
What doesn’t happen, is I don’t come at someone claiming that my viewpoints have a supernatural backing. I don‘t claim to already know the way they should view life and I also don’t then say that anybody who disagrees with me is going to spend an eternity on an alternate plane of existence getting tortured.
Report Post »The_Doors_Of_Perception
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 12:49pm@Sleazy
Well I love you man(woman) but you sure are long winded. I will try and keep it short. I am aware some of the bible could be historically accurate…but that of course doesn’t speak to its divinity. Israel Finklestein has some great evidence that there are some historical inaccuracies in the bible. Again, this doesn’t speak to it not being divine.
I was just curious….because to me if you are going to make the leap to “contextualize” slavery in the bible then you would have to do the same with it mentioning talking animals and such.
Report Post »El-ahrairah
Posted on July 20, 2012 at 3:20am@Hippo You sound like you just finished Phil101 at the community college and want to impress everyone with your use of “fallacy of ____ fallacy.” It’s both hilarious and irritating to read, yet strangely addictive.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:55pmTo the friends and family of Mr. Perce, my condolences in advance.
Report Post »Realman30
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:12pmLOL
My he burn in hell.
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:34pmMy thoughts exactly. This guy isn’t that hard to find and no doubt there are jihadists already on their way with a kitchen knife and a video camera.
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 10:20am‘Realman’s’ post here is one of the most hilarious distillations of the ethos of the redneck American Christian I have ever seen. Complete with: Stars n’ Bars, misspelling, use of the word ‘LOL,‘ a name that begs you to think he’s a macho man, and some good ol‘ fashion Christian charity when he tells you to ’burn to hell.’
The purpose of religion in the modern world is that it provides a license for unintelligent, unimportant, and unlettered people to tell their betters to ‘go to hell.’ It is the most childish defense mechanism in the history of humanity.
Report Post »Wringeaux
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:55pmBehead those who say Islam is violent !
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:39pmNuke ‘em! Nothing on the surface of the ******* territory is worth anything to anybody in the West. Once the radiation levels drop, drill baby drill!
No apologies to anybody on this one. I was in the Med during 1972-73 and I saw the moo-slum world for what it was and what islam for what it is- a Satanic cult of subjugation and death. NOT the “religion of peace” Bush told us. That is the one time I truly believe Bush lied.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:50pmThe irony that Atheism, as a movement, has taken on every single characteristic of an organized religion is hysterically funny to me.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:09pmAnd they’ve killed more people than any religion has throughout history.
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:13pmHuh? How is atheism a religion? Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Simple as that. Are you a Christian? If so you are an atheist, you just believe in one more god than I do.
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:18pm@GIT-R-DONE
Atheism has not killed anyone. Some people who were atheists have done very bad things, but never in the name of Atheism. Hitler was a christian, but nobody is going to legitimately say that he murdered Jews in the name of Christianity, in the same way that no one is going to say that Stalin murdered millions of people in the name of Atheism! Both were very, very bad, misguided people, but neither killed in the name of Atheism/Christianity.
That being said, millions and millions of people have been killed IN THE NAME of Christianity/Islam. Just look to the crusades, the inquisition, islamic terrorism, etc.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:06pmHitler was not a Christian…my goodness read some history…The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7) ”
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52) ”
These are just two of his quotes..Read the book and become better informed please, thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:12pmAtheism as an ideology has killed more than a 100 million due to the atheistic and therefore messianic complex of some very ruthless dictators in the modern era, who believed they needed to save their civilizations. When God is taken out of the equations leaders take it upon themselves to to dictate the goal of the State and how its needs can best be served by the population. People become subserviant to the State and also expendable. Of course some evil people who claimed to be religious have used it to gain power and abuse people as well, but there is no denying (if intellectually honest) thatatheism has led to much death and suffering in the modern era (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) all athiests, just for starters, but between them you are approaching 100 million dead.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:29pmWith regards to the correlation between atheism and Communism; it would be fallaciously simplistic to claim that atheism is the only motivating factor behind Communism and yet, it is certainly a major factor and the very premise upon which Communist ideology was built.
Let us simply consider the words of Communists leaders themselves and then the opinion of a major scholar in the research of Communism.
Karl Marx stated,
“Darwin’s book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view … Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”144
Leon Trotsky elucidated further in, The ABC of Materialist Dialectics:
“We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our ‘free will’, but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebulae … Darwinism … was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.”
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:30pmJM, I apologize that I used multisyllabic words and confused you. But since it’s the most efficient, concise way to convey my point, I suggest you find a dictionary and go through this again word-by-word: “Atheism, as a movement, has taken on every single characteristic of an organized religion”. Good luck, Forest.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:33pm“ … it occurred to me—let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”152
President and Founder of the Union of the Militant Godless, Yemilian Yaroslavsky (né Minei Israilevich Gubelman), made it clear that Stalin,
“At a very early age … began to read Darwin and became an atheist” and that Stalin stated, “You know, they are fooling us, there is no God … I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense … Darwin. You must read it.”153
Mao Zedong affirmed:
“Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”157
I await your rebuttal…thank you….
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:38pm@SLEAZY
Umm FYI, Darwin has nothing to do with Atheism. I will say it again, Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Nowhere in there is there anything regarding Darwin. Now, I will say that Darwin’s theory of evolution is most certainly the foundation for modern biological science. Evolution is a fact. There is no arguing that.
Any intelligent atheist will tell you that society should try and live out a Darwinian existence though! That would be silly. We, as a society, do not strive for a survival of the fittest, rather we try and coexist together to better humankind.
Nowhere in those quotes is there anything referring to their Atheism, and correlation does not equal causation. If we are going to play that game, I am going to look at Pastor Ted Haggard and say that christianity supports homosexuality and methamphetamine. I will look at Timothy McVeigh and claim that Christianity has contributed to the murder of American citizens. I could go on.
No comment on the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc.
Hitler most certainly began as a Christian. Again, I clearly stated that no logical person would blame his Christian roots for his atrocities.
@MODEL
You just repeated the same thing you stated in your first comment. Come on back when you can formulate an argument.
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:48pm@SLEAZY
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.”
-Adolf Hitler 1922
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”
Report Post »-Adolf Hitler 1933
John655
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:59pm@ JMC
Umm Tim McVeigh was an atheist. He was brought up catholic but abandoned his faith. You mentioned the crusades, well I’d bet you never read a single scholary book about the crusades. The crusades were wars of self defense for Christians. And the long memeroy of the crusades by muslims is a rather recent invention. A typical muslim living at the time of the crusades were barely aware of them at all. If they did know about the crusades they just considered them another faction that had been allied with one group of muslims or another group of muslims. The accounts of the christians killing all the inhabitants of Jerusalem are just dumb. Jews and muslims worshipped and lived in Jerusalem during the 60 yrs or so that the christians occupied it.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:05pm@JMCC… Evolution is the engine of atheism, (honesty plz)…You do not believe in evolution, I know of no atheist that does not? You know full well that it is and to say otherwise is a disingenuous, not to mention a fallacious statement. You need to read your history more and understand the connection between Darwinism and the rise of atheism if you truly believe your statement. We need intellectual honesty here not games. Microevolution is a fact, Macroevolution is NOT fact at this point at all. That is an incorrect scientific statment.
If we are going to play that game, I am going to look at Pastor Ted Haggard and say that christianity supports homosexuality and methamphetamine. LOICAL FALLACY of composition, and weak analogy.
Report Post »First atheism as you pointed out is a lack of belief it has no set of standard beliefs, Christianity most certainly does, so it is not logically flawed to point out that these leaders were in fact atheists and by their own mouths based their leadership decisions (murder) based upon their athiesic views of the world and humanity. Christianity, having a set of beliefs, would not support homosexuality or drug usage in its traditional orthodox form, so that was a very weak analogy flaw. Secondly, this analogy would also be logically fallacious because of the Composition fallacy. Atheism not having a set of beliefs alleviates me from this fallacy in my assertion. So your argument falls apart logically, thanks ahead for your time and comme
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:14pm“Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao … .163
“The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.164
“The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
These men were well known outspoken athiests/marxists/darwinian men whose motivations are undenied by the intellectually honest. No getting around it my friend….
Report Post »jmcclena
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:25pm@SLEAZY
Again, Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. If that were the case, there would be no historical Atheists pre Darwin. Obviously this is not the case, there have been many, many prominent Atheists throughout the history of man (Diagoras of Melos, Epicurus, Ibn al-Rawandi, Baron d’Holbach… I could go on). So your argument is false.
Second, I was using a logical fallacy to point our YOUR logical fallacy.
Third, you must be reading a few too many christian apologists. “Macroevolution” and “microevolution” are the same thing. Both are fact.
Finally, you say “Atheism not having a set of beliefs…”
Report Post »… So you recognize that evolution has nothing to do with atheism?
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:25pmHITLER QUOTES
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, *******? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:26pmHITLER QUOTES..
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don‘t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:29pmHitler admits public statements are hallucinated to persuade and have no bearing on truth.
these are private statements Hitler made. Atheists quote his public statments which sound Chritian in places. But I argue there were political lies callculated to hoodwink the masses. What did Hitler believe about public statments and propaganda? He tells us:
“To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it’s soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result”. (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:33pm“As an example of Hitler’s honesty, consider the following from a letter by Hitler to the French fascist Hervé and published in the Nazi Völkischer Beobachter on October 26, 1930 (Heiden, Der Fuehrer, p. 414)” :
“I think I can assure you that there is no one in Germany who will not with all his heart approve any honest attempt at an improvement of relations between Germany and France. My own feelings force me to take the same attitude… The German people has the solemn intention of living in peace and friendship with all civilized nations and powers… And I regard the maintenance of peace in Europe as especially desirable and at the same time secured, if France and Germany, on the basis of equal sharing of natural human rights, arrive at a real inner understanding… The young Germany, that is led by me and that finds its expression in the National Socialist Movement, has only the most heartfelt desire for an understanding with other European nations.”
Sorry for the serial posts but I needed to prove the point. Hitler always told public lies. You check where your quote was made/addressed. It was public in nature.
A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel, Away with incense and Holy Water, The Church can go hang for all we care, The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 12:13am@ JMCC…you are being intellectually dishonest as I have provided quotes from the men themselves and they are universally known as very outspoken atheists. Please quit reiterating the same nonsense. It lQQks very disingenuous. Of course their were atheist before Darwinism but if you do a cursory reading of history you will see the increase of atheism by using the theory of Darwinism as its foundation particularly at the ealry part of last century, which is the time period we have been mainly exemplifying. Please for goodness sake, for the love of honest debate, switch your tactic to something that is actually factually foundational….These men are self defined atheists. Please do not commit the logical fallacy of red herring anymore. Now back to the main point. I await a real rebuttal. Because you do not understand or will not intellectually admit the strong connection between Darwinism and atheism, especially early in the 20th century does not make my argument logically flawed, it is not it is based on historical fact.
Report Post »You stated, “Second, I was using a logical fallacy to point our YOUR logical fallacy.” Please think about that statement. First I did not use a logical fallacy, I fully explained why in my post. Secondly that statement is a nonsequitur….Continued….
Thank you ahead….
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 12:23am@ JMCC….Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]……I don‘t mean to be testy but you don’t know what you are talking about and your intellectual dishonesty is somewhat frustrating. While I do read Christian apologits, I am a physician with a strong background in the sciences and am fully aware with evolution, field biology, and the hard sciences. I did not need to lQQk it up I did so for your benefit. Atheism has no set of beliefs in the sense that it exerts a negative existential assertion, but this position is girded and supported by darwinism (modified into modern day evolution theory in the MACRO sense of the word), to explain our existence and thus attempting to make it a logical explanation of our existence without the need for a god….Thank you for your time…
Report Post »destrecht
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 8:43amjcmclena a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
Atheists believe that there is no God. The beleive in the natural world. Stalin and Mao both killed in the name of Atheism. (‘Religion is a sickness’) Regardless, it was their Atheistic beliefs that caused them to not care about life.
All of the inquisitions caused about 6,000 deaths. All of the crusades had about 125,000 to 200,000. While it’s a horrible thing, it’s nowhere near the numbers you throw around.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 6:22pmTimothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph are Christian extremists? Why, because they both happen to be white guys?
1. They did not even attempt to justify their actions by reference to Christian Scripture or tradition
2. They were not acting on mainstream Christian teachings
3. There are not large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.
Report Post »Kankokage
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:49pmWell, we asked for it, and now we’re getting it. An atheist is going to heavily insult Islam. Unfortunately for the atheist, those in Islam tend to get a little more upset than those of us in Christianity.
How about this, atheists: RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:34pmChristians threatened to kill a man who stole some crackers from a Catholic church.
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/07/atheists_the_eu.html
You also ignore all of the times throughout history that Christianity didn’t just let something go and tortured a person for not being a Christian, or tortured someone who they thought was a witch, or stole babies from Jewish families because they believed they were saving the soul of the baby from being a Jew.
It is secular America pulling Christianity towards being more rational that is the result of Christians being so relaxed.
Report Post »macpappy
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:43pmHow about this, Respect no religion, any more than you would a fable.
Report Post »Kankokage
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:31pmLamest comeback ever, moderation“is”best. In fact, I’m not even sure why you made that asinine, vapid remark other than to incite anger. Or, perhaps, you’re completely intolerant and bigoted like the fellow who posted after you. Pity.
Report Post »John655
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:13pm@Moderation
I followed your link. What a laugh. Death threats my bum. I notice the article didn’t produce any of the so called death threats. There are always a few crazies in every group but I’m willing to bet the so called “death threats” were people, who were rightfuly upset considering we are talking about the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinty of Jesus Christ, making statements to the fact that they may burn in hell for their behavior. I pray you and all involved in that story find Christ before it’s too late.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:14pm@KANKOKAGE
I‘m sorry that you don’t like history proving that Christianity wasn’t always as “peaceful” as it is now. Thankfully for Christianity, people forget how brutally evil it was for a very long time. They just didn’t have 21st century weapons to prove how peaceful they were like the Muslims do.
Report Post »John655
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:36pm@ Moderation
I‘m sorry that you don’t like history proving that Christianity wasn’t always as “peaceful” as it is now. Thankfully for Christianity, people forget how brutally evil it was for a very long time. They just didn’t have 21st century weapons to prove how peaceful they were like the Muslims do
You prove the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do you know that during those dark ages that you imply about Christianity, people always wanted to go before a Church inquistion rather than a civil trial? You see the civil authorities were brutual while the Church has always been a shelter for a repentant criminial. You lack any understanding of history which would give you the contect you need to properly judge the past. For example, a medieval man thought fighting in defense of his religion was noble, they would never think of fighting over resources or political ideology. Try reading some history before lecturing us on it.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:07am@JOHN655
Here we go again with the crazy rationalizations.
“No no, a man actually PREFERRED getting tortured because he wasn’t a Christian.”
That’s essentially what you just said.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 6:14pmDon‘t post if you can’t understand someone then.
Report Post »Dde13
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:48pmMuslim love the freedom of religion in our country (I don‘t agree it’s a religion) but have big problems with freedom of speech…
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:52pmYes, they do. They love the fact that the Government will side with them and islam can grow and develop, thanks to a pro-mooslum president and the Democrat Party who stand with palestinians agains Israel and Christianity. They will silence the Christian Conservatives and remove anything Christian from public view -it offends the atheists and moo-slums- but keep the media quiet about the moo-slums choking off traffic in major cities in the United States so they can line up en-masse and pray IN PUBLIC on PUBLIC PROPERTY AND RIGHT OF WAY to their satanic god.
No doubt there are many morons in this country that don’t have a problem with that.
Remember in November/Lock and Load
Report Post »PATRIOT
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:47pmGood luck mac. I wish more atheists would treat the religion of islam like they do Christianity. There seems to be a dramatic difference in the way the religion of islam and Christian faiths are treated by atheists. {and yes i do refuse to capitalize islam.}
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 11:22amThere aren’t a lot of atheists in islamic countries. They speak out against christianity more because often, the topic is in their back yard. If islam starts to gain in popularity in [for example] the United States, . . . you will see more and more atheists speak up.
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:44pmOnly 571 death threats? “Allahu Akbar” isn’t just a slogan anymore; it’s a caliphate! I love how the American Atheist Organization quickly says “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! This Perce guy isn’t speaking for all Atheists!” Perce, I think you are a complete nut and, I would tell you to respect other people’s religious beliefs! Fortunately for us Islam is NOT a religion – it’s a disease – so I say thrash away!!!
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:20pmBetter yet, bury the Koran halfway in the dirt and throw acid on its front cover sharia law stylee!
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:40pmFrom the looks of that photo and Ernest‘s writings he probably doesn’t realize the gravity of the situation he finds himself in.
Report Post »KingCanon
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:38pmThese atheistic human wannabes always have that different almost stupid look…. don’t they?
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:37pmMajor loser!
Report Post »possom
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:36pmTheir gonna KEEEEEL him.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:35pmShall we start a dead pool? I doubt this guy will make it through another year.
Report Post »progressiveslayer
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:43pmHahaha Clint Eastwood and Jim Carey flick,pretty good movie. 100.00 says the man with the vacant look on his face won’t be around a year from now.
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:48pmYes, just like March Madness, we need a chart for the Arab Spring. Everyone fill in your brackets and let’s see if Ernest Perce and Terry Jones make it into the Final Four!
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:59pmV15, That’s an excellent idea. Hey MONK, think you can do some of your wizardry and convince The Blaze to post a set of brackets where can enter, and keep it up for one year?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:04pmHi RJJ,
I’ll look into it.
BTW, that other site isn’t working. : (
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:12pmHi Monk, Thanks, and if they do, it will be funny. Too bad. I’m still waiting for The Blaze to bring up that same topic and run the video, because I can already see responses from particular trolls.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:20pmHi RJJ,
Is that other site working for you? I see it as down. : (
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:34pmMONK, Sorry, had to sign into my regular IPO to try to pull that up. It’s working here.
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:57pmHi RJJ,
Nope, still down. Try to send/post something.
Report Post »v15
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 10:17pmRJJ and MONK, you two are thick as thieves it seems….. haha :)
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:55pmA Dead Pool? Sounds like a sure bet.
Report Post »TheEDGE
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:35pmWow! An atheist with balls.
Report Post »macpappy
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:50pmYou didn’t think that one through.
Report Post »Athiest are much stronger than people that hold faith in sky gods. They go through life knowing that death is death, no magic is going to make them live forever. They go through life being “personaly responsible” for their errors in life. At night they don’t have a god to forgive them of any tresspass they might have done another.
Athiest will die for their own sins. They won’t be throwing any Prophets under the bus, when the curtain is pulled.
Believing that a Spirit is resposible for, and can give forgiveness for your sins is, sir, the hieght of weakness.
Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:04pm@MCPAPPY Sad. How empty your life must be, and how cheap life must be to you. If death is just turning off the switch and that is it, I bet you feel nothing when you see injuststice, suffering, joy or jubilation. Just another day on the barren rock with all the other brain-dead life forms, huh? You must believe that everything just is and there was no rhyme or reason, and the Earth is just a fluke and that is that.
Sad…..
Report Post »macpappy
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:25pmNot so sad, as I don’t have to live my life guilty of the sin of being a human being. I don‘t live my life in fear of a God that proclaims that If I don’t worship his son I will be interned in hell. Nope, not sad at all, free as a matter of fact. Oh yeah, and Ballsy too,
Report Post »TheEDGE
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 11:06pmSounds like my balls comment got under someone’s skin.
Report Post »DeavonReye
Posted on July 19, 2012 at 11:15amI agree with your words, MACPAPPY. It takes MUCH more character to be a NON-believer. It takes guts to stand when those around you call you “a fool for saying ‘there is no god’”, especially when they are “completely sure they are right”. No amount of persuasion sinks in. Just “I believe, and that’s final”. Of course, it is out of fear that a god being will torture them in hell forever IF they reject it. The subconscious “get out of hell free card” that emerges in as an unyielding piousness. . . . yet will act like just about everyone else, particularly when no one else is watching.
To THEEDGE, in these days, it really DOES “take balls” [crued visual aside] to stand against Islam. Why? Because those people are freakin lunatics! There is a level of strength that is there in a person who stands up to say, “THIS is what’s wrong with Islam”. I won’t risk it. Good luck to him.
Report Post »tothepoint
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:34pmDear Ernest:
Report Post »I sure hope you have excellent security because once the Muslims catch a glimpse of your actions, they are gonna chase you down. I’ve read the Koran and have watched their hatred and violence against anyone who points out the truth of Islam.
I would hate to see anything happen to you because you have a right to your opinions and a right to your godless religion of atheism.
As a Christian, I am not concerned with your views of Christianity as I believe Christ will eventually touch your heart and draw you to Him. May God bless you. Stay safe.
Individualism
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:33pmReligion is slavery as submission to goverment is.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 8:28pmSlavery? Slavery to what I wonder, morality, justice, good character? Perhaps you will use some trite argument about how “the priests live off the backs of the people” and in some cases you are right, but there are many that do no such thing.
Now you might also argue that our religion has enslaved us to a set of ideas, but truly how are you a slave? Some people go overboard when it comes to keeping people a part of their religion, but any true religion does not need coercion to keep it’s members, any that does has stopped being a religion. And only a fool would consider judgement that awaits you for disobeying God’s tenants, if you don’t believe Him, why would you fear His retribution?
When a religion becomes an organization that no longer seeks to enlighten and inspire but rather to rule and gain power, it is no longer a follower of whatever God it claims to follow. People who manipulate religion in their search for power are among the worst kind of people in the world.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 6:07pmWhy do you think totalitarian powers hate religion? It’s fatal to them if the little guy can appeal to authority over the heads of political power.
Even today the government of Communist China persecutes both Protestants who read the bible outside the guidance of the government approved religious authorities and Catholics who are loyal to the pope.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:29pmThis is cute and all, but there is just one problem; islam is NOT A RELIGION – it is a terrorist cult/organization.
Report Post »tothepoint
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:35pmIslam was started by Muhammed who took a 6 year old as his bride and consummated the marriage when that poor little girl was only 9. In decent societies, that is pedophilia.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:38pmIt’s an ideology with a religious twist.
Report Post »berycuda71
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:40pmYou are correct, but most “ignorant” people see it
Report Post »John655
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 7:50pmMohammad is either a lier or he did have a supernatural visitation. I lean towards the supernatural visitation. The real question is who visited him. Well, since I’m a catholic, I have to say it was the opposing team that visited him.
Report Post »Skrewedretiree
Posted on July 17, 2012 at 9:08pm@JOHN655- You hit the nail on the head.
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on July 18, 2012 at 1:32pmHit the nail on the head? More like he employed the moronic belief that Islam is of the devil. Let me give you a hint, there are no devils and there is no boogeyman underground. I hope you realize that what you said of Islam is mirrored in reciprocal by many hardcore Jews in Israel. How supportive of Israel you neo-cons are, yet their version of the tea party mocks the new testament and destroys it.
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-israeli-lawmaker-tears-testament-101541114.html
Report Post »