Rss Feeds

Total news: 421
Last news: 22 hours 52 minutes ago

1 Cor 3:13 ...the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.

Total news: 40
Last news: September 6, 2010 08:36:30

At ExChristian.Net I also encountered a group of people who seemed to have a hard time understanding the metaphorical, or symbolic, or correlative, or conceptual nature of making statements such as “…is Dead”—such as “Atheism is Dead” or “EvilBible.com is Dead.”

The EvilBible is dead? Well I guess youre right, but it seems when they died they got to go to heaven and are still hosting from that special remote locale now…

Nope. You is wrong and/or a liar. Evilbible.com is still online…

MarianoPrevaricatoricusEvilBible.com seems to be alive and kicking as opposed to what your pathetic and infantile dumb-**** site claims -- you delusional ********.

MarianoPrevaricatoricus - Love it, sconnor! ;-D

LOL! How could Atheism be "dead"? Millions(and growing) dont harbor a belief in invisible, conscious creator-beings, because they dont see any credible evidence for such things. Thats not going to change because some idiot has a blog called "Atheismisdead". Again, ****!...

Mariano, atheism is alive and well. It will continue to be alive and well as long as there is one sentient being in the universe that does not believe in gods. It is highly unlikely that anyone could destroy atheism on Earth, because in every generation there is at least one person who doubts the dubious drivel that has been presented to them as "The Truth." And ridicule works just fine for Me, thanks. Produce empirical evidence for your imaginary friend, or ****…

…"Atheism is dead", which is untrue. Atheism is alive, well, and growing…

"AtheismisDead"(Atheism is Dead) blog, which, the title itself, is a falsehood, since "Atheism" is alive, well, and growing…

Oooooo....lets see..."responses" from a disrespectful, disingenuous religious person. One who, no less, advertises bold-faced lies on his blog...i.e..."Atheismisdead", when in fact, Atheism is not only alive, but growing daily, and hopefully to the point that in a few thousand years people will scoff at "Christianity" like todays Christians scoff at every other religion. Got-all-muddy!.....if I could only live to see the day! [ellipses in original]…
Not-to-mention, you are a ******* liar. Atheism is NOT "dead". You have zero credibility. And you can beat your "logical fallacy" drum until donkeys talk.....oops, they already do that in that vivid imagination of yours----okay, until donkeys fly….your blog title, itself, is a blatant mis-truth(lie). [ellipses in original]…

Repeat: "Atheism" is most certainly NOT "dead". In fact, in the very document by which you claim to know this "Truth", it assures you/us that there will be skeptics/doubters(Atheists) in its supposed foretelling of the future. Surely, even you see the conundrum this presents for the bible-believer… [expletives removed]

As we shall see, this is no mere oddity but a premise upon which they, very happily, build a fortress of ad hominems.
As for EvilBible.com is Dead I grant that this does not mean that the website is not longer on the www or that it is there but not functioning or that it is not popular. Certainly, it is popular and I am learning that it is popular because the pseudo-skeptics hold it dear and simply refuse to consider evidence to the contrary as it, apparently, does not even cross their minds to exercise skepticism and question its contents and assertions.
As for “Atheism is Dead,” there have been many, many, many times that this has come up right here at home. Firstly, I thought that the correlation to Friedrich Nietzsche’s statement “God is Dead” was obvious. Would they argue that since Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that “God is Dead” he actually believed in a mortal God who once lived but was now dead? Was he wrong in stating “God is Dead” since there were and are still people who believe in God?
Yes, I claimed that “Atheism is Dead” but I have heard rumors that there are still atheists around. Well, of course. Geocentrism is dead but there are still geocentrists around. Conceptually, atheism is dead for various reasons including that their ultimate answer to any and all of life’s deepest and most important questions is “It just is,” “It just happened,” “It just happened to have happened that way,” etc. I claim that “Atheism is Dead” but do not claim that “Atheists Are Dead.”
Moreover, the more we look through telescopes and microscopes the more atheists insist that “It just happened to have happened” and the more we find evidence of an creative intelligence which we can infer exists outside of our time-space continuum (as I touched upon in my parsed post On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.).

I think that the most interesting of these ad hominems is “Atheism is NOT ‘dead’. You have zero credibility. And you can beat your ‘logical fallacy’ drum until donkeys talk…” To recap; they determine that I have zero credibility merely by reading the title of my blog. This is the same person who later presupposed that I was declaring atheism to be dead based on a “document”—the Bible. But of course, they do not know why I make the claim and as far as I can tell they have never actually read anything posted at Atheism is Dead.

The most fascinating part is that they state I can beat my “logical fallacy” drum until donkeys talk. I am forced to conclude that they are well aware that they are committing, at least one, logical fallacy and simply do not care. It is as if they demand that I provide logical arguments for God’s existence but refuse to follow the very same laws of logic upon which my argument and their critique of it would rely. Apparently, logic is relevant to my argument but not to theirs.

I was particularly taken with the expressed hope that “in a few thousand years people will scoff at ‘Christianity.’”
Well, it have been said before and will be said again and here are some of your comrades:
Roman Emperor Diocletian commanded the destruction of the scriptures.

Voltaire wrote, “Another century and there will not be a Bible on earth!”

Thomas Paine wrote, “Fifty years after I die, the Bible will be obsolete.”

John Lennon stated, “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue with that; I’m right, and I will be proved right.”

Sam Harris looks forward to a time when “making religious certitude look stupid will be exploited, and we’ll start laughing at people who believe…We’ll laugh at them in a way that will be synonymous with excluding them from our halls of power.”

And on they go.

Lastly, if I also disregarded logic this essay would mere consist of one sentence which would read thusly,

The title “ExChristian.Net” is false since there is no such thing as an ExChristian and therefore, everything hosted on that website is discredited.

That would certainly be convenient a first class ad hominem and a first class evasion. Perhaps, I could even state, “you can beat your ‘logical fallacy’ drum until an entire fine-tuned universe comes from and by nothing, until life comes from nonlife, etc.”
A friend wrote a succinct essay entitled No such thing as an ExChristian which may be elucidating at this point.

Note that at ExChristian.Net I responded by stating “Indeed, atheism is alive and well since it is very appealing as the ultimate consoling delusion” and received some very telling and affirming responses to which we will come in a moment, after considering the ad hominems to which I referred above.
I had commented that,

Responding to my evidence which discredits evilbible.com by besmirching the title of my blog is what is known in logic as an ad hominem or genetic fallacy: it means that you are attacking the source of the arguments whilst ignoring the argument itself.

Some responses were as follows:

…the name of your blog (in the link you provided) contains the phrase, "Atheism is dead", which is untrue...So, if the mere title of your "information" contains a blantant [sic] lie, why should I believe that the "information", itself, isnt full of them? I guess what Im saying is that you have zero credibilty [sic] as far as Im concerned…

Call it whatever the **** youd like---if your blog "title" contains misinformation(a lie)..i.e.."Atheismisdead"(Atheism is dead), then I have good reason and every right to be skeptical...

Indeed, they have “every right to be skeptical” and I only wish that they were. These responses provide us with text book examples of ad hominem / genetic fallacy; they got that logical fallacy down pat—now they should get beyond it and actually engage upon reasoned discourse. Understand that the issue is that I challenged them with information that claimed to contradict that which they hold dear. A true and honest skeptic would jump at the opportunity to have their position challenged, considering the challenging information and then determine, in a logical, scholarly and reasonable manner, which comes out unscathed. What is evidenced in the comments is an attitude of: I do not want to have my beliefs challenged, I will not consider anything that contradicts them and since someone claims to have a good defeater I will simply find an excuse for not bothering exercising skepticism.

I could build a blog and title it “2+2=5” and yet have the content of my blog state “1+1=2”—the title is false but the content is true which is why one must not commit the ad hominem as it is a diversionary attempt to sidestep the issue at hand. Sentiments to the effect of I will not bother considering your arguments because you made them within a blog that is titled with words with which I disagree is a perfect example of an ad hominem. Thus, they are content to and proud to admit that they will not allow challenges to their beliefs and they are doing so based on a logical fallacy 101.

Along these lines someone else wrote,

Mariano, youre either a spoof or one who is intellectually immature; albeit, intellectual immaturity isnt limited to the faithful, take politics for instance.Anyway, you charge a web-site with ad hominem, yet, you then ad hominem that web-site and promote your views.What you also fail to realize, is that many intellectual people, can dismantle fiction using hard logic and reason. This is true for both religious books and criticisms of religious books.

I certainly do not understand the point that I “then ad hominem that web-site and promote your views” since this assertion is generic and does not provide examples. I honestly do not see how this is the case since I never neglected to consider the contents of evilbible.com or ExChristian.Net based on my disagreeing with the website’s titles. Indeed, many intellectual people, can dismantle fiction using hard logic and reason but I am still waiting for such people to tackle the actual proposed issue at hand.

Another response was,

And for the record, your problem isnt with "Atheism"----no, youre problem is with non-christians [sic]. If every Atheist on earth adopted the belief that the Holy Quran is the last word of the Almighty Allah, youd then have a blog devoted to "debunking" them...perhaps calling it, "Islamisdead", knowing that there are millions of followers of the Islamic "faith". This, being the brilliant man that you are. [emphasis in original]

I think that the reference to my brilliance may be sarcastic. In any regard I actually have no problems; I am just a beggar telling another beggar where to find bread. I should, perhaps, point out that I did have a blog devoted to discussing Islam but have transferred its contents to my Christian Apologetics blog: find it here.

Thus, my friends, I tried, I really attempted to get someone, anyone to confront my argument, the information that I provided on eviblible.com—but alas. I had also commented thusly,

The majority of comments to me are typical of the pseudo-skeptical brand of atheism which replaces reason for ridicule.If anyone has actually practiced true skepticism and considered both what evilbible.com has to say and my dissection of their contents? Or are you all simply pleased to be just like those "religious" people whom you besmirch and conclude that evilbible.com said it so it must be true and I will not question them.

I do not know; only Barack Obama and Allah know—just kidding.

I actually thought to ignore this question. Yet, it brought to the surface a lot of examples of basic misunderstandings of Christian theology and illogically in the media, pop-culture and politics. Also, I have written about it before in the post Osama vs. Obama.

There is a popular saying amongst Christians, “If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The Pew Research Center concludes that 18% of Americans believed that Obama is a Muslim, 34%
Christian, and 43% do not know either way what President Obama believes/practices.

Some say that since, or if, Obama claims to be a Christian then he is. Fine, I am a ten foot tall Japanese woman with wings. Consider that Jesus stated, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23) and so “you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). It is about relationship and actions; not merely about intellectual assent or claims.

How does this apply to Barack Obama? That is not my point. My point is that it applies to claims to being a Christian. Keep in mind that very many people conclude that Adolf Hitler was a Christian and why? Because he said so—note that the premise is that apparently, Hitler was such an honest, upright and trustworthy fellow that whatever he said must have been true—oi vey!

From here I want to consider a good breakdown of statements made by Bill Burton—White House spokesman—about Barack Obama’s Christianity:

He prays every day.
He communicates with his religious advisor every single day.
Theres a group of pastors that he takes counsel from on a regular basis.
His faith is very important to him but its not something thats a topic of conversation every single day.

Note that these claims are very generic, the only Christian thing about them is the word “pastors.”

As I thought about this, I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing this matter, in his usual picante style, and so I will present part of his dissection1:

Its very clever and very artful, but Burtons answer is evasive. The fact that Obama "prays every day" does not make him a Christian. Jews, Muslims, every other religious practitioner "prays every day," some of them multiple times a day. Some of them have calls to prayer which are so beautiful that Obama thinks that theyre "one of the prettiest sounds in the world."

According to the March 6, 2007 AD New York Times interview with Nicholas Kristof, “Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate [Arabic] accent.” This is what President Obama recited, “Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme, Allah is supreme. I witness that there is no god but Allah.”

Then Burton said Obama "communicates with his religious advisor every day." Well, so do religious people of all faiths. Whats a religious advisor?...We all have a pastor, a priest, a rabbi. Weve all got religious advisors…Hes making his Christianity sound like its a policy thing and he has to have a meeting every day with his Christian policy advisors -- and if it is that, if he is having policy meetings with his Christian advisors every day, he needs to replace em because theyre giving him bad advice, cause this is the weakest answer to try to dispel a ridiculous problem…

And then Burton says, "Theres a group of pastors he takes counsel from on a regular basis." Well, so do people of all religions take counsel from their pastors…

It is true that the term “pastor” may be generic but it is generally Christian specific. The resolution would be to ascertain who is being referred to as “pastors” and thereby determine whether they are Christians. However, that someone takes counsel from a group of pastors does not mean that they are Christians. I take counsel from my mechanic but I am not a mechanic (neither do I heed all that he tells me).

And then Burton said, "His faith is very important to him." Yeah. Yeah. Bin Ladens faith is not important to him. Billy Grahams faith isnt particularly important to him. Pope Benedict? (Snorts) His faith is not very important to him. What is this? Obamas faith is very important to him? We are supposed to be dazzled by this? We are supposed to be mesmerized? We are supposed to be persuaded, convinced? Wow. Who knew that Obamas faith is very important to him?

Faith is important to millions of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, terrorists, Buddhists. Atheists! Atheism is a faith. Its very important to those people. Obamas mother was a atheist. But none of this, none of it relates to the question of Obamas Christianity. Zip, zero, nada. This didnt cut it.

Then Burton calls Obamas Christianity "obvious." Well, uh, isnt that the point, ladies and gentlemen? It isnt obvious if were polling it. Let me correct myself: It isnt obvious if Obamas own media is polling it. Bill Clintons Christianity was obvious. Clinton was in every black church he could find. Clinton was out there claiming to be the first black president in a spiritual sense. George W. Bushs Christianity was obvious.

He talked about it. He talked about it in ways that defined him as a person. Clinton did, too. Clinton was also very obvious about it because every time there was a sex scandal, we had him standing in front of the Reverend Jackson and others, "religious advisors," and they were having prayer meetings and they were holding hands and so forth. It was obvious that Clinton was a Christian.
It was obvious that George W. Bush was a Christian. It was obvious that FDR was a Christian. So obvious that nobody ever asked. No one even thought to ask, "Is Bush a Christian?" In fact, when they talked about Bush being a Christian it was to criticize him. We had stories and articles: "Is Bushs faith guiding policy?"

When Bush talked about the desire of every human being to be free, that thats part of our creation, remember how they cringed? The same media that now apparently so love and respect Christianity that they are damn well convinced that Obama is one, and they are damn well persuaded that weve gotta believe it.
But Bushs Christianity? They didnt like it, and they dont like right-wing Christianity…They dont like Christianity that talks about pro-life. They hate it! The ruling class doesnt want to get anywhere near it.

Now all of a sudden it is crucial that we understand Obamas a Christian because its important to him. But we didnt have to ask it about FDR, we didnt have to ask it about Clinton, we didnt have to ask it about George W. Bush.
Nobody asked Burton, "Okay, hes got all these religious advisors. Does he listen to them? Does he listen to their message?" because he said he never listened to Reverend Wright. He cant tell you what Reverend Wright ever said when he was a member of that church for 20 years. Did you know that Reverend Wright used to be a Muslim? Did you know that? You might have known that and forgotten it, but Reverend Wright used to be a Muslim and now hes a black liberation theologist. Which is some sort of Christianity, but he used to be Muslim.

So nothing is "obvious" about Obamas Christianity, Mr. Burton, and the telltale sign is that you even have to say it. Were polling it! You see, Obamas Christianity is the opposite of obvious. "What do you mean by that, Limbaugh? What do you mean! How can you sit there and say Obamas Christianity is the opposite of obvious?" Well, glad you asked. Let me splain it.

He has a Muslim name: "Barack Hussein Obama." He had a Muslim father and an extended Muslim family in Kenya. He was partly raised and educated in Indonesia by a Muslim stepfather. He has Muslim half-sisters and brothers, one of whom continues to reside in a three-by-five-foot hut in Kenya. His mother was a self-proclaimed and unaffiliated atheist. Obama professed no religion and belonged to no church until he joined Reverend Wrights Trinity Church in Chicago.

He did this in his late twenties and his mentor there, the estimable Reverend Jeremiah Wright, was a Muslim who converted to black liberation theology, which is a highly exotic (lets be politic here) highly exotic form of Christianity in the American, even black American, context. Its pretty exotic. Obamas great literary intellectual role model was Malcolm X. One of Obamas religious advisors is a Chicago Muslim, Eboo Patel. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf (or "Ruuf," however he pronounces the last name) the controversial Muslim leader behind the plan to build the Islamic Center and mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero wrote the afterward to Eboo Patels 2006 book: Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action.

So the Ground Zero mosque imam wrote the afterward to Obamas religious advisors book. The religious advisor is a Muslim. So, Mr. Burton, Obamas Christianity is the opposite of obvious. You have to dig deep here to find it. Now, having said all that, none of what I have said means that Obamas a Muslim and none of it means that Obamas not a sincere Christian. If hes going to say that he is, fine. We will accept that hes a Christian. I still find it amazing were polling it. And I have to laugh. Have you seen the latest examples of the media trying to convince us that hes not a Muslim?

Pictures of the beer summit! Pictures of Obama with a brewski. "See! He cant be a Muslim; hes drinking beer. You know Muslim dont approve of alcohol." Theyre going to great lengths. But hes not "obviously" a Christian. We have to take that on (ahem) faith, if I may use the word. We have to accept his Christianity on faith, to believe that hes telling us the truth because his Christianity is not obvious by any intellectually coherent definition of the word…

The “He cant be a Muslim; hes drinking beer” issue is interesting. Apparently, no Jews eat bacon.

Now, heres the point. On a lot of personal things like religion, I have no idea what Barack Obama believes. I mean this NASA mission to make Muslims feel good about themselves, they had to walk that back. I mean that was a head scratcher, wasnt it? The new purpose of NASA is outreach for Muslims to make them feel good about math and science?...

he apologizes for his country; he doesnt understand this controversy about the mosque at Ground Zero or, worse, he does understand it and is just giving us a thumb in the eye…

I dont care about his religious beliefs, frankly, unless hes lying about them…Were gonna play that Tom Brokaw-Charlie Rose bite again today where they admitted they dont know much about him. Nobody knows anything about him. Were having to ask people in polls whether or not hes a Muslim, for crying out loud…electing Barack Obama president is the equivalent of marrying somebody without knowing a damn thing about them until the next day, and that unusually happens when youre drunk, and in a place like Las Vegas. And when that usually happens you go in for a quickie divorce, but we cant do that, so were kind of stuck with this…

Obamas going to church via the BlackBerry. He gets those devotionals downloaded to his BlackBerry every day. The American people are used to seeing their presidents go to church, but, no, Obamas getting his devotional from the BlackBerry. By the way, his devotionals come from his Muslim advisor, too. Hes got a Muslim religious advisor…

Indeed, President Obama stated that he receives daily devotionals but that they are from various faiths. Even devoted Christians can appreciate the wisdom of other faiths but they would never consider them part of their “devotions/devotionals.”
Consider what C. S. Lewis wrote as he juxtaposed his current Christianity with his former atheism:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through.
If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.
If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth.
When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.2

Barack Obama has stated that he does not attend a church, while claiming to for months to be looking for a church home, because it would be too disruptive. Apparently, no other president in the history of the USA has ever noticed that. No wonder Thomas Jefferson attended a Christian church which worshipped in the Capitol Building.

He makes a habit of praising all things Islamic but when it comes to the Bible…well, just read Osama vs. Obama.

Now, during his interview with pastor Rick Warren Obama did state, “I believe Jesus died for my sins and Im redeemed through him – that is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.”

As a side note; while Glenn Beck is correct about the un-biblical nature of Barack Obama’s theology (more specifically, soteriology)—that “Individual salvation depends on collective salvation”—it is utter irony that Beck himself hold to un-biblical theology—see my essay about Glenn Beck.

Overall; the point is not to be the final arbiters of Barack Obama’s faith or salvation. The point is that his background, his words, his actions and the fallacious nature of the arguments of those who seek to defend him only add fuel to the fires of flummox.

1. 1. Rush Limbaugh, “Analyzing WH Spokesman Burtons Statement on the Presidents Faith,” August 20, 2010
2. 2. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 29

Keeping in mind that his previous theories relied on “imaginary time”; hot off of the press is the latest from Stephen Hawking along with Leonard Mlodinow.
Apparently, many atheists are happy because a book tells then that God need not exist.

For my parsed essay about creation, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. I received an interesting comment responding to the statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause:

Why does something beginning to exist have a cause?
This is a Theological argument on cause and effect... which derives from Newtonion laws of physics. However, it has already been shown that Newtonian laws of physics did not exist until the big bang occurred, therefore before the big bang, an effect did not necessarily have a cause, so your argument is flawed and we are here because we are... simple [both ellipses in original]

I would appreciate it if my attention were directed towards something that began to exist without a cause.
Now, the commentator does not know that the universe began un-caused yet,—even if I deny that everything that began to exist necessarily had a cause—I can still assert that it is far more sensical to conclude that it had a cause. Consider that the alternative is that “we are here because we are” which is logically, philosophically and scientifically bankrupt. Appealing to the “it just is” of the gaps is merely a killer of science and philosophy.
By the way: applying the commentator’s very own “logic” they end up proving that God exists as; God is because God is (in the essay I explain why to assert God’s eternality is not merely an appeal to the “it just is” of the gaps).
Seems like Bertrand Russells ghost is haunting my machine. Some may be aware that Bertrand Russell’s erudite elucidation of this matter was expressed thusly, “The universe is just there, and thats all.”1

On the M-Theory issue; I highly recommend the article,
The Grand Design~Hawking on Gravity and Creation-and William Lane Craig on More posted by (Big) PapaGiorgio.
Also, see my section on cosmology for info about the multiverse, the universe’s beginning, etc.

The AP reports:

Hawking likes the tale of the old lady who accused a lecturing cosmologist of talking nonsense: She knew for a fact that the whole universe lies on a flat plate, borne on the back of an enormous turtle.
"What does the turtle stand on?" the lecturer asked.
"Another turtle," she replied. "Its turtles all the way down."
For some readers, the answer from Hawking, known for his work on black holes and author of the best-selling "A Brief History of Time," and physicist Leonard Mlodinow, may not be much more satisfying.

The "grand design," says Hawking, is to be found in M-theory, an idea launched in the mid-1990s…

"According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god," the book says. "Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law."…

Hawking writes that M-theory is a unified "theory of everything" that Albert Einstein was looking for but never found.2

Of course, at this point we encounter a qualifying term which should rightly accompany any theory, any work in progress: a big “If.”

"If the theory is confirmed by observation, it will be the successful conclusion of a search going back more than 3,000 years. We will have found the grand design."

1. 1. Bertrand Russell and F. C. Copleston, "The Existence of God," in The Existence of God, ed. and intro. by John Hick, Problems of Philosophy Series (New York: Macmillan, 1964), p. 175
2. 2. Associated Press, “Stephen Hawking looks at the cosmos in The Grand Design,” Christian Science Monitor, September 8, 2010

Various Rabbis and Jewish Scholars (continued):
Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe,

“The idea of Zekut [merit] received support from the doctrine of the Suffering Servant. When that doctrine was given a Christological interpretation in the Church, the reaction in the Synagogue was strange. It made the doctrine of Zekut far stronger than before, but it transferred it to the Patriarchs and heroes. A good example is furnished by the theme of the Akedah (binding of Isaac).

The original lesson which the story of Gen. XXII conveyed was that human sacrifices were detested by God. When the era of human sacrifices had long passed, the story lost much of its topical interest: it became a piece of antiquarianism. The stress laid in the Church on the Agnus Dei motif, however, made Jews look for a parallel. Under the influence of the adage Mahshabah ke-Maaseh (the will for the deed), Abraham’s obedience and Isaac’s submission became cardinal points.

It was as though the sacrifice had actually been consummated. Therefore, the readiness of Abraham and Isaac to follow the divine command at all costs was elevated to a liturgical theme—as it still remains. The poems in the liturgy on the Akedah and the appeals to the merit of the Patriarchs are, in fact, regarded as prayers to God to make us worthy of our ancestors and capable of following their example.”1

Montefiore and Loewe also state,

“Because of the christological interpretation given to the chapter by Christians, it is omitted from the series of prophetical lessons (Haftarot) for the Deuteronomy Sabbaths. These seven lessons are called the ‘Seven (Chapters) of Comfort,’ and are taken from the preceding and following parts of the book: the omission is deliberate and striking. (H. L.)”

Again Montefiore and Loewe,

“Our teachers have said: His name shall be the Leprous One of the house of Rabbi [perhaps in reference to Rabbi’s sufferings for the thirteen years], as it says, ‘Surely he bore our sicknesses, and carried our pains: yet we esteemed him as one stricken with leprosy, and smitten of God’ (Isa. LIII, 4). (San. 98a.).”

Michael Fishbane,

“In the Talmud at b. Sanhedrin 98b we read as follows: ‘And the Rabbis say: His name is Hivra, ‘The Leper’ of the House of Rabbi, as it is said [in Isaiah 53:4] ‘surely he has borne our sickness [holayenu], our suffering he endured….’’ This is a puzzling sequence, since there is no connection between the name and the prooftext drawn from Isaiah 53. Something seems to have gone awry in the text; and this suspicion is confirmed by the reading of this midrash preserved in Raymundo Martini’s polemical work, Pugio Fidei.(1)

In that medieval compendium, after the first name and some explanations, comes the following teaching: ‘The School of Rabbi says: His name is Hulya,’ and goes on to give the aforementioned biblical citation. The verbal play between the name Hulya (‘The Afflicted One’) and the word holayenu in Isaiah 53:4 is just right, and I am therefore inclined to suspect that Martini’s citation preserves an authentic Jewish teaching of a suffering Messiah, excised from the Talmudic tradition through internal or other censorship.

This deletion may not actually have occurred until sixteenth-century Christian printings of the Talmud, since the name Hulya with the prooftext from Isaiah 53:4 is still cited by Don Yitzhak Abravanel (1437-1508) in one of his works on messianic tribulations, the Yeshuot Meshiho (2nd Iyyun). The existence of old rabbinic notions of a suffering Messiah can be further supported by an old liturgical poem by Eleazar be-Rabbi Kallir on the Messiah, entitled ‘Tinnon’ (which also connotes the sense of affliction) written for the afternoon Musaf service on Yom Kippur.(2)

The poet extensively utilizes passages from Isaiah 53:5 and 11 in his teaching that the Messiah will bear the sins of Israel and shall be wounded (meholal) because of their transgressions, so that the people will be justified before God and ‘healed through his wounds’ (nirpa lanu ba-havurato) As a recitation for Yom Kippur, the prayer anticipates a messianic atonement for sins, though there is no mention of death or sacrifice. Kallir’s prayer indicates authentic the notion of a suffering Messiah was in classical Judaism.

Indeed, in a homily found in Pesiqta Rabbati 31, the sages even refer to the excessive suffering endures by the Messiah in every generation, according to the sins of that generation. Several chapters later, this same collection preserves a valuable cycle of homilies that shed further light on this theme of the suffering Messiah.”

Footnote: (1) Pugio Fidei, B. Capzov, ed. (1687, rpt. Farnborough, 1967), 862
(2) See Mahzor le-Yamim Noraim, vol. 2, Yom Kippur, Daniel Goldschmidt, ed. (Jerusalem: H. Koren, 1970), 410. The word yinnon occurs twice in 1. 1, where his existence is ‘before creation’ along with the Temple; and in the final 1. 12, referring to the advent of the Messiah (following Isa. 11:11).
The term itself derives from Ps. 72:17, understood as follows: ‘May his name be eternal, before the sun [existed] Yinnon in his name.’ In context the name refers to the king. Its preexistence was already noted in the Targum.
Medieval commentators understood the overt sense of lifnei shemesh to refer to the duration of the existence of the sun (Rashi, Kimhi) and the verb yinnon to be a nifal based on the stem nyn, and having the sense of continuity (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Kimhi).”2

1. 1. Jewish Scholars Claude Joseph Goldsmith Montefiore and Herbert Martin James Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Greenwich Edition: Published by Meridian Books, Inc., nd), pp. ci, 544 & 583
2. 2. Michael Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination, On Jewish Thought and Theology (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp. 75-76

Fellow in Astronomy, Dr. John Gribbin is the latest scientist to admit that the evidence for intelligent design is obvious.

Let us recall that Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins, for example, have admitted that design is obvious; but that it should be ignored because it troubles their adherence to atheism. Thus, Francis Crick took the intelligent alien design route and Richard Dawkins considers alien design a possibility but prefers unintelligent, unguided design; whatever that is—designoid as he terms it; the blind watchmaker.

Richard Dawkins:
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.1

Francis Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.2

In other words, the evidence is clear so ignore it and/or explain it away via Victorian Era tall tales.

Now, John Gribbin is admitting the same and making design oh, so simple:

Are we living in a designer universe?...the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today…

to create a new universe would require a machine only slightly more powerful than the LHC [Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland]

He states that “This is possible for two reasons” the first of which is that “black holes may” (emphasis added) “act as gateways to other regions of space and time” (which, he adds, “as science fiction aficionados will be well aware”). Secondly, “it takes no energy to make a universe.”
Apparently, black holes “are relatively easy to make” as they “have the potential to inflate and expand in their own dimensions…[which] was precisely what our universe did in the Big Bang, when it suddenly exploded from a tiny clump of matter into a fully-fledged cosmos”—do not ask what clumped the clump?

Furthermore,

The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.

Let us pause for two points of interest: 1) he recognizes intelligent design but will not attribute it to God because 2) evolution by natural selection, and all the other—unknown and un-evidenced—processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.
This is interesting as he is relying upon unknown and un-evidenced processes. Moreover, of the many theories as to how life came into being just as many have been experimented upon and failed—quite a few are considered at this link. Furthermore, any successful abiogenesis experiment would only further evidence intelligent design as experiments do not just happen.

Now, even though unknown and un-evidenced processes can, or so we are baselessly told, explain how we got here, “there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a ‘multiverse.’” And now we have really come to what is driving John Gribbin—his beliefs about, his selling of his book about, the multiverse.
How so? Because, as he continues with a big “If (emphasis added) and this is an “if” the size of the universe (at least) “If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more.”
And another big “if”: “If such designers make universes by manufacturing black holes – the only way to do it that we are aware of – there are three levels at which they might operate” which he lists as:
1) “The first is just to manufacture black holes, without influencing the laws of physics in the new universe.”
2) “The second level, for a slightly more advanced civilisation, would involve nudging the properties of the baby universes in a certain direction.”
3) “The third level, for a very advanced civilisation, would involve the ability to set precise parameters, thereby designing it in detail.”

The basic point is the random chance of creating various black holes and just seeing which one(s) turn into universes and actually manipulating the black holes into fine tuned universes—or something betwixt.

Ok, so, by now you may be asking, “If multiverse alien dwelling intelligent designers are responsible for our universe then who designed the multiverse alien designers?” Indeed, the question of origins is not answered but merely pushed backwards in time into an infinite regress. And why not? After all, anything can happen in the multiverse, right? You better hope not or else the very concept of the multiverse disproves itself and proves God’s existence as I elucidated in the essay Five Finger Death Punch the Multiverse.

John Gribbin continues:

This might sound far-fetched, but…All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural".

This is just a fancy sounding version of the ultimate atheist answer to anything and everything: the it just is of the gaps.

Moreover:

While the intelligence required to do the job may be (slightly) superior to ours, it is of a kind that is recognisably similar to our own, rather than that of an infinite and incomprehensible God.
And the most likely reason for such an intelligence to make universes is the same for doing things like climbing mountains, or studying the nature of subatomic particles – because we can…
This idea provides the best resolution yet to the puzzle Albert Einstein used to raise, that "the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible". The universe is comprehensible to the human mind because it was designed, at least to some extent, by intelligent beings with minds similar to our own…
Fred Hoyle suggested that the laws of physics…must be "a put-up job". I believe he was right: the universe was indeed set up to provide a home for life…with no need for outside interference. It isnt that man was created in Gods image – rather that our universe was created, more or less, in the image of its designers.

Again this is an atheism of the gaps argument; he told us a quaint sci fi story and that is all—nothing more.

So, to reiterate: the evidence for design coming to be recognized more and more to be undeniable. Atheists are still hoping to get people to believe their tall tales about how this can be whilst still denying God. Denying God, that is, and having to rely on the invention of multiple-multiverses instead.

1. 1. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986), p. 1
2. 2. Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery (London: Penguin Books, 1988 - 1990, reprint), p.138

In my research of evilbible.com I ran across various atheism related website which treat its contents as gospel truth. I have found that the problem is that when I challenge the content of evilbible.com no one bothers dealing with the issue at hand: defending the very same website which they have just finished praising, relying upon, referencing or otherwise advertizing.
Moreover, they do not muster the basic level of skepticism that would cause them to consider both sides of an issue.
Rather, they are simply convinced—evilbible.com said it so it must be true; yes, it must be because they quote the Bible and everyone knows that quoting the Bible guarantees accurately relating a fair representation of its contents—right?

Such was the case when I happened upon ExChristian.Net. Upon my showing the slightest sign of disturbing the well-within-the-box-group-think I was summarily provided with the makings of a Logical Fallacies 101 textbook. Yes, from the arbitrary to the abusive, from ad hominems to outrage, from ridicule to red herrings it was all there, and more, much more.

I quickly came to find that ExChristian.Net is an anti-Christian support group wherein its members, apparently generally lacking intellectual integrity, urge each other toward belligerence and the committing of all manner of fallacy. It is saddening that something potentially constructive, such as having them make assertions about evilbile.com and having me respond, and on it would go, their instinct is to launch into zealous rage against anyone who dares to disagree with them.

I should state that this parsed essay was not technically about ExChristian.Net itself but about its adherents. However, something has occurred that makes me think that ExChristian.Net’s administrators are now playing a part in the discussion which I am addressing. Now, for all I know some of the commentators I will deal with in this essay are administrators, I do not know. I have been engaged in discussions in two of their posts: Its like Cancer and TOP TEN SIGNS YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN FUNDY. What I do know is that, for some odd reason, all of the comments in the TOP TEN posts have mysteriously disappeared. Perhaps it was some sort of computer related glitch that left the posts intact and only deleted all of the comments, I do not know. Fortunately, I had already copied and saved all of the comments that were made to me and present them hereinafter.

I will keep their names, or pseudonyms, out of this essay as my purpose is not to call anyone or embarrass anyone but to correct various fallacies, misconceptions, etc. Also, I am not presenting the comments in chronological order but have grouped them into topics. Let us get a taste of that with which I dealt.
Let us begin with ridicule in the form of name calling. I posted on ExChristian.Net as MarianoApologeticus (since Mariano was already taken when I registered).
Here is a taste:

MoronicusApoligeticus…jerk…load of ****…fundies…trolling for carcasses…MarianoPrevaricatoricus…your pathetic and infantile dumb-****…delusional ********…idiot…dubious drivel…Forgetful Freddy…beat it…Whoop-de-frickin-doo! Youre using your own interpretation of ******** to try to disprove someone elses interpretation of said ********. You may as well go debate some Harry Potter - its all fiction anyway!...Hahahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha…TAKE A HIKE…utter ********…your Apologetic drivel…how deep in your *** you had to dig to…asinine logic…its time for you to paint your **** white and run with the antelope…your god delusion…MarianoApologeticus (aka Mario-Brothers Aplogetics)…spill your trash…you seem strong in the whine department…Moronic Apologist…Marianorepeaticus…blah, blah, blah…Dumb-***…ye of little gray matter…Grow up…all sorts of stupid, that Christian philosophy is!....****….*******….disrespectful, disingenuous religious person….apologetic horse****….you are a ******* liar….Yoo-*******-hoo….**** off….your sky-daddy….mind-****….keep your distance [expletives removed]

And here are some of the encouragements:

MarianoPrevaricatoricus - Love it…

They should just change the name of the religion from "Christianity" to "Cognitive Dissonance" and get it over with…

The Church of Cognitive Dissonance. I love it

After taking quite a few shots across my bow I commented thusly,

Am I to assume that each of you who responded to me have considered the information that I have provided?Or in typical activist atheist form are you simply incapable of engaging upon reasoned discourse?Are you at all capable of actually practice true skepticism and considering my evidence?Or will you satisfy yourselves by concocting arguments for ridicule?

When I pointed out that they were replacing reasoned discourse with ridicule someone stated, “ridicule works just fine for Me, thanks.” Obviously, ridicule makes one feel clever, it can be funny and you get chance to pat yourself and your buddies on the back and elbow them in the ribs while laughing at your clever put downs. Fine, but it does not advance reasoned discourse one nanometer but actually retards it quite a bit. Moreover, ridicule, being a form of dehumanization, makes it easier for the pseudo-skeptic to dismiss the argument at hand.

My initial comment was very basic, it simply informed them that evilbible.com had been discredited and provided a URL to EvilBible.com is Dead.

Note that I was put on alert from the get go as the first response I got was that I was called “MoronicusApoligeticus” and was told,

Please dont use this websight [sic] for shameless promotion. It is not here for you, now go away, take your silly link and dont come back lest you raise the ire of the many highly intelligent atheists who frequent this sight [sic].

Well, note the instant reaction of ridicule and territorialism “It is not here for you” yet, when I registered I did not notice anything about affirming that I was an ExChristian, a current atheist, etc. I simply assumed that reasoned discourse would be engaging to “many highly intelligent atheists.” Obviously, I was very wrong and am still waiting for those “many highly intelligent atheists” to show up on the scene.

Towards the end of the discussion I stated that “Even though they are 99.9% red herrings I will treat you all with enough respect to respond…” which caused one commentator to write:

*******, if you had an ounce of "respect", youd honor the purpose disclaimer that is included in the sites mission statement. Here it is(again) for your reading convenience:

"The ExChristian.Net blog exists for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge for Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their religious beliefs."[bold added]

[“[bold added]” was in the comment]

They later repeated the quotation and stated, “I call for you to be banned because you blithely ignore the sites purpose disclaimer…”
There are a few issues here two of which are 1) if the administrators meant for no one, particularly no Christian, to ever challenge ExChristian.Net’s posts or comments they surely would be vigilant about instantly deleting all such comments and 2) since I was not seeking to “avenge” but to elucidate, to inform, to speak truth to falsehood, I did not break their mission statement—this too was a red herring. Perhaps, ExChristian.Net should add a gemara to their mission statement.

I also ran into an odd and arbitrary standard in the form of,

This jerk seems to be dropping its [sic] load of **** on other old threads as well…on this three-year-old thread…Now its on a thread thats more than five years old. What is it with fundies and these old forums?...

The thread you intruded upon is more than three years old. Did you think you could post on it and no one but your god would know so that youd get brownie points but escape the notice of real people?...

Youve posted your drivel on a 3 year-old article… [expletives removed]

I was not aware that there was some sort of atheist ethic against commenting on posts that were more than an undefined number of years old. I simply considered the content and responded. I actually did not even bother looking at the date on the post since I was not aware that I was about to violate an atheist ethic.
Actually, I am not certain that “forum” is the correct word as this was a post with a comments section and not a “forum” as “forums” are commonly understood online. But in any regards, I learned a very important lesson. One of the woes of being a blogger is that since a blog rolls on and on and on it becomes a virtual tel of our past efforts and older posts are pushed into virtual obscurity—FYI: see the archive on the menu :o). But I have now learned that the way to liven up an old post is to make a comment which breaks up the back patting and rib elbowing monotony. This is because my daring to disagree and virtually begging them to exercise true and honest skepticism livened up those, apparently too old, posts like a lightning bolt.
Note: if it really is some sort of atheist ethic or a rule of that website to not comment on posts older than an undefined number of years they could simply shut off the comments option to old post.

An odd comment was,

Hey MarianoApologeticus (aka Mario-Brothers Aplogetics)You had the freedom to come on our website and spill your trash.Do you offer the same opportunity on your blog, for us to leave comments there, without censoring, hmmm

Hmmm, it is rather odd that someone could lack the most basic sense of skepticism, basic curiosity really, that they would not even visit Atheism is Dead and conduct an experiment: write a comment and then see if it is displayed. This would have answered the question. But, it would not allow for arguments to ridicule.

From this came a strange attempt at a correlation,

Hes trolling for carcasses. Why confront someone who is alive and well, especially if they dont agree, better to kick their dead relatives.

Apparently, commenting to old posts is considered kicking the dead even though after I commented there was a resurrection.
But the odd correlation continued in an unexpected direction,

Its just like those morons, oops, mormons [sic] who have ceremonies to "save" the souls of people who have been dead for centuries….How sick is that?...It is disrespect at its [sic] highest/ lowest level. Something christians [sic] are very good at.

Well, I left my worm-can-opener in my other blog so let me briefly say that I love my Mormon friends and have welcomed their missionaries into my home for weeks and months in a row in order to engage upon reasoned discourse. I will merely succinctly state that, indeed, they are referencing a strictly Mormon practice, of baptism by proxy for the dead, and referring to Mormons as Christians is likewise problematic as they deny virtually every Christian doctrine including monotheism (for info see my essays on Mormonism).

I ran across an assortment of atheist / atheism t-shirts and could not help but be awed, yet not surprised, by their arrogant and illogicality.
Sorry, but I do not care to advertize whence they came but I am sure that you can search for them and then ask your parents to buy them for you for Christmas.

Let us consider these pearls of agnosis:

To equate Zeus, Mars, Thor and Jesus is a typical atheist tactic whereby to dismiss all claims to the supernatural or God(s) with one broad sweep of the intellectually slothful broom. Yet, as I noted in the essay On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al. this is fallacious—easy and convenient but fallacious nonetheless.
Note that they are placing “reason” in the place of God(s). Apparently, reason is the ultimate. Yet, if they reasoning to reason via reason they are engaged in circular reasoning and are therefore, unreasonable.
It is the LORD YHVH who enjoins reason, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).

This affirmation, or assertion, that “Atheists have morals too” could mean various things. For example, they could “have” morals in the same was that thieves “have” your car stereo—since they steal their morality from Judeo-Christian theology. They could “have” morals whilst not having ethics: description vs. prescription, assertion vs. enjoinment, etc. (see here). Ultimately, atheist “morals” amount to assertions and are all, ultimately, immoral and unethical as I elucidate here also see my debate with an atheist on this issue here.

Regardless however, consider that to which these supposed atheist morals lead as we consider other atheist / atheism t-shirts on the very same advertisement webpage:

Apparently, fornication of some sort has something to do with atheist morals.
Also apparently, atheists are automatically intelligent (more intelligentier than thou?) so to “sleep” with an atheist propagates intelligence: this superiority complex is one of atheism’s concluding delusions.
See The Desperation of the Deicidal, Memetic Eugenics and the Evolutionary Watchmen for a consideration of atheist’s self-professed more evolved status (eloviered than thou!).
Now, that “atheists do it UNSUPERVISED” is two of atheism’s concluding delusions rolled into one: the delusion of absolute autonomy and the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability: the t-shirt’s sentiment is akin to wishful thinking.

Yet, the ultimate concept, at least within the ads, of atheist morals is this one:

In other words; the atheists who conceived of, paid to print, advertize, sell, buy and wear this t-shirt love the Roman lions that tore Christians to pieces and devoured their corpses for the amusement of the Romans.

Now to some cult of personality, hero worship, adherence to atheistic cenobite:

Yes, that is good ol′ Richard Dawkins along with the motto WWDD-What Would Dawkins Do?
Replacing Jesus with Dawkins is as telling as it is troubling. So, “What would Dawkins do?” I suppose that he would become a wealthy celebrity by vociferously expounding opinions about issue of which he is unfathomably ignorant.

As for “Dawkins & Dennett & Harris & Hitchens”—I did warned about the DHDH meme did I not?
The DHDH meme Dawkins, Harris, Dennett & Hitchens; see here.
This shirt shouts infection.

Speaking of morality or ethics:

These shirts presuppose an absolute moral/ethical standard whereby stoning and cruelty are immoral/unethical. When encountering this shirt ask how they justify such condemnations and be prepared for an infinite regress of assertions based on personal preferences that are based on personal preferences.

Moreover, note the claim to absolute knowledge in the claim that “No one has ever been stoned to death by atheists.” No one in the history of humanity? How do you know?
It may be true but just how do you know? Considering that during the most secular and bloodiest century of human history atheists murdered hundreds of millions (often of their own people); they did not need any stinking stones—here.

Now, to some biblical issues (aka atheist ignorance and confusion about the Bible):

Does that say “Atheist Wine Club” or “Atheist Whine Club”? :o)
This is interesting on various levels: the Bible states, “If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” (1st Corinthians 15:32). Atheists do not believe that the dead rise, not even once in history, and so they enjoin indulgence in worldly pleasures for, what else have they?
This is what Bart Ehrman (the atheist/agnostic/Gnostic hero) stated when asked, “What is your idea of absolute happiness?” he answered, in part, “The ability — and the will! — to buy fine wine and good single malt scotch.”
This also lines up with the Qur′an’s concept of heaven in Surah 78:32-34, “Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age; And a cup full (to the brim)” (Abdullah Yusuf Ali, trans.)—see here.
Jesus drank wine and even materialized some but there is a difference when you are using wine in order to attempt to fill the God shaped void in your life, heart and soul.

“I forget”? There is nothing to forget. God did not make fossils; the natural processes after the flood did so. As Ken Hamm so memorably stated it; if there was a worldwide flood what would we expect to find? “Billions of dead things. Buried in rock layers. Laid down by water. All over the earth” and what do we find? “Billions of dead things. Buried in rock layers. Laid down by water. All over the earth.”

This is meant to conflict with Jesus’ statement, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). Note that the Bible states, “Bible If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1st John 1:8). Moreover, while atheists fallaciously claim that we are all natural born atheists they do believe that they have been born again when they accepted to non-gospel of atheism.

This one is obviously merely a childish restatement of atheist arrogance. Consider the essay Dan Barker and Bertrand Russell: The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion for a detailed and thorough discrediting of such malarkey.

Overall, one would clearly do better investing money is book by which to learn to refute these various fallacies than to buy such shirts and openly, proudly and loudly advertize unfathomable levels of arrogance and ignorance.

Hereinafter we will conclude considering the, now in stasis, discussion which took place between myself, the Midwest Atheist and a friend of his as we attempted to discuss atheism, Christianity and atheist talking points.

The friend wrote a follow up from that which was considered in the conclusion of the previous segment:

Let us imagine that someone considered the God of the Bible and based upon their personal moral preference decide that they want nothing to do with this God. Let us further imagine that this turns out to be the one true God. If this God, whom they despise, were to force them to spend infinity with Him this would amount to hell. Thus, God gives them a choice and they can choose to be away from God for all of infinity instead

For the sake of argument, Lets agree that separation from god for eternity will not be pleasant for me, whether I believe in him now or not, and that heaven is the better place to be than hell. Jesus himself talked about weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, etc. so I dont know how you can justifiably imply that Jesus would be doing me a favour by sending me to hell rather than hang out with him and his dad in heaven because Im not a believer in this life.
If Jesus turns out to really be God and I am punished/tortured/separated from god for eternity because I didnt believe something which I didnt believe, then I judge this to be unfair/unjust/bad/immoral, (etc). Thats the way I see it. If someone can convince me that there is a reason that I should see this as fair/just/good/moral, then Im willing to look at the evidence for that argument.

Please attack my response if you will, and lets move to the next question that MWA asked:

In Christianity, belief is more important than action. Even though Christians love to say, "Faith without works is dead," they are forced to concede that no matter how terrible of a life a person leads, if they accept Jesus as their lord and savior and repent of their sins on their death bed, they get their golden ticket into heaven, all is forgiven. That is, unless they blaspheme the holy spirit. Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and youre fine.

Is this a fair representation of christian doctrine? Can you see why this presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good?

Can we please proceed under the assumption that some of these non-believers, like myself, have not "chosen" to not believe?

Besides engaging in other shenanigans which are best ignored the Midwest Atheist had a rare moment of “clarity” and wrote:

I used to believe. I was told as soon as I could understand (3 or 4 years old) that God was real, hell was real and that I would be going there if I doubted it. The people telling me this were the people I trusted and loved. They told me about Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and many other strange things. As I grew up I became harder to convince and started to see through all the bull. They caved like a house of cards on every make believe being that they had lied to me about, except one. Because they believed. Why because no body told them, when they were 3 or 4 years old that, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy were going to torture them for all eternity for not believing.
I no longer believe but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. Ive come to realize that it was all a lie and I still live with the effects of my early childhood conditioning.

About this, the friend commented, “Ditto, man. Well put.”

Well, the discussion came to an end here as for whatever reason the Midwest Atheist ceased allowing my comments to be posted:

Thank against for the discourse.

I wrote a response but later realized that you had posted two in a row. I posted one but maybe the admin [the Midwest Atheist] has not gotten around to it yet, he can always just delete it as I will post it now. Although, due to these two comments being rather lengthy, as per the comment section’s word count limitations, I will post them in three parts—maybe from here we can narrow our focus.

I am afraid that you are leaving too much undefined and assumed such as “immoral”—for what if, in your estimation, my views are immoral? What then? You condemn me as immoral and what then? You condemn based on your personal preferences because I do not adhere to your chosen personal preferences.
I think that in referring to Jesus “sending” you to hell misses the point about the fact that you are sending yourself by refusing to be forgiven.
Also, statements such as “punished/tortured/separated from god” are a category mistake as you are correlating things together which do not belong.
I have shown that hell is eternal because sin is eternal as it is chosen, nursed, cherished and kept.

I certainly do not care to defend emotive hypothetical scenarios such as the death bed scenario. If you understand Christianity to be promulgating the concept of sinning as much as possible and waiting for a death bed (assuming that such a person will have such a dead upon which to lay and repent) then you are dealing with atheist talking points and not interested in the Biblical concepts of grace and salvation.
This is not even the least bit realistic as it implies premeditative manipulation of grace—getting God on a loophole, as it where. That someone may repent on their death bed due to true sorrow for a wasted life, etc. is another matter altogether.
Grace is about love and relationship not about getting away with it, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1-2, “you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh” Galatians 5:13, etc.
Thank God salvation is not based on works because while I may feel quite well equipped facing judgment standing next to many people whom I have known I am afraid that I would not make it standing next to a Mother Theresa.

Now, I must take a moment to get in on the anecdotes and state that having been raised in a 100% secular home by an atheist and an agnostic I was never once told about God (and we did not have a Santa or Easter Bunny). When I found out that my country of origin’s equivalent of the tooth fairy was not real I became so very angry that I became an instant skeptic and have been one ever since.
But I was raised being told about mythological realms where the universe is the eternally uncaused first cause, where life came from non-life (without evidence) and various other secular myths. I no longer believe in the secular myths but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I have come to realize that it was all a lie and my wife, kids and myself have been treated very, very badly simply because we do not believe like the secularists anymore.

Yet, I note that correlating the concept of God with Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are also a category mistakes and display, for one, a deep lack of knowledge of that which we can infer about our creator from science and philosophy.

Back to the issue at hand; yes, I can see why your strange view Christian doctrine presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good (even if they base “good” upon personal preferences) because you are taking something beautiful and soiling it whilst misrepresenting the concept in the first place. Indeed, I have noticed time and time again that non-believers have a very hard time with doctrines which are not Judeo-Christian at all but are fallacious common misconceptions.

I mostly think that such issue as sin and hell are very, very difficult for non-believers because two of their consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability (in fact, your whole objection to hell is based on an attempt to avoid justice). Atheism simply lacks any concept of ultimate transcendent justice. On this view: atheism makes evil even worse by 1) not doing anything to ultimately stop it, by 2) not being able to redeem it, by 3) making it benefit the evil doer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and if they are not caught (assuming that enough other people agree that their deeds were “evil” and have a judicial system in place) they simply get away with it while their victim continues to suffer.
There is no justice: Mother Theresa ends up the same as Adolf Hitler—no accountability; simply do whatever you makes you most fit to survive (even if that is believing in hell—by the way).

Thus, in Christian theology there is redemption for the worse of us. Indeed, there is grace enough to forgive the most wretched. That some want to turn that into emotive references to “Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and youre fine” is indicative of the manner in which some choose to discuss otherwise serious and important issues.

If you have “not ‘chosen’ to not believe” were you predestined by the bio-chemical makeup of your brain to become an atheist? Is this how you seek to survive as the fittest? Or are we dealing with an argument from personal incredulity?

I must say that although you want to move on to point two we are not done with point one. My initial assertion was that atheist talking points were presented and we have not deal with the first one; we have dealt with your redefined watered down version of the first one. Yet, I was not contending with the future revision but with the original.
So back to #1: the assertion related to “torture” and this has nothing to do with “more liberal interpretations of hell” versus others since the issue is that, along with the assertion, one would have to present where the Bible details and describes “torture.” And I am not asking for a word which we can then proceed to fill by appealing to, for example, a lake of fire, etc. but am asking where torture is specified.
For instance, if you toss me into the mouth of an active volcano you have murdered me but have not tortured me. Thus, in order to affirm that it is torture we would have to invent explanations about the difference being that we are said to be eternal and thus, forever burning. But how can that be since something can only burn once? Well, God would remake your body to destroy it again or…whatever. But now we are merely inventing our very own theology-of-the-gaps.

You can seek to deny your personal responsibility of making conscience decisions but you have chosen to deny that the Holy Spirit exists. We always choose whether or not to believe something. You also seek to deny your personal responsibility that you chose to “commit those crimes” (in my terms).

Incidentally, what would you consider convincing evidence of God’s existence?
Also, if there is any such thing as a “Christian religion” then it is this “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

If not, then indeed, it is man-made and you condemn “religion,” I condemn “religion,” and we are millennia behind the Bible which condemns “religion” and thus, God who condemns “religion.”

If you are much like the average bear then you have wronged very many people; some whom you have surely forgotten, some whom you could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive you, some who have died, etc. Thus, if “the only person who can forgive me for any wrongdoing is the person I have wronged” then you will remain unforgiven. Also, I am not sure why seeking and getting forgiveness should be any sort of standard. You dogmatically assert that yours “is the only forgiveness that is moral or real in any sense.” Well, you have most certainly embarrassed the very concept of a God-free universe. “Who decides this? I do” you determine that which is right, wrong, good, evil, moral, immoral, true, false, etc. and then declare that yours in “the only” way.

I am not certain how you gained such authority but granting it: what if I disagree or violate your absolute standard?

But “Do I need an absolute basis?” Only if you want to be logically consistent. For example, without an absolute standard you 1) cannot condemn any past action since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and before your time, 2) cannot condemn any present action since your standard is not absolute and thus, does not apply to anyone outside of yourself and 3) you will not be able to condemn any future actions since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and after your time.

Now, in a God-free universe I am doing the same as you; inventing my own standards and if yours and mine ever clash we would see how survives as the fittest—and I have a five finger death punch up my sleeve :o)

I do not deny in the least bit that we humans can muse upon moral issues and come to epistemic conclusions, but we cannot provide any ontological premise. Without such a, ultimate/transcendent/absolute, premise I conclude that there is nothing to violate and so no one can be condemned of anything.

The point here is that technically “morality” is necessarily relative as it refer to the “mores” and “describes” what is, what it is that people are doing. While “ethics” refers to the “ethos” and “prescribes” that which people should and should not do.

I do understand that you premise your condemnations upon your personal preferences which are themselves premised upon your personal preferences which are, after all, bio-chemically induced. If my bio-chemical makeup differs from yours then my personal preferences will differ and we will end up back in the death match.

I think that it is a very good idea for “someone else to tell me what is moral or good.” For example, I tell my children as they are in need of my much more developed, via musing, revelation and life experience, advice. I would also highly prize such guidance from a much more experienced person such as a seasoned citizen (sounds like an item on a cannibal’s menu does it not?). I would most highly prize the guidance from a being who has eternally experienced relationship.

Well, there it is; we never even got past the first fallacy but uncovered quite a few new ones along the way.

Sun Myung Moon - Unification Church:
“At Easter time in 1935, Jesus appeared to the young Sun Myung Moon as he was praying in the Korean mountains. In that vision, Jesus asked him to continue the work which he had begun on earth nearly 2,000 years before. Jesus asked him to complete the task of establishing Gods kingdom on earth and bringing His peace to humankind…
If Jesus called him to complete his mission, it meant that Jesus mission was incomplete…
Sun Myung Moon studied the Bible and many other religious teachings in order to unravel these mysteries of life and human history…
This family of disciples was the foundation upon which the holy wedding, the marriage of the Lamb foretold in the Book of Revelation, could take place. On March 16, 1960, Reverend Moon was blessed in holy marriage to Hak Ja Han. This marked the beginning of the restoration of humankind back into Gods lineage. By the power of God and sacrificial love, Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han established the position of True Parents. They are the first couple to have the complete blessing of God, and to be able to bring forth children with no original sin…At the age of seventeen, Miss Han dedicated herself to the mission of bride of the Messiah…
the Unification Church was firmly established and could be used by God as the instrument of world salvation…
Reverend Moon declared that he and his wife are the Messiah and True Parents of all humanity…
Mrs. Moon has given a fitting description of the meaning of the Messiah and the True Parents. ‘Ladies and Gentlemen, what is the Messiah? The Messiah is the True Parents of humankind. Gods original plan was to establish perfected Adam and Eve as the true ancestors of humanity. Satan, however, invaded this ideal, and God, ever since, has been working toward the emergence of ideal True Parents through which all humankind can be restored. As true fathers and true mothers ourselves, we must vanquish Satan, liberate humanity and build the kingdom of Heaven on earth.’” 1

Reiki:
“‘I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me, can do the same miracles I have done, and even greater things than these will you do.’…
paralysis, lameness, fever, catalepsy, hemorrhage, skin disease, mental disorders, spirit possession, deafness and blindness. Many of these healings were accomplished by the laying on of hands…
There are many similarities between the laying on of hands healing Jesus did and the practice of Reiki. One important similarity is the fact that Jesus could pass the power to heal on to others…
Jesus gave his twelve disciples power to drive out all demons and to cure diseases…the fact that he was able to pass it on to them indicates an important similarity with Reiki…
it appears that the healings Jesus did with his hands did not require faith. This is one of the important aspects of Reiki: It does not require faith on the part of those receiving a treatment in order for the Reiki to work…
Jesus had secret teachings…
Secret knowledge is also part of the Reiki teachings in that the symbols as well as the process of doing attunements are secret. It is not known whether Jesus was born with the ability to heal…
It has been suggested by several researchers that during this time Jesus traveled to the East and was schooled in many of the mystical teachings of India, Tibet and China. If this is so, it is possible that Jesus was initiated into Reiki, or a Reiki like practice during this time as Reiki has his origins in India, Tibet and China. The early followers of Jesus teachings were made up of several groups. One such group was the Gnostics. They practiced laying on of hands and professed to have a secret knowledge that had been passed on to them by Jesus and his disciples. The Gnostics were made up of many smaller groups some of which were known as the Docetists, the Marcionites, and the Carpocratians. They were united by their core beliefs which included: a personal experience of Jesus or the "kingdom of heaven within," their freedom and lack of rules, guidelines or creeds and their reliance on inspiration and inner guidance…
With the elimination of the Gnostics and the establishment of the Christian Church, the practice of laying on of hands by Christians was lost…
Was Jesus a Reiki Master in addition to being a spiritual Master? While it cannot be established in an absolute sense that Jesus was a Reiki Master, the available evidence clearly indicates so many similarities that it is likely the laying on of hands healing Jesus practiced must have been very closely associated with an early form of Reiki…
We must remember what the Great Master stated as indicated in John 14-12, ‘I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me, can do the same miracles I have done, and even greater things than these will you do.’ 2

Gospel Of Thomas:
v. 114 “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.’”

Infancy Gospel Of Thomas:
Ch. 22:1 & 3:3 “This little child Jesus when he was five years old was playing at the ford of a brook: and he gathered together the waters that flowed there into pools, and made them clean, and commanded them by his word alone…The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Joseph; and he took a branch of a willow and dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered together. When Jesus saw what was done, he was angry and said to him: O evil, ungodly, and foolish one, what harm did the pools and the waters do you? Now you will be withered like a tree, and shall not bear leaves, neither root, nor fruit. That lad withered up completely.”

Ch. 4:1 & 5:1 “Another time Jesus went through the village, and a child ran and dashed against his shoulder. Jesus was provoked and said to him: you shall not finish your life. Immediately he fell down and died. Certain people, when they saw what was done, said: Why was this young child born; every word of his is an accomplished work…Immediately the people who had accused Jesus were smitten with blindness.”

Gospel of Judas:
The Gospel of Judas affirms that Jesus existed, that He had apostles, that He preformed miraculous works, the He came as savior of humanity, that He had the ability to prophecy, that He was exalted as “the son of our god”, that He came from an “eternal realm”, that there is an afterlife, and that Judas “received some money”.

[I examined the Gospel of Judas at this link]

The Bahai Faith:
“Bahais believe that there is only one God, the Creator of the universe. Throughout history, God has revealed Himself to humanity through a series of divine Messengers, each of Whom has founded a great religion. The Messengers have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad.” 3

“Although we may have different concepts of Gods nature, although we may pray to Him in different languages and call Him by different names--Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma--nevertheless, we are speaking about the same unique Being.” 4

“…we believe that Jesus was only one of nine manifestations of the divine being and appeared in His era of time to illuminate those who lived at that time. Today Bahaullah is the source of revelation. Jesus was the way, the truth and the life for His time but certainly not for all time. Abdul Baha points out that we are to honor all the major prophetic voices, not just one of them. He said: ‘Christ was the prophet of the Christians, Moses of the Jews—why should not the followers of each prophet recognize and honor the other prophets?’ ‘The revelation of Jesus was for His own dispensation, that of the Son, and now is no longer the point of guidance to the world. Bahais must be severed from all and everything that is past—things both good and bad—everything…now all is changed. All the teachings of the past are past. Abdul Bahai is now supplying all the world.’ (Wisdom of Abdul Baha, p. 43 and Ref. Star of the West, official Bahai publication, Dec. 31, 1913) Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, Christ, Mohammed, Krishna, Lowe [Lao Tzu] and Baha‘u’llah are all equal manifestations of the divine mind. 5

“Because God loves all humanity, He sent us many Teachers at different times and places. They are known as Messengers, Manifestations, or prophets of God…
There are two kinds of Prophets or Teachers—Primary Messengers, like Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and Bahaullah, and secondary messengers, like Isaiah and St. John, who received their inspiration from the others. The Primary Messengers, (what Bahais call ‘Manifestations of God’) receive their enlightenment from God and know more about creation (us) than we know about ourselves…
All manifestations are equal in knowledge and spirit…and build upon each other’s contributions. God’s Messengers have not come to save us because we are inherently evil, but rather to educate us because we are inherently ignorant and in need of guidance. Manifestations bring two kinds of teachings—social and spiritual. The spiritual teachings are eternal, but the social teachings change in needs of the time. The Manifestations of God are perfect reflection of God, they are not God in His Essence, nor are they little pieces of God…
Jesus was born of a virgin and was the spiritual Son, not the physical Son of God. God’s spiritual ‘Son’ rose spiritually to a spiritual Heaven to live forever. The term ‘return’ refers to a return of the spiritual qualities or spiritual station of a prophet, not their physical return. For example, Jesus said that John the Baptist was the return of Elias, even though physically, John was His cousin…Bahaullah, the One who founded the Faith and explained these principles, claims to fulfill the prophecies concerning the ‘Promised One’ of all religions. His life and teachings are worthy of further study to determine the goodness of His ‘fruit,’ and the validity of His claim.” 6

[For more on the Bahai Faith see this link]

Judaism:
“To Jews, whatever wonderful teacher and storyteller Jesus may have been, he was just a human, not the son of God (except in the metaphorical sense in which all humans are children of God). In the Jewish view, Jesus cannot save souls; only God can. Jesus did not, in the Jewish view, rise from the dead….
Jesus is not seen as the messiah. In the Jewish view, the messiah is a human being who will usher in an era of peace. We can tell the messiah by looking at the world and seeing if it is at peace. From the Jewish view, this clearly did not happen when Jesus was on Earth or anytime after his death…No one who is Jewish, no born Jew and no one who converts to Judaism, can believe in Jesus as the literal son of God or as the Messiah. For the Jewish people, there is no God but God.” 7

“Leaving aside self styled ‘messianic Jews’-converts to Christianity who accept the Christian claims about Jesus and the Christian understanding of the Messiah as a supernatural, spiritual figure who is the son of God and part of a divine ‘trinity’…”8

“Jesus’ ministry on earth coincided with the lives of the early Rabbis known as Pharisees. Jews therefore see Jesus as a historical personality whose work and teachings parallel those of other wonder-working Jewish leaders of the time…
The Romans crucified Jesus just as they tortured Rabbi Akiba to death, because they feared the revolutionary effect of their doctrine of love and justice. But Jews stop short of identifying Jesus as in any way divine. Simply put, Jews do not believe that God had a son or appeared in human form…
Jews do not quote Jesus as a model, not because we cannot identify with much that he said, but because his life and death are so intrinsically central to Christianity…Were we to point to Jesus’ behavior or teachings as our guide in life, we would feel as if we were crossing the boundary from Judaism to Christianity. The Lord’s prayer, for instance, has nothing in it with which Jews would not agree. It is a prayer for the coming of God’s reign, a doctrine taught by every Rabbi of the first and second century. But we would not say the Lord’s prayer, since it is part of Christian liturgy, associated firmly with the bedrock of Christian faith. Similarly, Jesus is known to have preached the Golden Rule. But we do not cite Jesus to the effect that we should love our neighbors as ourselves, even though we agree that we should. Instead, we have our own daily prayer called the Kaddish [KAH-dish], which parallels the Lord’s prayer and was formulated about the same time…
It is always hard to second-guess history, but it is interesting to imagine what would have happened if the life of Jesus had not been appropriated by Christianity. What would have happened if he had been remembered only as the Jew he was, but not as the savior? His life might in that case have been retained by Jewish sources. He might in that case have been retained by Jewish sources. He might well have remained a Jewish moral hero like the Pharisees of the time, who were much like him. But precisely because Jesus was recognized by Christians as the Christ, he could not be recognized as a Jewish role model by those Jews who did not accept his divinity.” 9

“Many Jewish scholars believe that Jesus considered himself a prophet only. They reject the contention of Christian scholars that when Jesus used the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in his preaching (first mentioned in Daniel 7:13, where the Aramaic phrase bar enash is used), he was referring to himself as the Messiah. The phrase ‘Son of God,’ in the Jewish view, is used in the third person, and more likely than not, when Jesus used the phrase he was referring to someone other than himself. Jewish scholars also point to the fact that there is little evidence in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke)-the earliest accounts of the life of Jesus-that Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah.” 10

“Whether Jesus was the Messiah will be shown when the Messiah comes….I do not think many Jews would object if the messiah when he came again was the Jew Jesus.” 11

“According to the doctrine of incarnation, God transformed himself to human life in the form of Jesus. To Jews, who believe that God is One and unchangeable, this doctrine is unacceptable.” 12

[For more on Judaism see this link]

1. 1. http://unification.org/rev_mrs_moon.html
2. 2. William L. Rand, Was Jesus a Reiki Master? (Reiki News Articles. The International Center for Reiki Training.), http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/reikin16.html#Top%20Of%20Page
3. 3. http://www.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-1.html
4. 4. http://www.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-1.html
5. 5. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship Inc., Publishers, 1965), pp. 254-255
6. 6. Justice St Rain, Finding Common Ground-How many beliefs do you share with members of the Bahai Community? You may be surprised! (Bloomington, IN.: Published by Special Ideas, 1997), pp. 2, 10-11
7. 7. Lawrence J. Epstein, Questions and Answers on Conversion to Judaism (Northvale, NJ.: Jason Aronson Inc., 1998), pp. 57, 58
8. 8. Nicholas De Lange, An Introduction to Judaism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 205
9. 9. Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, Revised by Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman, What is a Jew? (Don Mills, Ontario: Maxwell Macmillan Canada, Inc. 1993), p. 275-276
10. 10. Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of Why (New York: Jonathan David Publishing, Inc. 1985), p. 71
11. 11. Edited by Naomi W. Cohen, Essential Papers on Jewish-Christian Relations in the United Sates (New York: University Press, 1990), p. 332. Quoting Franz Rosenzweig & David Flusser
12. 12. Alfred J. Kolatch, The Second Jewish Book of Why (New York: Jonathan David Publishing, Inc. 1985), p. 73

That some people still argue, or assert, that Adolf Hitler was a Christian is clear evidence of unfathomable levels of ignorance of both Adolf Hitler as well as Christianity.

Arguments in favor of Hilter being a Christian boil down to an assumption that Hitler was such an honest and trustworthy fellow that when he claimed to be a Christian, to follow the Bible, to follow God; it must be true. Forget that he is one of the most infamous maniacs in history and that he was a politician.
Hitler’s Nazi propaganda is still capturing hearts and mind not because of its brilliance but because there are some people whose hatred of Christianity compels them to want to fall for it.

My section on Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism elucidates a great variety of Hitler and Nazi relates issues from various vantage points.
For more about Nazi “churches” and their replacement of the Bible with Mein Kampf in particular, see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist

Also read this most excellent book (which I reviewed here):

Since some believe that Adolf Hitler, the most infamous anti-Semite in history, worshipped a Jew, Jesus, as his Lord, God and savior; consider that which Hitler did with the Bible:

An institute, founded on Hitler’s command, rewrote Bible texts, eliminating all mentions of the special role of the Jewish people. According to Hitler’s version, Christ was an advocate of Aryan ideas. Sections from the Nazi Bible will be published by German publication Bild on Thursday.

In May 1939, on the Furher’s command, a theological institute was founded in Eisenach with the purpose of contributing to “dejewification”. Its employees edited biblical texts, removing non-Aryan passages. Dozens of works printed by the institute were published in over 100 thousand copies of the new Holy Scripture. It was assumed that this work would become a standard household book amongst Germans.

For a long time, almost nothing was known about Hitler’s Bible, since believers burnt almost every copy. However, a few copies were discovered in German churches at the end of the 1980s, but this was kept hidden from the general public at the time, writes Izvestia.

German biblical archivist Hansjorg Buss has summarized the dubious achievements of Hitler’s myrmidons for Bild newspaper.

“Germans with the Lord – the German book of faith”: the renewed version of the Holy Scripture contained 12 edited commandments instead of 10, as follows:

1. Honor your Fuhrer and master.

2. Keep the blood pure and your honor holy.

3. Honor God and believe in him wholeheartedly.

4. Seek out the peace of God.

5. Avoid all hypocrisy.

6. Holy is your health and life.

7. Holy is your well-being and honor.

8. Holy is your truth and fidelity.

9. Honor your father and mother -- your children are your aid and your example.

10. Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers.

11. Be ready to help and forgive.

12. Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice.

In the new edition of the psalms, words of Jewish origin, such as messiah and halleluiah, were altered and the city of Jerusalem was referred to as Eternal City of God. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ was presented as resulting from a battle he fought against the Jews.

In the 1940 edition, the following words can be found: “The Evangelical Jesus can only become the savior of our German people, because it does not incarnate the ideas of Judaism, but fights against them mercilessly.”

“The German people fought against the destruction of their life and essence by the Jews”, wrote the director of the institute Walter Grundmann. Hitler personally signed the decree on the appropriation of the awarding of the title of professor to him.

And finally, Jesus’ ancestors, according to the Nazis, came from the Caucuses, therefore there was no way that the savior could have been Jewish.1

For the discerning thinker, it is not enough to say, “Well, Hitler said ‘Jesus,’ ‘God’ and ‘Bible’ so he must have been a Christian—I trust him!”
Rather, the question is, “What did Hitler mean when he used the words ‘Jesus,’ ‘God,’ ‘Bible’ and many others.”

Another report reads as follows:

An institute in Germany has unearthed a Nazi bible ordered by Adolf Hitler to replace the old and new testaments expunged of all references to Jews.

Hitlers race theorists even rewrote the 10 commandments and added two more for good measure in the book called “German with God”? which was, alongside Hitler’s autobiography, meant to be required reading in every home in his Third Reich.

Thou shalt not kill, coveting ones neighbours wife, thou shalt not steal and all other others were scrapped by a regime that stole, murdered and plundered its way across the world.

Hitler admired the ceremony and majesty of the church, he admitted as much in Mein Kampf, but hated its teachings which had no place in his vision of Germanic supermen ruling lesser races devoid of “outdated” concepts such as mercy and love.

But he knew the power of the church in Germany and even he could not banish it overnight. He was even forced to abandon the systematic murder of the handicapped and insane before the war when outspoken bishops began to speak against it.

Instead his plan was to gradually “Nazify” the church beginning with a theological centre he set up in 1939 to rewrite the Holy Bible. He appointed lackey professors to work on a thoroughly Nazi version that would remove all references to Jews and all compassion.

Their brief: “The cleanse church texts of all non-Ayran influences.” The first to go were the 10 Commandments. The Nazi 12 run:
“Honour God and believe in him wholeheartedly. Seek out the peace of God. Avoid all hypocrisy. Holy is your health and life! Holy is your wellbeing and honour! Holy is your truth and fidelity! Honour your father and mother ? your children are your aid and your example. Keep the blood pure and your honour holy! Maintain and multiply the heritage of your forefathers. Always be ready to help and to forgive. Honour your Fuehrer and master! Joyously serve the people with work and sacrifice. That is what God wants from us!”
More important for Hitler, however, was the eradication of Jewish words, including Hallelulja, Jehova and even Jerusalem, it was instead termed the “the eternal city of God.” “The book will have to serve the fight against the immortal Jewish enemy!” said Hitler in a memorandum to the institute in Eisenach.

Hansjoerg Buss of the Nordelbischen Church Office discovered the Bible in an archive search.

It was printed in 1941 by a company in Weimar and was shipped out to thousands of churches across Nazi-occupied Europe. It is understood most have been destroyed.

The name of the office Hitler created to shape the Bible in his image was the “Institute for the research and removal of the Jewish influence on German church life.” One of the major tasks was to ignore Jesus? Jewish roots and turn him into an Ayran. Other words specifically banned by Hitler’s race-haters were Zion, Hosanna, Galilee and Moses.

One order found in the archives for a special exhibition in Eisenach of the institute’s bizarre work came from Walter Grundmann, the anti-Semitic director appointed by Hitler.

He wrote in 1941: “The Bible must become Jew-free and the German people must see that the Jews are the mortal enemy who threaten their very existence.”

Hymn books were also trawled and “Ayranised” with no references to make the party elite balk during the few times they were ever likely to find themselves in a Christian church.

At its height, a team of 50 worked on re-writing hymn books and the Bible. But it was all a charade as far as Hitler and his S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler were concerned.

Both dreamed of being overlords of an essentially pagan society where the only virtues to be praised were iron hardness and a capability to obey any order, no matter what. “Human kindess and the moral compass as set by the Bible were laughable to them,” said Ulrich Messner, a Nazi expert.

The King James Bible is a little under 800 pages in paperback form. The Nazi “Bible” was 750 pages, after the references to Jews had been banished and Nazi2

1. 1. Leila Wilmers, trans., “Hitler rewrote the Bible and added two commandments”
2. 2. Jewish references erased in newly found Nazi Bible

Hereinafter we will consider the, now in stasis, discussion which took place between myself, the Midwest Atheist and a friend of his as we attempted to discuss atheism, Christianity and atheist talking points.

The previous segment concluded by the Midwest Atheist pouring derision upon me. I chose to deal with the friend who wrote:

Mariano,
Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to talk about why i use the word "escaped" to refer to leaving Christianity, rather than words like "lost my faith", "back-sliden", "left the fold", etc. I know when I was a Christian, I wouldnt have thought of using that word. Now that I am no longer a Christian, I can look back now and see that my Christianity was indeed a trap. (but lets save that for another conversation - this conversation is about the questions that MWA posted above).

You ask which sect of atheism I joined. The answer is : none at all. Atheism is a label which refers to the default position one holds when one does not accept the claims of someone else telling them that there are gods. In contrast, a theist does believe that there are gods (or only one god, or only one god in 3 persons, etc.).
If someone were to escape from a prison, I wouldnt think to ask them which other prison they had escaped to. If someone had been cured of a sickness, I wouldnt expect them to seek out a different sickness to replace the one they lost.
I have escaped from the trappings of religion but I do not seek a new religion or sect to replace the one I left.
I have no reason to believe that there are gods so I am an atheist. Its that simple. No sects, no cults, no divine creeds mandating what I must do or think.
However, when you refer to "sect"s of atheism, you may be refering to different labels that are given to people who believe that there are no gods (gnostic atheist) vs people who do not believe that their are gods (agnostic atheist).
I am not convinced that there are any gods, but I am willing to change my mind in light of evidence that there are gods (or a god). So far, none of the arguments I have heard have convinced me that there is a god. (well, some of the arguments did in the past, but not any more - after discovering that the arguments that did convince me in the past were flawed arguments).

So I think that answers your question. Im willing to elaborate if you wish, but I think its fair to say that its your turn now.
Perhaps it would be useful to address the questions one at a time.
So the first question for you is:
Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral?

Now, I chose to grant, or ignore, his explanation as to that to which he escaped in order to focus on the issue. But with relevance to my Atheism is Dead audience it may be of interest to consider his statements:

He denies joining any atheist sect but does recognize that there are categories into which atheists place themselves. The fact that he correlates Christianity with a prison and a sickness is perhaps indicative of bad experiences he had, for which we must be empathetic, and also denote emotional reasons for his leaving “Christianity.”

Thus, he escaped from the trappings of religion but did, in fact, seek a new religion or sect to replace the one he left. He obviously replaced it with one that 1) demands that God does not exist, or 2) does exist but is not evidenced, 3) one which demands evidence without evidencing the need to demand evidence, 4) one that restricts thought to the material realm alone, 5) which does not follow evidence where it leads, 6) which presupposes atheism, 7) which does not consider God to be a properly basic belief, 8) which is premised on metaphysics as the material cannot account for the material, 9) which does not prove that God does not exist, and on it goes.
And we even get a window into two atheist consoling delusions, “no divine creeds mandating what I must do”—the consoling delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the delusion of absolute autonomy.
The reason that I referenced that his view “does not prove that God does not exist” is that he is open minded enough, at least on paper (or, online), to be “willing to change my mind” but that, thus far, “none of the arguments I have heard have convinced me that there is a god.” Well, logically, even a weak argument for God’s existence defeats no arguments against God’s existence. Also, until such a time as material causes alone can account for the universe and absolutely everything in it—the fine tuning, the laws of thermodynamics, the bio-functions, etc.—then supernaturalism is the default position.

So back to the question “Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral?” But not quite yet as meanwhile, the Midwest Atheist chimed in with,

Careful [friend’s name], that theres a "talking point" yer not sposed to mention talkin points!

I, of course, left him alone, as requested, and wrote this to the friend,

Thanks for the response.

I did note that your questions seem to revolve around the term/concept "moral."
So, I will have to impose upon you again and ask you to define the term/concept so that I may know what I am being asked to affirm or deny.

Thanks again.

Well, the Midwest Atheist could not let this one go by and wrote,

I think that where you went wrong here, is that you listed to many questions. I think Mariano is confused or just plain stupid. Either way he obviously cannot or will not actually comment on any of your questions. Im actually wondering at this point if he read your post at all!

Do not ask me to understand or explain this oddity but some people do not have much more with which to work.

The friend wrote back,

Lets keep it simple: Is it good of Jahwe to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes?

I am picky because I want to know what I am being asked to discuss/defend and because atheists generally jump right into condemnation without providing a premise for their condemnations. And so, I basically noted the lack of actual definition, granted the question and trotted on:

Thanks for responding again.

I note that the terms have changed from “moral” to “good” and from “torture” to “punishment” and although I would prefer a definition of “good” and “punishment” I will proceed nonetheless.

Let us round off the amount of time it takes to shoot someone in the head and murder them at one second. Yes, I considered it good that the murderer whose crime took one second of time to be incarcerated for the rest of their lives.

Your question is one that is succinct and so it boils down various complex issues into, perhaps, terms that are too watered down or falsely dichotomous.

Equally succinctly stated I would say that the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness.
They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes.
In this view; life is infinite and it is either lived infinitely with God—having accepted God—or without God—having rejected God.
Those who choose against God and for their crimes are thus making their crimes infinite by choosing to live with their crimes infinitely. The punishment is eternal because their crimes are eternal.

Let us imagine that someone considered the God of the Bible and based upon their personal moral preference decide that they want nothing to do with this God. Let us further imagine that this turns out to be the one true God. If this God, whom they despise, were to force them to spend infinity with Him this would amount to hell. Thus, God gives them a choice and they can choose to be away from God for all of infinity instead.

I wonder: assuming that you do not consider it good of God to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes—upon what ground do you condemn that? Upon what absolute basis? And here I understand that you have a personal preference against it, but upon what is that preference based upon besides your personal preference? Is something good because an atheist says it is good or does the atheist say that it is good because it is good?

To this the friend responded:

Hi Mariano

Thanks for answering.

I note that the terms have changed from “moral” to “good” and from “torture” to “punishment” and although I would prefer a definition of “good” and “punishment” I will proceed nonetheless.

Yes, this was just to simplify and get things started. Regarding the use of punishment rather than torture, this was to allow for inclusion of more liberal interpretations of hell, where there is no literal fire and physical torture. Also, I think we both acknowledge that the words we chose are important to the discussion but we could go on for ever about them before getting to some debating. For example, you use the word "crimes". That in itself is questionable. Anyway I understand what you mean and were getting somewhere now so Ill move on.

...the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness.
They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes.

Whatever I may have or have not done in my life, in the end, the "crime" for which I am due to be punished for eternity for is that of rejecting the holy spirit and Gods offering of forgiveness.
However, I have not chosen to reject the holy spirit; I dont believe that he exists. This is not something I can choose. I dont choose to believe anything at all. I either do or do not believe something. This is a true dichotomy. Even if I were to not know about something, that would still mean that I do not believe it. If I have heard about something and do not understand it then still, I do not believe it. Any information which I have looked into or been presented with as evidence for the existence of god has not convinced me that the god hypothesis is true. On the other hand, I consider that it is far more likely that the Christian religion is man-made, just like any other religion is man-made.

So I can honestly say that in my case, "the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness." does not apply.

They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes. No I dont chose to live with my crimes or wrong-doings against others. I do acknowledge though that I am responsible for what I do. I also understand that the only person who can forgive me for any wrongdoing is the person I have wronged. That is the only forgiveness that is moral or real in any sense. Who decides this? I do. Which brings me to...

assuming that you do not consider it good of God to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes—upon what ground do you condemn that? Upon what absolute basis? And here I understand that you have a personal preference against it, but upon what is that preference based upon besides your personal preference?

Do I need an absolute basis? - someone else to tell me what is moral or good? No, I decide what is moral and what is not moral. Who else but me can decide this? Who else but you can decide for yourself what you judge to be morally good? I may be influenced by other people or by the knowledge that I acquire but it is always me who decides whether I think something is good or not.

I found it absolutely fascinating that this particular atheist was very, very adamant in his claims that he did not, does not, choose to reject God—seems as if he is attempting to deny personal responsibility and accountability.

In the next segment we will consider the follow up that he wrote and then draw this parsed essay to a close.

The following is from Rodney Stark’s book “The Victory of Reason – How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success.”

From pp. 7-8

Leading Christian theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas were not what today might be called strict constructionists. Rather, they celebrated reason as the means to gain greater insight into divine intentions. As Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century:

"Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason-nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason."

In the same spirit, Clement of Alexandria warned in the third century:

"Do not think that we say that these things arc only to be received by faith, but also that they are to be asserted by reason. For indeed it is not safe to commit these things to bare faith without reason, since assuredly truth cannot be without reason."

Hence, Augustine merely expressed the prevailing wisdom when he held that reason was indispensable to faith:

"Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals! Heaven forbid that we should believe in such a way as not to accept or seek reasons, since we could not even believe if we did not possess rational souls."

Augustine acknowledged that

"faith must precede reason and purify the heart and make it fit to receive and endure the great light of reason."

Then he added that although it is necessary

"for faith to precede reason in certain matters of great moment that cannot yet be grasped, surely the very small portion of reason that persuades us of this must precede faith."

Scholastic theologians placed far greater faith in reason that most philosophers are willing to do today.

This is far from surprising considering that Augustine, Aquinas and Clement the Bible stated, “‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18).

Many unbelievers virtually worship at the altar of reason yet, if they reason to reason via reason they engage in circular reasoning which is unreasonable. God provides the premise upon which to account for reason in the first place.

In the world there are things we observe and things we just know. Even so, our senses are fallible and our knowledge imperfect. But the scripture says we have the “mind of Christ” available to us through the Spirit. The Spirit can ascertain truth even when the circumstances are anything but clear. 9However, as it is [...] - [Read more]

Hereinafter we will consider the, now in stasis, discussion which took place between myself, the Midwest Atheist and a friend of his as we attempted to discuss atheism, Christianity and atheist talking points.

Right off the bat I must deal with an issue, again, with which I cannot believe I have to deal but alas…

I have come to call a certain ad hominem objection the argumentum ad chronologicum. This objection seeks to discredit a counter-argument not by responding to it but by appealing to arbitrary—supposedly common knowledge unwritten—rules about an undetermined, unspecified amount of time between someone making an argument and someone responding to it. Now, this seems to be specific to the modern era of websites and blogs since I notice that atheist do not tell other atheists that they cannot critique the Bible because it is oh, so old etc.

The first time that I encountered the argumentum ad chronologicum was in reference to ExChristiannet.Net (which has been X’d and X’d again). Some were upset because I have commented on a 3 and a 5 year old post. Now, I did not note their age as I was interested in content and subject matter and not chronology.
Well, someone informed me that indeed, the unwritten rule limited responding to only going as far back as 3 to 5 years—what a coincidence!

My next experience was with the Midwest Atheist who committed the argumentum ad chronologicum because I commented on a 5 month old post—thus, the unwritten rule was re-un-written from 3-5 years to 5 months!
I have now experienced my third argumentum ad chronologicum at Liberal Conspiracy (with regards to atheist bus ads) with someone writing this, “you sad religious sod, coming back to a dead thread to spew your nonsense” which, by the way was the entirety of their comment. Well, if it needs be stated: the article and first comment were posted on Nov. 19th with comments following on the 20th, 21st (including my first one), 24th, 25th (my second and the chronologicum), 28th and 30th.

Well, this is obviously malarkey and to reiterate from the ExChristian.Net essay; feel free to comment on any Atheism is Dead post that you please—any at all. I will elucidate some options below as this was discussed a bit.

Oh, by the way; in the following quotations all misspellings, lack of capitalizations and other grammatical errors are quoted as is; as the argumentum ad bad grammarum is as ubiquitous as the argumentum ad chronologicum.

The Midwest Atheist (I do not know who assigns atheistic jurisdiction but, nonetheless) wrote Questions/Objections for Christians in which he stated that he,

…recently got an e-mail from a fundamentalist Christian with the following question: I am writing a paper and am wondering what some of the common questions/arguments atheists aim toward Christians? I responded to her question, and CCd a number of friends of mine…I got some compliments on what I wrote, so I thought I would share it with everyone through this site. Enjoy.

As you can tell from my comment, I was less than impressed with that which followed,

Are you serious?You got compliments for merely repeating atheist talking point.And talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical?Odd indeed.

I know that I should not be surprised but I constantly am by the fact that the more certain atheists seek to condemn the Bible and Christianity the less they seem to know about either. Compounding the issue is the ubiquity of atheist talking points which are bounced around well within the box groupthink—this is why he was complimented for fallacy; these atheists agreed and share a common lack of knowledge.

Sadly, we only got to discuss point one (only in part) as apparently, the Midwest Atheist lost interest or lost the argument, or something, and is no longer approving my comments and so the discussion ended by him not allowing my comments to be posted. Here is how it went down as he wrote:

Are you serious? Trolling a 5 month old post?"You got compliments for merely repeating atheist talking point.And talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical?Odd indeed." Your grammatical errors are to numerous to point out. Get a life and learn to write.You dont expect to bait me into some sort of debate or de-bait with that pitiful attempt, do you?

Now, my point was to voice objection and then see if someone would bother responding. If this is baiting then so be it, I just figure why write an entire refutation only to leave it un-responded to; this would truly be trolling would it not; if I expected to refute and have no response back to me? In any regard, I came back with:

Please be aware that appealing to my grammatical errors is what in logic is known as an ad hominem. One could express themselves in a manner which is grammatically incorrect and still present make a valid statement.People such as myself, for whom English is a second language and who are dyslexic, would prefer empathy rather than ridicule but judging by what you consider to be challenging questions you appear to not have much more with which to work.The fact that you were complemented for listing talking point which are based on misconceptions about Christian theology seems to me to denote that you are engaging in well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think. In an era in which so much information is available at the click of a mouse button such lack of knowledge is inexcusable and if you were an honest skeptic you would welcome reasoned discourse and the possibility of being corrected.By the way; if you have established some sort of schedule whereby you no longer defend statements that you made mere months ago you should either 1) delete those posts which you refuse to defend or 2) post a note on your comments sections informing the reader as to how far back they are allowed to go chronologically in order to comment.This way they will not bother responding to arguments which you refuse to defend because they were made an unspecified amount of time ago and they will not have to be ridiculed for not being aware of your arbitrary standards.

So you see, it is not very difficult to deal with the supposed chronological counter-argument rule if you hold to any such thing.

Now, came the “friend” to which I referred in the title of this essay who chimed in and stated:

Hi MarianoFair points regarding ad hominem, age of thread, etc. Would you care to address some of the questions in the original post?There are many variations of christian doctrine so some of the questions MWA put forward will not coincide with your particular version of christianity, similar to the fact that not all of them coincide with the version of christianity from which I escaped.It would be interesting to hear what your answers to some of the questions are, even if only the ones that you consider do actually match up with the version of christian theology to which you subscribe.Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral? (Some versions of christianity say that the torture part is only metaphorical, but even if it means eternal unhappiness, that would amount to the same pain if it is infinite)Is vicarious redemption moral? (If so, then please justify your answer)Can god really be said to love us if he is willing to toss us into hell (a place he created) if we question the divinity of his son, who supposedly lived 2000 years ago and left behind so little evidence that his very existence (let alone divinity) is questionable?Is it moral to hold the crimes of an ancestor over the heads of their descendants? (Jahwe does this many times in the bible, not just "the fall")Thanks Mariano. I look forward to reading your answers to these questions.

Fair and level headed enough. Yet, the Midwest Atheist also responded thusly,

Mario,You have stated that Im using some sort of "talking point" that tells me that you must be very familiar with the "talking points" As someone who is familiar with the "talking points" it seem to me that you could have come up with a counter point. This is how it works! This is how we have debates! All you said was: "talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical"
You gonna call me a poopyhead next? When you tell some one that they are wrong you should back that up with the reason you think they are wrong. why they are wrong and how they are wrong. What you did was to basically say: "hey! your wrong!"
what was I supposed to say to that?Your October 25, 2009 1:02 PM post was long winded and added nothing that even resembled an argument on the original post, this tells me that you are not interested in discussing the thread topic. You simply want to argue about nonsense.

You get the feeling of that which, sadly, was to come from him: emotive belligerence.
So I wrote,

[to the friend],
Thanks for the question but if you do not mind I had one of my own, before I respond. You state that you escaped from some version of Christianity; to what did you escape? If it was to atheism, please tell me which sect.
[to the Midwest Atheist],I simply do not understand how stating that you listed atheist talking points which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical can in any mature way be correlated to “poopyhead.”I thought it would work just find if I express my view, you question it, ask just how you are being illogical, etc. You seem quite prepared to argue to ridicule and all but ignore the arbitrary and illogical manner in which you are proceeding.

Need it be elucidated? Commenting, however generically initially, on his list prepared the floor for dealing with his particular points, his stated arguments, while references to “poopyhead” would be an ad hominem—he is making a category mistake, perhaps assuming that I could only function on his level of emotionally charged personal besmirchments.

Midwest Atheist wrote back,

Im sorry but your time is up! You failed to make any argument; you just made accusations as to my understanding with no reason or argument nor even a single counter point! you are simply trying to bait me. You still have said nothing that resembles an argument for why you believe I have a "lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine" or how I am illogical? you might as well be saying that I am a poopyhead! It is childish to expect that you be taken seriously without backing up your words. You called me ignorant and illogical, back it up or shut the hell up and leave me alone!

Well, I went right ahead and left him alone even though he kept writing to me in order to pour derision upon me.

See how I chose to deal with it in the next segment.

Not only is burning the Qur′an a tradition that began 1,365 years ago (give or take) but it was begun by a Muslim; not only a Muslim but a Caliph, mind you.

The video below by David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi from Answering Muslims reflects some of my own research but, of course and as you will see, tackles the issue in a much more commemorative way.

My work on this issue is found in my section on Islam, specifically On the Qurans Composition along with a telling of one of my visits to our local Islamic Center where I encountered Misconceptions in Reason and History (and also, delicious soy sauce marinated meat balls).

My question is: will Muslims who come across the video respond to David and Nabeel in an intellectual and scholarly manner or with an assortment of baseless besmirchments?

Various Rabbis and Jewish Scholars (continued):
Ralbag (Gersonides 1288-1344 AD) on Deuteronomy 18:15-18,

“‘A prophet from the midst of thee.’ In fact the Messiah is such a Prophet, as it is stated in the Midrash on the verse, ‘Behold, my servant shall prosper...’ (Isa. 52:13).”

Raphael Patai; Noted anthropologist and Biblical scholar who taught Hebrew at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,

“Scholars have repeatedly speculated about the origin of the Messiah ben Joseph legend and the curious fact that the Messiah figure has thus been split in two. It would seem that in the early legend, the death of the Messiah was envisaged, perhaps as a development of the Suffering Servant motif.”1

Again Raphael Patai on Daniel 9:24-27,

“In fact, it is quite probable that the concept of the suffering Messiah, fully developed in the Talmud, the Midrash, and the Zohar, has its origin in the Biblical prophecies about the Suffering Servant, as shown by the direct references to Isaiah 53:5 in describing the sufferings of the Messiah in the Talmud, the Midrash Konene (eleventh or twelfth century), and the Zohar (thirteenth century…).”2

Again Patai referring to Isaiah,

“This great poet-prophet spoke repeatedly about the ‘Servant of the Lord,’ describing the call, mission, sufferings, death, and resurrection of this mysterious individual (Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12). As to the identification of this ‘Servant,’ there is no scholarly consensus to this day. However, the Aggada, the Talmudic legend, unhesitatingly identifies him with the Messiah, and understands especially the descriptions of his sufferings as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.”3

Julius H. Greenstone,

“There are various references in the Zohar to the idea of a suffering Messiah...[The Messiah] takes upon himself all the maladies destined for Israel, and thus alleviates Israel’s sufferings and makes them bearable. In this manner, the Messiah constitutes himself the sin-offering, which can no longer be brought by Israel, since the Temple is destroyed…The pre-existence of the Messiah is assumed, and his almost Divine character repeatedly emphasized. He is suffering for the sins of his people, and helps them carry the burden of punishment.”4

Abraham Ezra Millgram,

“[Isaiah 52:12 is] One of his most classic Messianic prophecies….Judaism awaits a Messiah who is a human person, delegated by God, Christianity maintains that the Messiah who has come was, though human, also completely divine, himself God…[the Jewish concept of] The thoroughly human nature of the Messiah is further deepened by the conception that he is the ‘suffering servant of the Lord’ (especially Isaiah 52-53, ironically used in Christianity as a pre-eminent Christiological text).

The royal scion, while awaiting the hour of redemption, undergoes all the pains of human existence, most specifically the prototypal human pains of Jewish existence: [the author goes on to quote Isaiah 53:2-12] This theme is elaborated upon throughout the Bible and Talmud: the Messiah will appear humbly riding into Jerusalem on an ass (Zechariah 9:9)—he waits sitting in front of the gates of Rome, the incarnation of the enemy of Israel, binding up the wounds with which his body is covered, among the outcasts of society (Sanhedrin 98)—above all, again and again, he suffers without guilt!

A number of traits are thus discernible in the figure of the Messiah as Judaism envisions it: he represents the epitome of poverty and humility as well as the fate of the Messianic people of Israel; he is therefore, presages redemption from these very experiences when he will appear in his glory to assume dominion.”5

Regarding Isaiah 2:2-5 Abraham Millgram’s book states,

“Implied in this conception of the Messianic age is the recognition that God will cause something to be brought about that ought to be and must be brought about which, however, human beings by themselves cannot bring about. If man could have achieved the goal of the perfectly good life by himself, God’s intervention would not be needed, and if the goal were not desirable and even imperative—then God would not need to bother. Man left to his own devices cannot attain the fulfillment that God has set for him.”

1. 1. Raphael Patai, Messiah Text (New York: Avon Books, 1979), p. 166
2. 2. Ibid., p. 2
3. 3. Ibid., p. 166
4. 4. Julius H. Greenstone, The Messiah Idea in Jewish History (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1906), p. 179
5. 5. Abraham Ezra Millgram, ed., Great Jewish Ideas, Bnai Brith Department of Adult Jewish Education (Clinton, Massachusetts: The Colonial Press, 1964), pp. 245, 248-251

Let us consider further arguments that have broken out about atheist attempts to proselytize children and otherwise express anti-Christian prejudice in the guise of humanism and concern and free thinking freedom of choice.

Here is one such example:

critics say the ideas behind the campaign are seriously flawed, especially the notion that it is possible to bring children up in a neutral environment. Fr Stephen Wang says “the call to liberate children is superficially appealing but fundamentally naive . . . If you really want your children to be free, you need to tell them why their freedom matters, and help them appreciate some of the values they might pursue. And to do that, you need to use at least a few labels.”

Brian McClinton, of the Northern Ireland Humanist Association, is frustrated at what he calls the “wilful misunderstanding” of the campaign. “We’re not devil-worshippers,” he says wearily.
“In a society full of labels, this is simply a plea for freedom of thought. All the billboard is doing is asking parents to be aware that children are not their possessions, that they have rights too . . . Why brainwash them with fantastical nonsense about floods and original sins, heavens and hells, resurrections, deaths and apocalypses?”[1]

Can we agree on this much; neither am I or my wife devil-worshippers but we might as well be as we are referred to as “child abusers” who “brainwash” our children. Thank you Brian McClinton for proving that this is not, as you claimed that “All the billboard is doing is asking parents to be aware that children are not their possessions, that they have rights too” and ending by expressing your anti-“religion” zealotry—that is, indeed, what this is about. Note that Brian McClinton did not state that parents brainwash their children by telling them that it is wrong to be greedy and hit others. He did not refer to brainwashing when parents feed their children meat before the children can choose to be vegetarians—or when parents raise them vegetarian before they can choose to eat meat.
Also, Brian McClinton did not refer to brainwashing parents who tell their children that there is no God (as my previous pastor’s wife’s father did as he tucked her into bed at night), or who tell children that the universe and everything in it is an accident, that they are glorified animals, that death will bring annihilation, etc.

I encountered an article that struck me as misconceived which was written by “The [atheist] Chaplain” from An Apostate’s Chapel and includes a quotation from Daniel Dennett:

I am delighted with the American Humanist Association’s campaign. It articulates a simple truth that should not even be considered controversial. OF COURSE you can be good without a belief in God….
We can all be good for goodness’ sake, and not because an imaginary God ‘commands’ it (who believes, literally, in such an anthropomorphic commander anyway?) or because we fear eternal torture if we don’t (what a vicious idea!), or because we crave the goodies in an afterlife (what an ignoble, childish myth!). Once we set aside, as beneath respect, those traditional themes of obedience to a supernatural monarch, fear of punishment, and covetousness of reward, religion turns out to have nothing to offer to morality except some inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior that can be appreciated by believers and non-believers alike. [ellipses in original]

It is sad to see the deleterious effects that becoming an atheist activist have had on this professor of philosophy.
I have detailed the reasons why “OF COURSE you can be good without a belief in God” at this link. OF COURSE they can since they borrow Judeo-Christian morality—even while cutting their own feet from under themselves by throwing away its ethos—God.
As to “who believes, literally, in such an anthropomorphic commander anyway?” Well, the overwhelming majority of the entire planet’s population, why do you ask?

Are we to be good (whatever “good” may mean in an atheistic universe) “because we fear eternal torture if we don’t”? This surely is a “vicious idea!” and it is Daniel Dennett’s vicious idea. At least speaking from Judeo-Christian theology, there is no such concept of “torture” known to the Bible.
And to assert that this is why Judeo-Christians do good is an attempt at mind reading and viciously narrow minded as is his assertion to craving “goodies in an afterlife.”
I considered the claim to ulteriorly motivated good doing in both Christians and atheists in the essay: The Red Light of Punishment. For now, note that in assuming to speak for theism he misses the point, which is his point, lest he be left without a point to make. The main point of Judeo-Christian theology is to love God and love humans. Love God who created humans in His image, love the humans that God loves and you will see that you have no right to violate anyone and reason enough to love everyone. Indeed, set aside, as beneath respect, those traditional themes of obedience to a supernatural monarch, fear of punishment, and covetousness of reward and do good for the main reason laid out in the Bible—love:

a lawyer, asked Him [Jesus] a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’
On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:35-40).

Interestingly enough, The Chaplain commented that they are “troubled” by Dennett’s statement, “inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior.” But why this, why not his narrow-minded arrogance? It is because:

“As I think about those exemplars and their deeds, I’m struck by how often these people fail(ed) to live up to their moral ideals:
Jacob cheated his brother
Abraham lied about his relationship with Sarah
Jesus cursed a fig tree that didn’t bear fruit out of season
Inquisitors tortured people they deemed as heretics and infidels
Protestants and Catholics bled Europe dry during religious wars
The Catholic Church still refuses to take full responsibility for pedophilia
Muslims stone women for being unchaperoned when in the presence of males to whom they are not related”

Note that while the reference was to “inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior,” the response is to essentially ignore the statement and merely be contrarian by offering examples of bad and un-courageous behavior. One does not defeat the fact of “inspiring examples of good and courageous behavior” by noting the opposite since the former is a fact and was not claimed to be an absolute. What we see is a desperate attempt to grasp at straws in attempting to deny the facts of history.

As for Jacob and Abraham; failing to live up to our own, or God’s, moral ideals is part attempting to live up to our own, or God’s, moral ideals. The Bible constantly points out the moral failings of its heroes and villains alike. The issue of Jesus cursing the tree is obviously a parabolic action which I exposited here.

I will not attempt to tackle an issue as misunderstood and talking-pointitive as the Inquisition in brevity but will note that the accused would request to be held as prisoners by the religious authorities as the secular authorities as the secular were merciless. Note that:

Historians estimate that the Spanish Inquisition killed approximately 5,000-6,000 people over its 350-year history. Thats fewer than 18 a year. One a year is too many, but the number hardly sustains the monstrous narratives we often hear.[2]

In fact, the Inquisition was premised upon political intrigues. As The Jewish Encyclopedia notes (1906 ed. Vol. XI, p. 485), “It remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their correligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain.”Indeed, directly prior to the commencement of the Inquisition, Turks attacked Otranto where the choice was offered to convert to Islam or, as was done to the 800 Christians who refused, beheading on The Hill of the Martyrs. Overall, 20,000 were slaughtered along with the archbishop and a bishop. Thereafter, the Turks attacked Vieste, Lecce, Taranto and Brindisi.

Also, note that there is plenty of this to go around as in atheistic Communism Russia:

prisoners would have their skulls squeezed within iron rings…human being would be lowered into an acid bath…they would be trussed up naked to be bitten by ants and bedbugs…a ramrod heated over a primus stove would be thrust up their anal canal (the “secret brand”)…a man’s genitals would be slowly crushed beneath the toe of a jackboot…[3]
Some had their heads repeatedly plunged into a bucket of urine and fecal matter while the guards intoned a parody of the baptismal rite…[4]

And this merely scratches the surface.

We will conclude considering The Chaplain’s article in the next segment.

[1] Fionola Meredith “Hey, preacher - leave those kids alone,” Irish Times, Nov 28, 2009
[2] Dr. John Dickson, “‘Religious violence’ a small part of the story,” ABC.net.au, May 20, 2009
[3] Daniel J. Flynn providing an example from the book: The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression
[4] Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, Thomas P. Whitney, trans., The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956 – An Experiment in Literary Investigation (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 93-94

I recently finished reading a fascinating book: “The Victory of Reason – How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism and Western Success” by Rodney Stark.

I consider it to be along the lines of “6 Modern Myths About Christianity and Western Civilization” by Philip J. Sampson for its ability to take on popular modern myths and elucidate the fact of the matter.

From pp. 35-36

CHRISTIAN COMMITMENT TO REASON AND PROGRESS WASNT ALL talk; soon after the fall of Rome, it encouraged an era of extraordinary invention and innovation.
To appreciate this remarkable achievement it is necessary to confront an incredible lie that long disfigured our knowledge of history. For the past two or three centuries, every educated person has known that from the fall of Rome until about the fifteenth century Europe was submerged in the "Dark Ages"- centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery- from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously rescued, first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment.

Bur it didnt happen that way.
Instead, during the so called Dark Ages, European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world!
The idea that Europe fell into the Dark Ages is a hoax originated by antireligious, and bitterly anti-Catholic, eighteenth-century intellectuals who were determined to assert the cultural superiority of their own time and who boosted their claim by denigrating previous centuries as- in the words of Voltaire-a time when "barbarism, superstition, [and] ignorance covered the face of the world."

Views such as these were repeated so often and so unanimously that, until very recently, even dictionaries and encyclopedias accepted the Dark Ages as an historical fact. Some writers even seemed to suggest that people living in, say, the ninth century described their own time as one of backwardness and superstition.
Fortunately, in the past few years these views have been so completely discredited that even some dictionaries and encyclopedias have begun to refer to the notion of Dark Ages as mythical.

Unfortunately, the myth has so deeply penetrated our culture that even most scholars continue to take it for granted that-in the words of Edward Gibbon- after Rome fell came the "triumph of barbarism and religion."
In part this is because no one has provided an adequate summary of what really took place.

Furthermore, from p. 51

Even if Voltaire, Gibbon, and other proponents of the Enlightenment could be excused for being oblivious to engineering achievements and to innovations in agriculture or commerce, surely they must be judged severely for ignoring or dismissing the remarkable achievements in high culture accomplished by medieval Europeans.

He elucidates advances in music, art, literature, education and science. Through the book he makes specific mention of various advances and inventions in all of these fields and more.
He concludes this section by stating, in pp. 54-55

All of this Dark Age theorizing was well known to Copernicus, who was not an isolated church canon in a remote part of Poland, as he is so often depicted, but one of the best-educated men of his generation, having trained at the Universities of Cracow, Bologna (possibly the best university in Europe), Padua, and Ferrara.
So much progress took place during the so-called Dark Ages that by no later than the thirteenth Century, Europe had forged far ahead of Rome and Greece, and ahead of the rest of the world as well."
Why? Primarily because Christianity taught that progress was "normal" and that "new inventions would always be forthcoming."
This was the revolutionary idea. Nor was faith in progress limited to technology or to high culture. Medieval Europeans were equally attuned to developing better ways to get things done.

Copernicus, and for that matter Galileo, are poster children in two other myths of modernity which are dispelled in the following—with the flat earth myth thrown in:
“The Copernican Myths”

“Galileo – A Story of a Hero of Science

The Flat Earth Falls Flat

From p. 68

The path to modern times did not suddenly open during the Renaissance any more than it sprang from the forehead of Zeus. Western civilization arose progressively over many centuries subsequent to the fall of Rome: the so-called Dark Ages were a period of profound enlightenment in both the material and the intellectual spheres, which when combined with Christian doctrines of moral equality, created a whole new world based on political, economic, and personal freedom.

In the future I will be posting more from Rodney Stark’s “The Victory of Reason” as he does a great job of building his case.

The question on the cover of TIME Magazine is “Is America Islamphobic?”

Personally, I do not think so. America is phobic, or brave, in the face of anyone and everyone who wants to murder us and fundamentally change our way of life—for the worse:

Pro-life murderers

Darwinist murderers

Agnostic murderers

Environmental hostage takers

Anti-Semitic murderers

Atheist murderers (same link as above)

Muslim murderers (same link as above)

Etc., etc., etc.

However, if the ground zero mosque is constructed I believe that, that will go a long ways towards making America Islamphobic or rather making America see that there are some Muslims with money and authority who simply do not care about anyone but themselves and the dreams of a one world ummah.
To some extent this is because when non-Muslims travel to or live in Islamic countries, Muslims expect non-Muslims to have regard for and adhere to their culture; fine, this is perfectly reasonable. Yet, when Muslims travel to or live in non-Islamic countries, Muslims expect the non-Islamic countries and their citizenry to have regard for and adhere to their culture.

In this case, no one is arguing about right of legal or religious nature. The opposition to the ground zero mosque is one of begging the Muslims for empathy, sympathy, compassion, tolerance and good old fashioned decency.

It must be great to be a terrorist now a days; they must be sitting in their caves watching their satellite TVs and high fiving each other saying, “We attack and murder them and they build a monument in our honor—Allahu akbar!!!!” (by the way, see Swedish Artist Lars Vilks and What “Allahu Akbar” Does Not Mean).

Further reading:
Barack Obama, the ground zero mosque and pop-cultural illogicality

Opposers of the ground zero mosque likened to the Ku Klux Klan