Memes

The Infallible Logic of Christianity

Jesus

*I didn’t pen the original joke. Who did, I have no idea, but he or she deserves a round of applause.聽

Advertisements

457 thoughts on “The Infallible Logic of Christianity

  1. A bible distribution company is recruiting new door-to-door salesmen. They end up with three candidates, one of whom has a terrible stutter but he is very insistant. The boss decides to try them out and let the best have the job. By the end of the week, the guy with the stutter has by far outsold the other slick door to door salesmen. They’re all stunned and ask him how he does it. “We鈥.ll”, he says, “I r鈥.r鈥..r鈥.ing t鈥鈥.the d鈥鈥︹d鈥︹.dd..oor鈥b鈥.el鈥..ll an鈥.d鈥 a鈥..a鈥a鈥.s鈥: wwww鈥.ould y鈥.ou lllll鈥.ike t鈥鈥 b鈥鈥uy a b鈥鈥ible o鈥 w鈥鈥uld y鈥u l鈥.l鈥ke m鈥 t鈥.t鈥o r鈥ad i..t t..o y..ou?”.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Ok, let’s assume he did ‘come again’. For one thing to which authority would he have to report, let’s take God out of the equation for a moment here, as technically his existence cannot actually be physically verified. Would said Jesus then have to report to the Vatican?
        Also, there is the minor issue that he would be an individual with no fixed abode or legal status anywhere – the Israelis are certainly not going to let him in or let him stay if he should turn up in the Holy City. He would have to be placed under some kind of witness protection to stop him getting lynched by the Muslims, and the Jews alike. Even if he were accepted by some authority, he would need a financial sponsor to vouch for him, and would need some kind of political immunity in order to travel around the globe. I’m sure medical science would be very interested in him too, I mean, c’mon, think about the potentials! ‘The Christ Gene’… see?
        This is not a simple case of turn up and change the world, not at all!
        Would you want to come back to the world we live in now claiming to be the son of God? Really?

        Like

      • A chastity pledge! I wish I’d thought of that. Actually it’s a great excuse for fathers not to take responsibility for their Christian offspring, particularly if they did the dirty before marriage! Tsk!
        Even so, the legalities involved in actually accepting that an individual, even if born of tender virgin loins, is the next Messiah, well… I scratch my head at that one. It’s going to be a very exclusive fan club with very little political clout, and of course politics is what it would all come down to. Actually, a scenario that is probably no different from the first time around when he ‘apparently’ appeared claiming his godly rights.

        Like

    • Maria: “Would said Jesus then have to report to the Vatican?” and others. No, as in his first mission, he will arrive to fulfill all righteousness all over again as spelled out by John. Initiating that he will have returned to him all authority from those on Earth. Upon his return, it will be a restoration church where he sits because that is his business in these latter days.

      Like

  2. It always amazes me when Christians say that Christianity is not a religion of fear — an authoritarian religion. You are told that if you do accept Jesus, but don’t serve him to the fullest, faithfully, you’re ass is grass. He’ll spit you out of his mouth. If you reject his knock, you’ve blasphemed the holy spirit, and again, your ass is grass. Jesus doesn’t take too kindly to lukewarmers — they are, apparently, going to suffer much more than those who are ‘cold’ in their belief or lack thereof.

    “It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them.” 2 Peter 2:21

    “So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” Revelation. 3:16

    So if Jesus god is all knowing, and knows you are not going to accept him, or eventually leave the faith once your frontal lobes come back online, why would he knock in the first place? Rather sadistic, IMO.

    Like

    • MO: First you come to these conclusions believing what some have told you about the Kingdom of Heaven being a small place with everyone so close to God. Too bad you haven’t thought it through realizing that if God exists, that would be his formula in his place. When you uncritically accept these fictions about His Kingdoms without scriptural support you can then fall into rejecting God in total.

      Like

      • Robin — may I ask what qualifies you as an expert on the KoG? And what part of those scriptures I posted did you not understand, or do you have your own interpretation and can enlighten us?

        I was a devout Christian for 40+ years. How long have you been a Christian?

        Like

      • John, There are opposing opinions about this stuff as you know. If somebody tells me its going to rain and another says it will snow, and another that it will be clear, do you suppose you select one of them without researching the subject for yourself? Analysis.

        Like

      • Hi Robin

        I鈥檓 afraid you didn鈥檛 answer the question. Your supposed 鈥渁nalysis鈥 is based only on what people have told you (mirroring your original, somewhat poorly thought-through accusation), and their positions are based solely on a daydream. The only valid 鈥渙pinion鈥 one can have regarding a daydream is whether they like the concept of not.

        That is, of course, unless you are privy to some factual information the rest of us aren鈥檛.

        Like

      • N Guy, I am 65 years old and a Christian all those years. Need I be an expert in your eyes for you to give me credit. I know many Christians with several years of experience as a Christian but with their first year repeated so many times. I on the other hand have been Dutch Reformed, Disciples of Christ, Baptist, and now Mormon.I am a High Priest in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for the last 25 years.

        I don’t have the time now to venture into a lengthy writeup. If you have a specific question, I can do that later.

        Like

      • Why is it insulting? Do you not value truth?

        Regardless:

        The Book of Abraham (a character, incidentally, who not even Jewish Rabbis today believe was a real person), chapter 3:

        2 And I, Abraham, saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

        3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me.

        Kolob is a star, correct? No ordinary star, though. In Section 76 of Smith鈥檚 Doctrine and Covenants he outlines the 鈥榙egrees of glory鈥 in what he names the Celestial Kingdom: the Mormon heaven. Between verses 18-24, 50-70 and 81-113 he describes inhabited planets arranged in an ascending order in orbit around Kolob with Gods planet (and Jesus鈥 as well) closest to the giant star.

        Here鈥檚 where things get a tad awkward. Unlike our rather placid sun Kolob is a monster; a supermassive star like VY Canis Majoris. Our sun, well-balanced and behaved as it is will last somewhere around 10 billion years before it exhausts its fuel supply: its hydrogen. A supermassive star, like Kolob, isn鈥檛 so patient. These monsters will burn through their fuel in under 10 million years, initiating an outrageous 26-part death dance before its final cataclysmic obliteration in a Type-2 supernova. It is an outward blast of energy so magnificently absurd that it glows brighter than a hundred galaxies for over a week and remains brighter than all the stars in a single galaxy for three or four months as it ejects 99% of all the matter that makes up the chemistry set of the universe鈥 and when it happens you really don鈥檛 want to be anywhere near.

        Now, this raises all sorts of godawful problems for Mormons鈥 Celestial Kingdom鈥. It鈥檚 going to be annihilated! Guaranteed.

        Now it鈥檚 safe to say Joseph Smith clearly wasn鈥檛 aware of this rather awkward corporeality of stars, but as sure as the earth is round the legendary Kolob will go supernova and when it does every planet in the Mormon Celestial Kingdom will be blown to smithereens. Said in another way, the LDS guarantee of eternal celestial bliss is a demonstrable lie.

        That is, of course, unless you, High Priest Robin, can explain how Kolob would escape this certain cataclysmic end, which means detailing precisely from where and how the giant star would acquire the infinite source of (finite) hydrogen it鈥檇 need to burn for eternity鈥

        Like

      • That is fascinating, John. Puts things into perspective. I’ve watched all the hidden videos (a couple of hours worth) of what went on during the Mormon ceremonies, plus interviews from people who came out of Mormonism. From a neurological POV, they’ve got the cult programming down pat. I was stunned at their antisocial behavior towards members who tried to leave the church, towards women, and towards homosexuals. This is yet another patriarchal group of insecure men who need others beneath them to feel important, special, and who get off on power.

        Like

      • N鈩溡愨樇N鈽槀鈩功 asks what qualifies me to be expert in the KofG? Tell me what you suppose makes one an “expert” in Christian doctrine. I am intrigued. You cannot provide such a standard that Christians on the whole admire.

        I think the notion “expert” lives in the same world of thought as John’s “Proof” (that the fastest growing Christian faith is false).

        Like

      • Robin, you guys are filthy rich and between you and the RCC, could eliminate poverty, hunger, and preventable diseases for every child, woman, and man on the planet plus provided everyone higher education. But you don’t use the money for the right reasons. You are like a cancer to humanity. Now, you might think that’s rude — but what I shared with you is the truth.

        Like

      • Attempting to “prove” the LDS church false, you suppose the obscure Kolob dressed as a straw man fallacy exists as if the Church. Congratulations, your straw man is defeated while the LDS with its doctrines remain outside your discussion.

        Like

      • Hi Robin.

        I鈥檓 not sure you know what precisely a straw man fallacy is. Are you denying Joe Smith鈥檚 writings on the 鈥榙egrees of glory鈥 (the Celestial Kingdom) and its relationship to the great star, Kolob?

        Like

  3. That’s very funny! There’s a few people I’d like to send it to but I don’t think they’d appreciate it in the same way …

    By the way, nice to see you posting more frequently. Is it a new trend or a freak event?

    Like

    • “Jesus! Bad waves of paranoia, madness, fear and loathing, intolerable vibrations in this place. Get out! The weasels were closing in. I could smell the ugly brutes.”

      馃檪

      Like

  4. John, knock-knock jokes? Really? Are we reduced to that?

    And everybody knows that if Jesus comes back again he will report to a PR firm as he has a real problem, actually several. The primary problem is getting his message out so it is heard through the noise machine. Wrote a short story about it but lost it somehow.

    Like

  5. There you go again, posting facts in a manner that will bring cheers from your supporters and shouts of ignorant anger from your detractors. You will be punished for this! 馃槈

    Like

  6. I love it! That is so hilarious! Can not wait to spread that ‘good news’. For some reason I envision Hitler, Stalin and the big bad wolf giggling right behind Jesus waiting to get their turn.

    Like

  7. Yawn…John, how many of the tired, recycled caricatures are you going to put up? Have you got a big box of other people’s work in the cellar that you’re emptying out one by one? And you accuse Jesus of being unoriginal…

    I’d have thought your readers would have been noted out of their minds from eating the same gruel everyday. Apparently not!

    best, cct.

    Like

    • Why? Christians have been chewing on the same gristle for thousands of years. And believing it, too.
      At least the atheists get to laugh. You lot have been peeing in your pants out of fear since forever; disgusting, immoral sinners that you are!

      Like

    • Yawn? LOL… As Ark points out, that’s rather precious coming from a religion who’s greatest intellectual contribution to the human species is an ontological word game devised 1,100 years ago 馃檪

      Like

    • Is that your best argument?

      Well, as a “faithful” reader of this blog, I can state without equivocation that the satire and parody never gets stale. But if the content strikes you as bland and unpalatable, then why not heed the advice attributed to some ancient Jewish dude:

      “If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.”

      … or is that’s too strong a medicine, just stop visiting sites you can’t stand.

      Like

  8. Pingback: Oh, the Blasphemy… | Pandora's Box

  9. I’ve just read New Scientist on the latest El Nino … boy, are you atheist bastards in South America EVER gonna get it!

    (You’d better get the Pope back, pronto …)

    Like

  10. Pingback: The Infallible Logic of Christianity | Christians Anonymous

  11. How ironic this post for just today I was wondering why there are no funnies in the Bible. All that paper and not one laugh? I decided that there probably aren’t any one-liners since the whole thing is a joke.

    Like

  12. The beauty of this meme is that it cuts straight to the chase: the Christian doctrine of salvation is FUBAR and can’t be rescued by appeals to logic.

    Like

    • Ron,

      The Christian doctrine of salvation is an article of faith so it’s no surprise that appealing to logic doesn’t do any good.

      Since atheism is 100% faith-based, it can’t be rescued by appeals to logic either.

      Like

      • Well, see7mdash;that’s the crux of my problem: my faith in faith is exceedingly weak.

        How was your electroshock this morning? Enervating as always, I presume?

        Like

      • Ron,

        Since you cannot prove atheism, that means you have 100% faith in it.

        You have no evidence for atheism. You just believe it because you hate Christianity.

        To reason out rational arguments the claim you are making must be able to stand on its own merits.

        Because atheism cannot stand on its own merits, the atheist is left making bigoted attacks on religion and committing verbal abuse on anyone who dares offer disagreement.

        Like

      • @SOM

        The burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim. Rejecting a proposition for lack of evidence requires zero faith, and atheism, in its broadest sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

        However, the existence of people without god beliefs presents ample evidence that atheism exists; so both your first and your second statements can be shown as demonstrably false.

        My opening claim was never challenged. Indeed, it met with your express agreement. To wit:

        The Christian doctrine of salvation is an article of faith so it鈥檚 no surprise that appealing to logic doesn鈥檛 do any good.

        Do you now wish to retract that statement?

        And my second claim (my faith in faith is exceedingly weak) is amply demonstrated every time I post comments demanding evidence in support of theistic assertions.

        As to your charge of bigotry: I harbor no hatred towards anyone; but neither do I mince words when it comes to challenging someone’s unconvincing beliefs.

        Like

      • See… the claims are all true. There really is Christian persecution in America. Fox News is vindicated.

        Like

      • Or take their interpretation of the bible to the United States Supreme Court

        …. In direct contravention to their founder’s concise instructions to “obey the laws of the land”, “turn the other cheek” and “forgive seventy times seven”. 馃檪

        Like

      • Ron,

        God is the only authoritative source of objective ethics.

        Try reading Leviticus chapter 19. You will all the ethics that you know and love printed right before your eyes.

        Whatever ethics an atheist has, comes from the Bible.

        Otherwise you’re just another one of Vlad Putin’s lackeys.

        Like

      • Actually, the oldest known existing sources of law are:

        – the Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2050 BCE),
        – Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1930 BCE),
        – the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (c. 1870 BCE), and
        – the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1772 BCE).

        The earliest known copies of Leviticus date back to the 5th century BCE. So the Jewish law is not only late to the party, but borrows heavily from the above sources.

        And the barbaric ethics of the OT have been gradually supplanted with more humane laws. For instance: slavery has been abolished and women are no longer treated as chattel,

        Like

      • Ron,

        The topic isn’t “the oldest known sources.”

        Western Civilization is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, the sources you cited are totally meaningless for this particular discussion.

        And human rights reached their zenith in Western Civilization, not in those you cited where human life meant absolutely nothing.

        Like

      • Did he?

        In 539 B.C., the armies of Cyrus the Great, the first king of ancient Persia, conquered the city of Babylon. But it was his next actions that marked a major advance for Man. He freed the slaves, declared that all people had the right to choose their own religion, and established racial equality. These and other decrees were recorded on a baked-clay cylinder in the Akkadian language with cuneiform script.

        Known today as the Cyrus Cylinder, this ancient record has now been recognized as the world鈥檚 first charter of human rights. It is translated into all six official languages of the United Nations and its provisions parallel the first four Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

        From Babylon, the idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. There the concept of 鈥渘atural law鈥 arose, in observation of the fact that people tended to follow certain unwritten laws in the course of life, and Roman law was based on rational ideas derived from the nature of things.
        Documents asserting individual rights, such as the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), the US Constitution (1787), the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789), and the US Bill of Rights (1791) are the written precursors to many of today鈥檚 human rights documents.

        http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/brief-history/cyrus-cylinder.html

        Like

      • John,

        Cyrus the Great reminds me of comrade atheist and mass murderer Josef Stalin who said that in his army it was safer for his soldiers to attack than to retreat.

        Like

      • SOM— Stalin was named after St. Joseph. His mother was very religious — a Christian. For a season he attended seminary. One of the reasons why he grew to hate Christianity — the Church, was because his mother couldn’t get a divorce and he watched his dad brutally beat her.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        The Stalin mass murders are the fault of Josef Stalin and no one else.

        Blaming the Church for Stalin’s mass murders is the usual ridiculous scapegoating argument put forth by atheists.

        It’s long past time you people owned up to your own horror show.

        Like

      • Stalin had a very negative upbringing. His mother hoped he would become a priest. He had several injuries during childhood, including a traumatic brain injury which got worse as he aged. He suffered from atherosclerosis which is a build up of fatty materials in the arteries of the brain.

        So, his culture, his injuries, the belief in corporal punishment (condoned in the bible), his mother trapped in a marriage, no thanks to the church, and a very dysfunctional family environment contributed to his actions. And don’t forget — Hitler was raised a Christian, too, also brutally beaten by his father.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        I had a very negative upbringing. lots of people had negative upbringings.

        Stalin was able to justify his evil because he was an atheist.

        Justifying evil is what atheists do. It’s what you are doing right now.

        You are trying to justify comrade atheist Josef Stalin’s evil by placing blame elsewhere.

        Like

      • “Stalin was able to justify his evil because he was an atheist.”

        Nope — that’s nonsense. You have extremely high latent inhibition. There were a number of factors for the cause of Stalin’s actions. SOM, tomorrow, you could get knocked upside the head in the prefrontal cortex — just the right area, and turn into a Stalin — a Hitler. Hell, you may even be a psychopath, for all we know. Psychopaths can be charming at times. 馃槈

        We have plenty of studies showing that damage to specific areas of the pre-frontal cortex leads to psychopathic behavior. Child abuse is the 3rd leading cause of pre-frontal cortex damage. Christianity taught that children were property of men — and that beating them with a rod would spare them from hell.

        “Children who experience early damage in the prefrontal cortex never completely develop social or moral reasoning. As adults, even on an intellectual level, they cannot refer to such behavior because they have little concept of it.”

        “Researchers at the University of Sweden have found the prefrontal cortex to be precisely the area of the brain that is impaired in murderers and other violent criminals who repeatedly re-offend.” http://learn.fi.edu/learn/brain/head.html

        You see, SOM, your Christian God didn’t know squat about the brain, as ‘he’ commanded and condoned the very conditions that lead to pre-frontal cortex injuries and these behaviors. Numbers 31. According to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration, traumatic brain injuries are the signature wound of war.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        Josef Stalin was a prot茅g茅 of Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Soviet Union, who said, “Atheism is necessary for the Communist Program.”

        The reason atheism is necessary for Communism is because atheism has no defined morality.

        Under atheist regimes, morality is defined by the State.

        Since Josef Stalin was the State, mass murder committed for the good of the State was morally good.

        Adolf Hitler used the same rationale. He was the State so he made everyone in the German Army swear allegiance to him, not Germany.

        But Hitler was a mass murdering piker compared to atheist Josef Stalin.

        Like

      • LOL — he tickles me. I like playing with him. Lot’s of tangled strings, though. I know he’s not going to get anything I share. He doesn’t care. I’m not posting for his sake. He likes being a god puppet, so why not take advantage of that. 馃槈

        Like

      • Somewhat awkwardly, Christians practiced Communism in the book of Acts.

        Marx鈥檚 famous line 鈥淔rom each according to his ability, to each according to his need鈥 comes directly from the New Testament.

        All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
        (Acts 2:44-45)

        There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles鈥 feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means 鈥渟on of encouragement鈥). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles鈥 feet.
        (Acts 4:34-37)

        Like

      • Tell that to the early Christians鈥 especially Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) who were murdered by their Communist Christian brothers and sisters for not ponying up all their possessions to the collective.

        Like

      • John,

        Church monastic life is voluntary.

        Communism and socialism are the exact opposite.

        The difference between Church monastic life and life under Communism and socialism is the difference between free man and slave.

        That the atheist can’t tell the difference between freedom and slavery is yet another proof of atheism’s pernicious and damaging qualities.

        Like

      • So, what do you call it, exactly, when 鈥渇ree men鈥 (Ananias and Sapphira) are murdered by Christian Communists because they didn鈥檛 鈥渄onate鈥 all their possessions to the collective? 馃槈

        Like

      • Neuron,

        Only God can act like God.

        Atheists who deny the existence of God must become gods of their own private alternate universes.

        Thus, mass murder routinely carried out by atheist regimes.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        Psychology is for humans.

        So when you call God a psychotic you are projecting your own problems upon a being you don’t even believe in.

        Atheists do that a lot. It’s part of the atheist blame game we have already discussed.

        Like

      • “So when you call God a psychotic you are projecting your own problems upon a being you don鈥檛 even believe in.”

        Remember SOM — what we are attempting to understand is why a Christian would worship such a deity — Jesus’ daddy — when this god of the OT shows far worse behavior than any severally mentally ill dictator that walked the planet. What it shows is that when you justify these behaviors from your god, you are equally guilty.

        Jesus said that if you’ve seen him, you seen the father. As noted in Revelations 19, it is written that Jesus will come back and slaughter en masse, globally.

        I’d also like to mention that if you are fucking around — playing the troll because it gives you a hard-on — you are giving fuel to hyper-religious people who might kill if they thought god told them to.
        ——————
        “Data collected during the last 15 years for the Personal Philosophy Inventory from 1.48 thousand university men (n = 629) and women (n = 853) were analyzed to discern the response characteristics of individuals who stated “yes” to Item 136 “If God told me to kill, I would do it in His name.”

        Of the men who reported a religious experience, attended church weekly, and displayed elevated complex partial epileptic like signs, 44% stated they would kill another person if God told them to do so.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9293569?dopt=Abstract

        Like

      • Neuron,

        When you, the atheist, apply human psychology to God you are committing an error called anthropomorphizing.

        That is, you are assigning human qualities to something that isn’t human.

        The next fatal error you commit is assigning your own meaning to the Bible. That means as an atheist, you assign whatever meaning you need to the Bible in order for it to justify your atheism.

        The name of that error is called circular reasoning.

        All atheist arguments are based on common logical fallacies.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        Studies that violate common sense and common knowledge are simple lies that pillage academic authority and make their own.

        And using simple reasoning I proved that your comments are based on definable and well known errors in thinking.

        I recommend that you briefly study my comments. They are primers on how to think clearly and rationally.

        Like

      • Again SOM — what part of that study were you not able to comprehend? Do you need an interpreter? Let me help you.

        All the questionnaires that included a 鈥榶es鈥 to this were examined to see what other items emerged in association with a willingness to kill in 鈥楬is鈥 name.

        Four factors emerged.

        1) Having had a religious experience.

        2) Weekly church attendance (religious orthodoxy).

        3) Being Male.

        4) Limbic lability (e.g. — a person might hear a religious statement, and feel a parasthesia, a tingling or electric-like feeling, or more commonly, an intense burst of emotion.)

        The next step was to look at all the questionnaires that showed all four traits, creating a second group.

        44% of this second group stated that they would kill another person if God told them to.

        The study was based on Canadian university students (much less religious than Americans), and if generalizable, then one out of 20 Canadian university students would be willing to kill another person if they were to attribute the instruction to God.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        “Would you kill someone if God asked you?” is a trick question that gives away the fact that the study you’re so much in love with is completely bogus.

        First, if you, Neuron, actually knew it was God who was asking the question, you would no longer be an atheist.

        So the question you are so much in love with strips you of your religion, atheism and gives you a new one: believing in God.

        Second, how does anyone know that God is actually asking the question?

        Does God speak through an angel? Does he appear as a cloud of smoke or a burning bush?

        Or maybe he splits your Red Sea wide open so your pet Pharaoh can drive his chariot through it to his heart’s content.

        The study is bogus. It’s just another atheist lie.

        Like

      • SOM, most of us suspect that you are a troll. But some Christians who are looking for validation regarding the voices they hear in their head, and the physical and emotional sensations they get when they read or hear about the Christian god, just might believe your bullshit.

        Some might kill another if they hear those voices, and some might kill themselves, like my late husband did after he became hyper-religious due to a neurological disorder. Yeah, he blew his brains out after being told by one of your Christian buddies that the voices were real.

        “Hyperreligiosity is a major feature of mania, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, temporal-lobe epilepsy and related disorders.”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16439158

        So you are either one of those hyper-religious people, or you are a troll. It’s possible you are both.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        What you object to in my comments is the application of reason.

        Since atheism is a 100% faith-based belief, reason means nothing to you.

        But I know of no other way to communicate so I just have to hope one day your brain will kick into gear and remember the wondrous moment when reason graced your Godless mind, courtesy of SOM.

        Like

      • Ron: “And the barbaric ethics of the OT have been gradually supplanted with more humane laws. For instance: slavery has been abolished and women are no longer treated as chattel,”

        SOM: Western Civilization is based on Judeo-Christian ethics — And human rights reached their zenith in Western Civilization”

        Elizabeth Caddy Stanton – 1896 — Leading figure of the early women’s rights movement: “The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation.”

        From the pamphlet “Bible and Church Degrade Woman,” Free Thought Magazine (1896),

        http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/stanton.htm

        Like

      • Neuron,

        Male superiority was a worldwide belief, not a Christian belief.

        So just as it took centuries for the Christian West to abolish slavery, equality of women was also a long time coming.

        But it only came in the West. No other civilization abolished slavery or allowed women to fulfill their full potential.

        Like

      • SOM — do not give Christianity the credit for it. Women were finally able to get an education — no thanks to many insecure men who did their damnedest to prevent that. Women fought for that right. Education is what abolished slavery and afforded women human rights. Not Christianity.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        What allowed women to get an education after so many millennia?

        The answer is Christian values.

        The Gospel shows Jesus treating women with respect, especially his mother. The change in our society’s view of women is an example of the Holy Spirit in action.

        Like

      • Too bad Christian men didn’t get they, eh? No — women had to fight and fight and fight for centuries, no thanks to the OT, Christianity, the Church, and Paul’s letters.

        The change of society’s view of women has nothing to do with Christianity, and everything to do with the women’s suffrage movement. They had had enough of your Christian “values”. 馃槈

        Had it been about Jesus — it wouldn’t have taken 2000 years and still today, Christian men are fighting tooth and nail to keep women in their place — under the rule of men.

        Like

      • Neuron,

        No men got it.

        Singling out Christian men for something that had been around thourghout the human race since time immemorial is an example bigotry.

        Like

      • @SOM

        The topic isn鈥檛 鈥渢he oldest known sources.鈥

        You’re absolutely right—it isn’t. The topic of this thread is “The Infallible Logic of Christianity” (sarcasm). But thus far, you’ve avoided that one to chase down other rabbit holes.

        That aside, the point remains: the ethics contained within the Torah were borrowed from centuries-old sources written by men, not God.

        Nor is Western civilization governed by Judeo-Christian ethics (whatever that means). Of the 613 Mitzvo, only three are enforced by law: murder, theft and perjury. Moreover, the US founders jettisoned the monarchy in direct contravention to biblical edicts to “obey the king’s command”, and the phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” stands in stark opposition to the biblical injunction to “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.”

        Like

      • Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine


        鈥淭he Jews did not begin with Abraham. Their foundation lies in the ancient cultures of the Near East. The story of Egypt, Sumeria, Babylonia, the Amorites and the Canaanites is also the story of the Jews. Jewish culture when it began was already a composite of the legacy of these older civilizations.鈥

        Like

      • SILENCEOFMIND: Whenever I hear someone tell me I’m up to mischief in destroying the peace in their blog (?????), I know they’re past struggling for reasoned words.

        Like

  13. “Since you cannot prove atheism, that means you have 100% faith in it.”

    That right thar is some of the most deepestest deepityest cornfed bullshit I have ever heard.

    “Because atheism cannot stand on its own merits, the atheist is left making bigoted attacks on religion and committing verbal abuse on anyone who dares offer disagreement.”

    Projection at its finest. It wasn’t all that long ago you fine x-ians had your armies disbanded and your right to burn witches, and crucify apostates taken away. Let me fix that for you.

    Because theism cannot stand on its own merits, the theist is left making bigoted attacks on atheism and committing verbal abuse (and not that long ago murder/torture/and wanton slaughter) on anyone who dares offer disagreement. Kind of like where Islam is today, x-ianity was a few hundred years ago.

    Like

  14. @SILENCEOFMIND : May 9, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    “Since you cannot prove atheism, that means you have 100% faith in it.

    You have no evidence for atheism. You just believe it because you hate Christianity.

    To reason out rational arguments the claim you are making must be able to stand on its own merits.

    Because atheism cannot stand on its own merits, the atheist is left making bigoted attacks on religion and committing verbal abuse on anyone who dares offer disagreement.”

    I appreciate your comments.

    Regards

    Like

      • SOM: “John, I鈥檓 dead serious.”

        John: “Of course you are鈥”

        馃槈

        See what I mean? Paar took him seriously. How many other believers in god who read SOM’s BS take him seriously?

        Paar, does Allah speak to you — do you hear voices? Would you kill if Allah told you to? Many in Islam would and have.

        Like

      • @JOHN ZANDE says: May 11, 2014 at 3:37 pm

        He might be sometimes; but I have never seen any positive argument favoring Atheism from anybody .

        Whenever somebody challenges Atheism; they hide behind “burden of proof”; that suggests Atheism is faith based; cannot stand on its own feet.

        I know that Christianity is mythical; it does not belong to teachings of Jesus; and is based on Pauline creeds.

        Atheism is a fruit of Pauline Christianity; it surfaced in reaction to mythical creeds of Pauline Christianity.

        Regards

        Like

      • Atheism is a fruit of Pauline Christianity, huh? Well, better tell the Buddhists and Janes that, and while you鈥檙e at it, might want to mention it to the Greeks too鈥 I鈥檓 sure Epicurus will be amazed at your insight.

        Like

  15. Pingback: Atheism is 100% faith-based :SILENCEOFMIND | paarsurrey

  16. @JOHN ZANDE says:May 10, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    I appreciate your mentioning of Cyrus the Great- the Great Persian Prophet of the One-True-God, a Zoroastrian.

    He was never an Atheist or Agnostic.

    All Ethics, Morality and Spirituality comes from Religion; none from Atheism.

    Regards

    Like

  17. Pingback: Charter of Human Rights: Cyrus-the Great Persian Prophet of the One-True-God, a Zoroastrian | paarsurrey

  18. @ N鈩溡愨樇N鈽槀鈩功 : May 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm

    Do you think that if you tell me to kill a person I will kill him? You are a rational person; you will never tell me such a thing. And even if you tell me; why should I kill a person?

    The One-True-God is All-wise; he will never tell me such a thing to do; He had endowed man rationality; so He is most rational, reasonable and wise. He never tells such things.

    Regards

    Like

    • Paarsurrey, in the bible, it is recorded that Abe was asked by god to sacrifice his son. By your comment can we say that this retelling of the narrative is not factual or what is your stand?

      Like

      • Am usually generous, and in that end am going to classify you as an idiot of the first degree.
        The fellow you mentioned was deranged and mental and seeing a therapist. How could that be the personification of atheism?
        His aunt said

        He was always a disturbed child. I don鈥檛 know how he was allowed to get a gun. Something has to be done about gun laws in America. Pete is absolutely broken. I can鈥檛 see how he鈥檒l ever recover.

        So again as I said earlier, do you think I should hold my breath waiting for something intelligent from you?

        Like

      • Exactly, Noel. Not only that but the guy didn’t even read the manifesto before he started spewing his rhetoric about Rodger’s parents. He was well cared for and had a fairly normal childhood. He also had nurture and attention from his parents. His mother gave up her career for him — his words. He also had nannies looking after him during his childhood, which he was fond of — his words. He was raised in a healthy environment — his words, and had a lot of love and care, his words.

        He was rejected by a girl in school, and he writes that from then on he hated girls. Reading his 141 page manifesto yesterday, I realized this guy was very mentally ill, a sociopath/psychopath. He clearly resembled the god of the bible. His parents warned the police. They ignored the warnings. And as you mentioned, he was under psychiatric care. The guy refused to take his meds. He only saw women as vaginas, entertainment centers, play things for his enjoyment. he glorified the dominant alpha male. “‘I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male …”

        Is it any wonder why they rejected him? He had the same mentality as the scripture in the NT that states that men were not created for women, but women for the men.

        On page 93 he says that all his life he needed to feel worthy as a man, and for so long he felt worthless. He then said “It’s all girls’ fault.” Kinda sounds like the Garden of Eden, blaming Eve for the fall of humanity, the first sinner, also noted in the NT. Adam also blamed Eve. On page 136 Rodger says:

        “I am Elliot Rodger…Magnificent, glorious, supreme, eminent. It is my purpose to punish them all. I will purify the world of everything that is wrong with it on the Day of Retribution. I will truly be powerful God, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved.”

        He’s talking Yahweh language there.

        And the judgement on humanity — Sound familiar? Just like Jesus is going to do when he comes back — poring out the wrath of his daddy god, as mentioned in Revelations 19. He goes on to say: “The ultimate evil behind sexuality is the human female. Women are flawed creatures and women are incapable of having morals and thinking rationally and need to be controlled.

        Sound familiar? Exactly what St. Augustine said about women, which I quoted on your ‘Laughter’ post today. If you do look at the manifesto, scroll to page 136, beginning with the sentence of the last quote I posted regarding the human female. Sounds just like something straight out of the Old Testament. He definitely read the bible.

        Like

      • Thanks Victoria, i was hoping you’d read that “manifesto” and give us the brief. Looks like another case study when that silicon chip inside his head get’s switched to Overload.

        Like

      • Yep. It’s quite sad that when the human brain is damaged, it can do so much harm. He says he was bullied by other boys in 8th and 9th grade. He got into a lot of fist fights (knocked in the head) with other boys and it is also possible that he sustained a brain injury while skateboarding, which he loved. He did a lot of risk-taking with skateboarding. I’ve seen videos of guys getting concussions while doing skateboarding tricks. Neurological studies state: “Children who experience early damage in the prefrontal cortex never completely develop social or moral reasoning.”

        Brain injuries are the number one cause of death and injury in children. The Brain Injury Association states that ff you are between the ages of 15 and 24 and drive a motor vehicle, ride a bicycle, or play sports, then you are at the top of the risk-list for head injury. It also states “Falls are the most common cause of playground injuries and result in a higher proportion of severe injuries than either bicycle or motor vehicle crashes. Brain injuries account for 75% of children鈥檚 deaths from falling off of playground equipment. Traumatic brain injury is significantly underdiagnosed.”

        http://learn.fi.edu/learn/brain/head.html

        I noticed that Rodgers behavior changed quite dramatically around the age of 15 and he became very depressed. The studies state “They had an impaired ability to shift their attention in order to view the world in a different way.”

        So for people to go on and on about Rodgers being immoral because he was a atheist just goes to show you how ignorant they are.

        Like

      • It is fine to accuse atheists for crimes they have no part it but such ignorance is to me very annoying.
        At least I hope he will read this and get a replacement name for atheists who he thinks are guilty of his imagined offences

        Like

      • As I stated earlier, How about a current event: Elliot Rodger for personification of atheism with its invitation to a failed moral compass. How appropriate it is from atheists suppose that because he is mentally ill that it’s all biological …….with John going so far with the fiction of how easy it is to explain it to biological causes out of brain “injury” (that didn’t occur). The truth is police conducted a welfare check on Rodger a month ago at the request of others. They found that he did not meet the criteria for a mental health hold. So much for his severe biological mental illness.

        However, we know that the affluent lifestyle gave him immense advantages. Therapy gave him immense advantages. Yet, you mention that because he was off his meds, his mass murder is explained because he is biologically lunatic (incongruously) like so many honored Bible characters. With this explanation we should be seeing thousands of mass murders weekly. Yet Elliot’s manifesto was that of an atheist with troubles with what that world view was destroying him. The atheist Elliot, nevertheless, had all the outward manifestations and drive to live a life of hedonism by Choice. His church was any room with a mirror!

        Non-agnostic atheism promotes varied levels of narcissism because a narcissist atheist by nature is fixed, locking him/herself in the mirrored room. A narcissist atheism is all about self-power. Elliot, by example, called himself “God” in his manifesto. This is the default position of having no creator.

        A narcissist and devout, honest Christian are contradictory terms. I can only choose narcissism by denying my faith in God, thereby entering the mirrored room to look at myself alone. You find “truth” when you find satisfying answers about how to interact effectively with a world of valuable assets in people. This is the non-atheist world view.

        Like

      • Robin, just this week Kimberly Dawn Lucas drowned her two-year old child as she reenacted the biblical story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. She did this after listening to the Metropolitan Community Church pastor, Lea Brown, re-tell the story and assuring her congregation that God will intervene in matters of faith. Kimberly Dawn Lucas was, apparently, surprised God didn鈥檛 intervene as the child struggled under the water, and died.

        Tell me, was Kimberly Dawn Lucas mentally ill, or was this murder performed simply because she was religious?

        Like

      • I don’t think you are addressing me. Either way, to believe oneself god, one must believe that some god exist. To call such a person a personification of atheist is to me moronic.

        To say atheists lack a moral compass whatever you mean by it, is to disparage a segment of society for no reason at all except that they find your belief in god ridiculous.

        Elliot at no point declares, as far as I can tell, that he is doing whatever he is doing because he doesn’t believe in a god. You can be kind to point me to anywhere in his manifesto where he says explicitly that he is doing whatever he is doing for atheism or in the name of atheism

        Like

      • If the believer thinks his god an example for moral conduct, we must define what is moral and acceptable.
        Once in a while am generous 馃榾

        Like

      • John,
        Yes, mentally ill….from what has been revealed so far. The motivation to murder the two year old did not occur as you identified. You cherry picked the facts to your own benefit. First, the minister did not challenge her parishioners to test God in murder. Second, The attempted murder of the ten year old after the death of the two year old and after drugging him indicates a planned double murder, not an expectation of intercession from God. An adult Christian knows God is not a cosmic bellboy, nor is He to be tested.

        Like

      • This is from the article i read yesterday:

        “A Florida woman is accused of drowning one child after trying to poison another, in what she described as accordance with a local pastor鈥檚 sermon…. Investigators said Lucas attended a sermon by Metropolitan Community Church pastor Lea Brown this past Sunday that covered the Biblical story of Abraham readying himself to sacrifice his son on orders from God, only to be stopped by God at the last minute.
        Lucas is accused of trying the same thing 鈥 trying to kill the two young children she was helping to raise, but she wrote in a suicide note that God didn鈥檛 step in and stop her, at least in the case of the 2-year-old girl. Lucas鈥 own suicide attempt failed. Police reportedly found Lucas鈥 message (PDF) typed on a computer in the home.”

        Sorry Robin, but she was re-enacting the biblical story. Would you like me to now list all the other children murdered by their Christian parents because “God told them too”

        Interesting that you’re so quick, though, to say Kimberly was mentally ill, but not Elliot. I guess that just doesn’t fit into your worldview, right?

        Like

    • Paar, I think you missed my point, entirely. But anyway, you said that your god, Allah had endowed man with rationality. I’m assuming you meant Muslims who obsessively follow the Quran? I wondered if you’ve seen this. The video clip is a little over 3 minutes. Take special note beginning at minute marker 2:30.

      Like

  19. @MAKAGUTU says:May 11, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    “Paarsurrey, in the bible, it is recorded that Abe was asked by god to sacrifice his son. By your comment can we say that this retelling of the narrative is not factual or what is your stand?”

    Bible is neither authored by Abraham nor by Moses. Its different books have been authored by anonymous narrators and the scribes. It is not the original Word of God in the original language revealed.

    Dreams and visions are always or most often interpret-able.

    It only meant that Abraham and his offspring shall have to face hardships in the path of God (Allah Yahweh Tao) and would have to devout their lives; in service of the humanity for its ethical, moral and spiritual uplift.

    Abraham and Ismael were sure about it from their experience with the One-True-God; they knew that the He won’t let them accomplish an unreasonable act; and would bring out reasonable solution of the matter.

    And the act of Abraham sacrificing his son Ishmael never happened in literal and real terms.

    Abraham and his progeny did devote their lives to the cause of religion and that is how it took place in real terms; and that is what one should focus on.

    The matter of as to how to interpret such dreams and visions was settled for all times.

    Regards

    Like

  20. Pingback: The act of Abraham sacrificing his son Ishmael never happened in literal and real terms | paarsurrey

  21. JOHN ZANDE : May 11, 2014 at 10:28 pm
    N鈩溡愨樇N鈽槀鈩功 says:May 11, 2014 at 9:28 pm
    鈥淭he entire intellectual foundation collapsed and hasn鈥檛 recovered since鈥 Revelation replaced investigation鈥

    Revelation does not necessarily replace investigation.

    Like

    • I hope Neuron in his upcoming co-author opportunity realizes that copy-paste is not gonna cut it with the publisher.

      “the entire intellectual foundation at a price collapsed and has not recovered since !!! Over that period, all these books were translated into Arabic on a scale not seen since then. Revelations replaced investigation鈥”

      compare with………

      http://bestofmvm.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/spirituality-elevates-your-soul-religions-stop-progress-and-crucify-science/

      Like

      • “I hope Neuron in his upcoming co-author opportunity realizes that copy-paste is not gonna cut it with the publisher.”

        Robin, show me where I wrote the above quote that Paar attributed to me. John may have left out “at a price” but he emphasized it by highlighting that the intellectual foundation has not recovered since. Apparently, everyone got that but you. Btw, replace “his” with “her”.

        Like

      • More babbling, Robin? Watch the video, you’ll see the quote comes from that… as indicated, quite plainly, by the quotation marks

        Tell me, are you, at any time, actually going to put on your Urim and Thummim and address the content of the meme, or are you satisfied with simply tapping out nonsense? Don鈥檛 get me wrong, nonsense can be fun, look at SOM鈥檚 golden gibberish to see how a much-loved Master goes about it, it鈥檚 a fine art, but do try and keep it entertaining.

        Like

    • @Paar

      Revelation does not necessarily replace investigation.

      Absolutely.

      Just in terms of economic, cultural and geo-political influence in the world does it make a difference.

      Revelation, the gift that keeps on giving – like herpes.

      Like

  22. Hello John…

    You left me thinking, as per usual…

    Just wondering: If I do not believe in anything, do I believe in something, then?…

    Best wishes, Aquileana 馃槢

    Like

    • You’re related to Aesop’s, aren’t you? 馃槈

      It’s a great question. Atheism is older than theism, right… as before the first gods were dreamed up everyone had an absence of belief in any and all gods. Does this mean they were atheists, or does the term only become valid after theism redefines the sounding-board?

      Like

    • Hi Robin. May I ask, who’s being rude, and how?

      Now, if you can present a coherent argument as to why this meme is in any way incorrect then I’ll happily review it, and reply in-turn…

      Like

      • You will not get an argument out of me.

        In the first dozen or so posts we have

        鈥淓ngorged ganglion鈥 trolls
        A god with frontal lobes.
        Ask The Bigot
        Insulting others with 鈥渉omophobia and pre-pubescent attitude toward girls.鈥
        Various Bigoted Anti-Christian insulting Jokes starting with the POST
        Mocking Bible-readers

        Need I give a full digest?

        Like

      • Ask The Bigot is actually the screen name/blog name of an extreme right-wing Christian. Don’t ask me why they chose that name, but their entire blog is about hating gays.

        I don’t see any of the things you listed, though, being rude. They might be “offensive” to you, but that doesn’t mean they’re rude or inaccurate in any shape or form. I’m offended by many things, not least of all your church evading taxes, but that doesn’t afford me any special rights.

        So, do you actually have a coherent argument against the content of the meme?

        Like

      • Here is your rarely appearing cogent premise with logic in place:

        Christ said there is one Church, one Baptism, yada yada.
        Finding the One true Church organization is fairly easy for those who care.
        Christ demanded it needs to have direct authority by him.
        Originally the Catholic Church was said to have been given authority by John 2000 years ago.
        The only other Church organization claiming to have had been authorized in the person of Christ has been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints in the form of Restoration.
        All the Protestant Churches and offshoots of them were established in Protest of the Catholic doctrines first revealed by the Priest MARTIN LUTHER are established by men/women alone.

        So, the subject in question is AUTHORITY DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST.

        Either you believe there was a great apostasy/darkness where the authority was removed from Catholicism or you believe the Mormons are now authorized as the ancient Church of Christ restored by Jesus through Joseph Smith.

        Take your pick, if following the right doctrines is important. But I also say, take a comprehensive view of each church’s plan of salvation and their members.

        Like

  23. @ROBINOBISHOP : May 22, 2014 at 3:53 pm

    Jesus did not die a cursed death on Cross; so he had never “risen” as told by the sinful scribes.

    Jesus migrated to India and died their a natural and peaceful death.

    Regards

    Like

  24. Zandt remarks: “May I ask how you鈥檝e come to a conclusion concerning the Kingdom of Heaven without also believing what someone has told you?”

    In spite of your previous and personal insults, I offer this ….not that it will make a difference to you but perhaps for others……

    I cannot escape hearing what other people tell me or read what others write. Most of it is simply uninspiring.

    I am a uniquely creative, analytical, adaptive person. I am so deliberate in my thinking that I have long discarded the adolescent inclination to house other people’s belief’s in my mind. The fact that I agree with some of them on this point or that is happenstance; the fact that I don’t believe exactly as anyone else is DELIBERATE….having established personal disciplines of integrity and autonomy that fence out so much parody and euphemisms concerning pop psychology and small world “rationality” here and elsewhere.

    So please, by all means, let’s hear the parody of others stream from their heads. Filtering through it is worth the price of occasionally finding original thought. So, what is going to be your witty comeback? I probably didn’t answer your question again.

    Like

    • So, I鈥檓 to believe from this that you have not only independently (re)discovered the magic plates but are also in possession of the magic seeing stones placed at the bottom of a top hat. With these you have independently deciphered the strange Egyptianesque hieroglyphics, personally interpreted The Book of Abraham, and have, completely on your own fruition and sweat, discovered that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri, that Native American Indians are actually a lost tribe of mischievous Israelites, that Jesus visited the United States shortly after his execution, that Satan (Jesus鈥檚 brother) not only controls earth鈥檚 water supply but also buried all the dinosaur bones in the late 17th century just to fool the first palaeontologists a hundred years later, and that special Mormon undergarments (鈥淭emple Underwear鈥) adorned with magical symbols will protect the wearer from evil and, I鈥檓 told, bullets. On top of this you have independently arrived at the knowledge of the Celestial Kingdom, and the great star, Kolob.

      Interesting.

      Like

  25. @JOHN ZANDE says:May 23, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    “Paar has a video (which claims to have been produced by the Indian government) that explains it all. It鈥檚 tremendously convincing. You should ask him for it ;):

    I give here embed code of two such documentaries:

    Regards

    Like

  26. @JOHN ZANDE :May 22, 2014 at 2:32 pm
    @ROBINOBISHOP
    “Mormon, huh? If you like, Robin, I can prove your religion categorically and unquestionably false in a few lines鈥”

    I could also prove Joseph Smith and the denomination he founded wrong.

    Regards

    Like

  27. John, you and others don’t appear to like the answer I have provided to your question. Or, perhaps you missed it all together. Or, perhaps you didn’t ask what you really wanted. Additionally you evidently are not sure how to diagnose your own logical fallacies (maladaptive thinking). Here you go…..

    “Attempting to 鈥減rove鈥 the LDS church false, you suppose the obscure Kolob dressed as a straw man fallacy exists as if the Church. Congratulations, your straw man is defeated while the LDS with its doctrines remain outside your discussion.” It takes no trouble for the reader (lucid reader) to see that requiring Kolob to be fired by hydrogen and not be in an eternal celestial realm (Heaven) creates a nonsensical Heaven, supposing the order of His own creation assaults the creator. Such a place is a straw man easily defeated. Even in its irrationality it doesn’t make an attempt to “prove” anything about doctrine. It would be amusing to see you try to write your own Mormon Church doctrines about Kolob. Because otherwise they have not been revealed to us.

    You asked me if I believed what Joseph Smith has said or written? Certainly they contribute to what I believe. But I do not anchor today’s reality in the dead. That would be stupid. Helping you out, if Kolob’s time is one year to our thousand, God does not live in this universe. Since you put so much faith in the laws of science, know that the natural laws of Heaven must be radically different than here.

    The question you had about how I could know something without being told, I suggest you go to Wikipedia and look up the term “Precognition”. Without meaning to be gruff, You really need to be responsible in doing your own research on matters such as this. If you have a question about Mormonism that remains a mystery to you after I explain it, don’t be reluctant in chasing it down for yourself. All the LDS curriculum can be found on LDS.org with all the formal words of our living and past prophets.

    It seems quite possible I didn’t answer the questions adequately for you. But, hey, you now have a plan.

    Like

    • So, by your reckoning, where Smith writes: “And I, Abraham, saw the STARS, that they were very great, and THAT ONE OF THEM [Kolob] was nearest unto the throne of God,鈥 he’s not actually talking about “stars,” despite the fact that he says, quite clearly, “stars

      I think I need your Mormon magic seeing stones and a good top hat, because your brand of hermeneutics is alien to me.

      Precognition, huh? Sounds wild! Do you buy lotto tickets often?

      Like

      • Robin, precisely which part of the 鈥淎鈥 in A-Theism, don鈥檛 you understand? It means 鈥淲ithout.鈥 Without-theism. It is not a position of belief, rather the default position. As theism is the positive claim (new information superimposed over the default) the burden of proof falls, always, to the claimant. Consider Velcro. It was invented in 1948 by George de Mestral. Now pay attention here, Robin, for this is where it gets complicated. Is it logically possible to ask someone in 1947 to prove or disprove Velcro? What would you call the entire human population in 1947? Avelcros, perhaps? Is that meaningful in any way? Does the human population in 1947 have a negative belief in Velcro, or is the absence of belief the default position?

        Now do please lift your game: you鈥檙e practicing frightfully weak apologetics here, and it鈥檚 getting rather boring.

        Like

      • You’re absolutely right—it’s now 2014. When will Glenn Beck finally address the allegations that he brutally raped and murdered a young woman in 1990?

        Now, I’m not saying that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young woman in 1990. We’re just asking questions. And thankfully, we live in a free and democratic society that permits us the right to ask such questions.

        Fact: There were lots and lots of young girls in 1990

        Fact: Glenn Beck lived in 1990

        Fact: Young girls were raped and murdered in 1990

        Fact: Glenn Beck has not publicly denied raping and murdering a young girl in 1990

        Again, I’m not at all saying that Glenn Beck actually raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. In fact, I’m fairly certain that he’s a fine and upstanding Mormon gentleman who adheres to the highest moral code; one that would squelch even the thought of performing such vile and horrific acts as raping and murdering young women. But nonetheless, some people honestly fear he may have raped and murdered a young girl in 1990 and we’re just trying to get to the bottom of these very serious allegations.

        Glenn could easily clear up this matter by proving where he was and who he was with at every moment in 1990. Being as you’re a Mormon high priest, perhaps you could impress upon him the urgency of finally coming clean and laying these vicious rumors to rest.

        Like

      • I believe Glenn Beck did, in fact, rape and murder a girl in 1990. Someone told me. I Googled, and there it was… Lots and lots of people were talking about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl in 1990. People certainly wouldn鈥檛 be talking about Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl in 1990 if there was no truth to Glenn Beck raping and murdering a girl in 1990. A girl was raped and murdered in 1990, and Glenn Beck was most definitely there, in the United States, when this girl (who was raped and murdered by Glenn Beck) was raped and murdered by Glenn Beck. As Glenn Beck is also a Mormon, I believe the motivation for this rape-murder was the Mountain Meadows Massacre鈥. Which Glenn Beck might have orchestrated. I’m not saying he did, but you know, there it is…

        Like

      • Exactly. Until people who deny Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young women in 1990 can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary, they have zero basis for claiming that Glenn Beck didn’t rape and murder a young women in 1990.

        As Robin says:

        “All things unproven are not ‘absurd’. Some of those unproven things are merely out of sight.”

        Like

  28. @THE ARBOURIST :May 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm
    @JOHN ZANDE :May 25, 2014 at 3:18 pm

    There are a few points two of them are given below:

    1. Joseph Smith said he was sent by Jesus as he wrongly believed following the Pauline theological concepts. He thought that Jesus had died on the Cross; he got resurrected from the dead; making Jesus a god or son of god. Factually speaking none of the above ever happened.

    2. Jesus did not die on the cross; so there was no question of his resurrection from the dead. Jesus was put on the cross but he was delivered from it in near-dead position. He was treated for his injuries in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea; when he got recovered enough to travel he went out of Judea taking refuge along-with his mother Mary in Kashmir, a serene land of fountains and scenic beauty in India; thus saving his life from his Jewish and Roman enemies. Paul was a personification of both of these enemies in one.

    To refresh you of the facts in this case, I recommend viewing the following documentaries please:

    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Ecm4gMhiM&w=450&h=360%5D
    [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrON2xwFYo&w=640&h=390%5D

    Regards

    Like

  29. Any attempt by an atheist to assert that the burden of proof is not shared by them is irrational for what they believe assumes a burden of proof. It is fallacious to mock those who believe in Deity if the accuser fails to offer confirming evidence that a Deity does not exist. The same applies to any deist. The mechanism of burden of proof helps to ensure that all parties contribute effectively, using relevant contributions.

    The posture here assumes that Christians/deists here have been demanded to offer proof of diety where atheists deny their position requires a burden of proof. That is the complete posture of the atheists here. It is fallacy that allows atheists to spout off-topic nonsense while waiting for proof from across the aisle.

    But the fallacy begins with John. It is he that controls the dialogue and fallacious disposition

    When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both. This is the default position…. if we care to make any honest claim to being rational.

    Like

      • For the last two days you have only been able to mock. No contribution at all except to admit you do not recognize the need for proof in support of Atheism (because you know it is void). Such a position as repeated to you by others is irrational. Your appeal to its popularity is irrational in another manner: Ad Populum fallacy.

        Your vaunted clarity of the godless mind is more clearly a myth.

        Like

      • Atheism means lack of belief in gods. As such, there is nothing to prove or disprove. Show me evidence for the existence of god(s) and I will drop my disbelief.

        And the topic of this particular thread—the one you’ve yet to address—is the absurdity of the Christian salvation doctrine.

        Your unwillingness to engage that discussion loudly trumpets the paucity of arguments at your disposal toward its defense.

        Like

      • That’s “faitheism”. you believe in a “lack” or “lesser god” whatever you suppose that to be. It could be forms of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. These are gods you cannot prove or even give evidence that exist. That”s OK. Atheism is not a lack; it is an absolute absence.

        If you wish to be persuasive in what you write, repeating yourself does NOT begin to do it. Repetition is boring.

        All things unproven are not “absurd”. Some of those unproven things are merely out of sight. For you, it lays unseen in the high grass merely amused at your unawareness.

        Like

    • @Robino

      The posture here assumes that Christians/deists here have been demanded to offer proof of diety where atheists deny their position requires a burden of proof.

      The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. That is how argumentation works.

      When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both

      Astrophysics, Biology, Geology – pretty much any field of science would point to a non-magical narrative of how we got here and how the world works.

      Like

  30. Since behavior is a reflection of what one believes, topically relevant comments: atheist must simply believe their existence is a consequence of outrageous and absurdly fortune of pure luck.

    Like

    • Oh really? Do elaborate on how atheists must believe anything? I’d love to see how a disbelief in god or gods necessitates in the belief of “outrageous and absurdly fortune of pure luck”, whatever that is. Please demonstrate this.

      Like

      • That is quite simply done though you may not get this either. You believe there is no God. It comes to you as a matter of faith. IF you could provide proof, there would be no believing; there would be knowing. You cannot prove creation by him did not occur.

        There is no rational rule that removes the burden of proof from those who posit a negative argument.

        Like

      • The creation of a negative argument is merely semantic and does not change the substance of a test of it. If you posit that 2 + 2 – 1 鈮 4, a proof is required or the mere statement is meaningless and deemed spurious in substance.

        You claim the absurdity that If a Cancer Doctor says you are not a temporarily living cancerous legion anymore, he need not demonstrate the truthfulness of his statement. However, had he entered the room and said “Your body is free of cancer”, then you suppose he needs to prove it.

        Like

      • Wonderful! Amazing mental gymnastics there! 10/10 from me! I would give you the gold, but unfortunately the Canadian judge gave you a 3/10 (those corrupt bastards). It seems that simply asserting what I believe and knocking down an argument unrelated to the question at hand just doesn’t cut it for them.

        Maybe I’ll spell it out for you. A disbelief in god or gods does not automatically assume a belief that there is no gods. One could remain agnostic to that question, to say “I don’t know”. Even if they did believe there was no gods, that does not equate to believe in their existence being a consequence “outrageous and absurdly fortune of pure luck” that you speak about (I’m guessing you meant evolution/stellar cosmology/science in general by that). One does not logically follow the other.

        Like

      • Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions. You harbor pieces of each. Besides the presence of luck is the product of chance. Every decision you make considers your estimate of succeeding. You faithfully consider luck.

        Like

      • Robin — why do you believe? Is it because you can’t be prosocial (moral) without the belief of a god watching your behavior 24/7? Or is it the promise of heaven or your own planet with lots of women to fuck? What is it exactly that makes you a believer in god?

        Like

      • “All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others”

        Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259

        “Then will they become Gods…they will never cease to increase and to multiply, worlds without end. When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God鈥

        Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 17:143

        Like

      • “After men have got their exaltations and their crowns — have become Gods, even the sons of God — are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles.”

        Journal of Discourses Volume 6 page 275 –Brigham Young

        Power hungry, horny men in great need of being acknowledged? In spirit of course.

        = Insecure and not happy with what they’ve got now.

        Like

  31. http://THESUPERSTITIOUSNAKEDAPE.WORDPRESS.COM/2014/05/08/CHRISTIAN-LOGIC/COMMENT-PAGE-1/#COMMENT-15689

    Further to my post/comments of May 25, 2014 at 8:09 pm, I have to add that Deuteronomy commands unequivocally that a false prophet must be killed, he cannot die a natural death:

    Deuteronomy:Chapter 13:1-5
    [1] If there rise in the midst of thee a prophet or one that saith he hath dreamed a dream, and he foretell a sign and a wonder, [2] And that come to pass which he spoke, and he say to thee: Let us go and follow strange gods, which thou knowest not, and let us serve them: [3] Thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer: for the Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him with all your heart, and with all your soul, or not. [4] Follow the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and hear his voice: him you shall serve, and to him you shall cleave. [5] And that prophet or forger of dreams shall be slain: because he spoke to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of bondage: to make thee go out of the way, which the Lord thy God commanded thee: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee.

    http://WWW.DRBO.ORG/CHAPTER/05013.HTM

    Joseph Smith was killed so in terms of OT Bible he is not a truthful prophet; he was not sent by God; and since Jesus died a natural death in India and a dead man cannot send a prophet or messenger; hence Joseph Smith was not a truthful person/claimant.

    Regards

    Like

  32. @ROBINOBISHOP :May 27, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    “John,
    Didn鈥檛 know you were secretly a Bible believer.”

    It is because Atheism has grown in the West in reaction to the mythical creeds invented and spread by Paul in the world.

    The Pauline Christians cannot defend “Christianity”; the real teachings of Jesus could be defended; and most Atheists could revert to religion.

    Please try on these lines.

    Regards

    Like

    • Sorry Paar, but i’m as much an atheist for Ol贸d霉mar猫, Ol貌r煤n, and Ol贸fi, as I am for your god, Yahweh, and Robins god, the Space Cadet orbiting Kolob.

      Like

    • Most atheists are associated with religions, Paar. You didn’t know? Do you really believe most atheists worship nothing at all???????

      Atheism is accepted and have carved a place for themselves within religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements such as Wicca, and nontheistic religions.

      Like

  33. @ John Zande

    The 鈥渆vangelical鈥 New Atheists who previously were Christians; they are always indulged in proving 40000 + Christian denominations, based on the Pauline creed, as wrong.

    Here is a gift tool for them.

    Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah said in 1889:

    鈥淥nce you have proved that Jesus has joined the dead and have impressed this fact upon the hearts of the Christians, then do believe that that will be the day of the departure of the Christian faith from the world. Bear firmly in mind that so long as their god does not die, their religion will also not die, and it is futile to indulge in any other argument with them.

    Their doctrine stands on just one pillar, which is the belief that Jesus son of Mary (as) is alive in heaven.

    Demolish this pillar and you will not find the Christian faith anywhere in the world. As God Almighty desires to crush this pillar and to establish His Unity in Europe and Asia, He has sent me and disclosed to me through His own revelation that Jesus son of Mary has died.

    (Izala-e-Auham, Ruhani Khaza鈥檌n, Vol. 3, Pages. 402-403: Translated from the original in Urdu language)

    Regards

    Like

  34. Pingback: Joseph Smith: Mormons: Church of Christ Latter days Saints | paarsurrey

  35. ROBINOBISHOP :May 28, 2014 at 3:17 pm
    “Identify a neutral source that allows a 鈥渘egative鈥 claim not to prove itself. Try Wikipedia and you鈥檒l learn something.”

    I agree with you; the “evangelical” or the propagation-ist New Atheists; have to prove that the “One-True-God does not exist”.

    They cannot hide behind the excuse of shifting the “burden of proof” on others.

    Regards

    Like

  36. Bleatmop remarked: “A disbelief in god or gods does not automatically assume a belief that there is no gods.”

    A disbelief or belief is a matter of faith in either case. You are in the spectrum of confused.

    Like

  37. s I stated earlier, How about a current event: Elliot Rodger for personification of atheism with its invitation to a failed moral compass. How appropriate it is from atheists suppose that because he is mentally ill that it鈥檚 all biological 鈥︹.with John going so far with the fiction of how easy it is to explain it to biological causes out of brain 鈥渋njury鈥 (that didn鈥檛 occur). The truth is police conducted a welfare check on Rodger a month ago at the request of others. They found that he did not meet the criteria for a mental health hold. So much for his severe biological mental illness.

    However, we know that the affluent lifestyle gave him immense advantages. Therapy gave him immense advantages. Yet, you mention that because he was off his meds, his mass murder is explained because he is biologically lunatic (incongruously) like so many honored Bible characters. With this explanation we should be seeing thousands of mass murders weekly. Yet Elliot鈥檚 manifesto was that of an atheist with troubles with what that world view was destroying him. The atheist Elliot, nevertheless, had all the outward manifestations and drive to live a life of hedonism by Choice. His church was any room with a mirror!

    Non-agnostic atheism promotes varied levels of narcissism because a narcissist atheist by nature is fixed, locking him/herself in the mirrored room. A narcissist atheism is all about self-power. Elliot, by example, called himself 鈥淕od鈥 in his manifesto. This is the default position of having no creator.

    A narcissist and devout, honest Christian are contradictory terms. I can only choose narcissism by denying my faith in God, thereby entering the mirrored room to look at myself alone. You find 鈥渢ruth鈥 when you find satisfying answers about how to interact effectively with a world of valuable assets in people. This is the non-atheist world view.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s