ExChristian.Net - Articles

Mr. Deity and the meaning and purpose of life game

2008-07-19T10:45:00.002-04:00

Mr. Deity is a series of two - to four-minute comedy films created by Brian Keith Dalton and distributed by Lazy Eye Pictures. It stars Brian Keith Dalton, Jimbo Marshall, Sean Douglas, and Amy Rohren. It premiered on December 27, 2006. It was originally broadcast on youtube.com but is now broadcast on crackle.com. -- Wikipedia.

Integration of a new commenting system is underway

2008-07-14T17:18:00.005-04:00

An announcement from Webmdave:

The commenting application for ExChristian.Net is seeing changes. Eventually, instead of the Blogger/Google commenting system, comments will be handled by Disqus.com

Questions, comments, complaints, compliments about the new commenting system? Leave a comment here or just message me. It will no longer be necessary for anyone to register in order to post. However, those who do register will find a wealth of features such as being able to edit comments, follow the posts of all and/or individual posters, follow comments on all and/or individual threads, receive email updates, create a profile, subscribe to rss feeds and a handful of other great options. One really cool feature is the option of posting a video comment. Another is a threaded reply ability which enables posters to reply directly to the OP or to a particular poster.

Note: Anonymous comments (comments by unregistered users) are moderated. Registered comments are not moderated and will appear instantly.

The way posts can be displayed is also enhanced. Comments can now be viewed on the page from older to newer, newer to oldest, etc. Some HTML markup is allowed for bold, italics, and links. A link posted without any markup automatically becomes clickable.

All comments posted prior to the new software integration will remain visible. All newer comments will have the new features and options.

The system is still being tested, so there may be more changes as we go along.

If you like the new commenting system, let me know. If you hate it, let me know.

Ready to register and give it a whirl? CLICK HERE

Questions, comments, complaints, compliments? Leave a comment here or just message me.

REMINDER: Recovery retreat coming up soon!

2008-07-11T01:01:00.019-04:00

"RELEASE AND RECLAIM"
A workshop for letting go of religious indoctrination and reclaiming your life.

August 8-10, 2008, Berkeley, CA, with Marlene Winell.

Do you feel alone in your struggle for healing? Come to a supportive and powerful weekend with others who can understand you -- an oasis from dogmatic teachings and judgmental groups. This program is for those wanting to let go of toxic beliefs and recover from an authoritarian religion such as Christian fundamentalism. We’ll rant and rave, tell our stories, discuss the issues, visualize, role-play, dance and draw – whatever it takes to think for ourselves and reclaim our lives. A joyful, empowered life is your birthright and you can start now.

WHEN: FRIDAY, August 8, 7PM until SUNDAY, August 10, 3PM.

WHERE: A beautiful house in Berkeley, California, with hot tub and other amenities.

COST: $320 for the workshop, $125 for room and board. $25 discount given for full payment by July 20. FINANCIAL NEED CONSIDERED and options available.

TO REGISTER: Call 510-292-0509 or send an email to recoveryfromreligion@gmail.com. A short telephone interview with Dr. Winell is requested. A deposit of $100 will then secure a space. Register soon as group size is limited to 8.

Note: These retreats are designed to help develop networks of support that extend beyond a single weekend. With time for sharing meals and relaxing in a house together, participants often make lasting friends - face to face, not virtual! We also have an online group and conference calls as a follow-up support system.

This weekend is available to professionals by arrangement with Dr. Winell.

Dr. Marlene Winell is a psychologist and author of "Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion." She has a private practice in Berkeley and also counsels by telephone. For more information, joining a mailing list, or comments about previous retreats, please visit: www.marlenewinell.net. Ph. 510-292-0509. mwinell@gmail.com

Why I left Young-Earth Creationism

2008-07-09T20:53:00.005-04:00

by Glenn R. Morton

For years I struggled to understand how the geologic data I worked with everyday could be fit into a Biblical perspective. Being a physics major in college I had no geology courses. Thus, as a young Christian, when I was presented with the view that Christians must believe in a young-earth and global flood, I went along willingly. I knew there were problems but I thought I was going to solve them. When I graduated from college with a physics degree, physicists were unemployable since NASA had just laid a bunch of them off. I did graduate work in philosophy and then decided to leave school to support my growing family. Even after a year, physicists were still unemployable. After six months of looking, I finally found work as a geophysicist working for a seismic company. Within a year, I was processing seismic data for Atlantic Richfield.

This was where I first became exposed to the problems geology presented to the idea of a global flood. I would see extremely thick (30,000 feet) sedimentary layers. One could follow these beds from the surface down to those depths where they were covered by vast thicknesses of sediment. I would see buried mountains which had experienced thousands of feet of erosion, which required time. Yet the sediments in those mountains had to have been deposited by the flood, if it was true. I would see faults that were active early but not late and faults that were active late but not early. I would see karsts and sinkholes (limestone erosion) which occurred during the middle of the sedimentary column (supposedly during the middle of the flood) yet the flood waters would have been saturated in limestone and incapable of dissolving lime. It became clear that more time was needed than the global flood would allow.(See http://www.seg.org/publications/geoarchive/1996/sep-oct/geo6105r1336.pdf for an article showing an example of a deeply buried karst. For a better but bigger (3.4 meg) version of that paper see http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/97/97ng/ng97_pdf/NG4-1.PDF

One also finds erosional canyons buried in the earth. These canyons would require time to excavate, just like the time it takes to erode the Grand Canyon. This picture was downloaded from a site which is now gone from the web. It was http://ic.ucsc.edu/~casey/eart168/3DInterpretation/Deltain3d1.gif

I worked hard over the next few years to solve these problems. I published 20+ items in the Creation Research Society Quarterly. I would listen to ICR, have discussions with people like Slusher, Gish, Austin, Barnes and also discuss things with some of their graduates that I had hired.

In order to get closer to the data and know it better, with the hope of finding a solution, I changed subdivisions of my work in 1980. I left seismic processing and went into The data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian seismic interpretation where I would have to deal with more geologic data. My horror at what I was seeing only increased. There was a major problem; the data I was seeing at work, was not agreeing with what I had been taught as a Christian. Doubts about what I was writing and teaching began to grow. Unfortunately, my fellow young earth creationists were not willing to listen to the problems. No one could give me a model which allowed me to unite into one cloth what I believed on Sunday and what I was forced to believe by the data Monday through Friday. I was living the life of a double-minded man--believing two things.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to
a nearly 10 year withdrawal from publication. My last young-earth paper was entitled Geologic Challenges to a Young-earth, which I presented as the first paper in the First International Conference on Creationism. It was not well received. Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

John Morris came to the stage to challenge me. He claimed to have been in the oil industry. I asked him what oil company he had worked for. I am going to let an account of this published in the Skeptical Inquirer in late 86 or early 87. It was written by Robert Schadewald. He writes,

"John Morris went to the microphone and identified himself as a petroleum geologist. He questioned Morton's claim that pollen grains are found in salt formations, and accused Morton of sounding like an anticreationist, raising more problems than his critics could respond to in the time available. Morris said that the ICR staff is working on these problems all the time. He told Morton to quit raising problems and start solving them. "Morton chopped him off at the ankles. Two questions, said Morton: 'What oil company did you work for?' Well, uh, actually Morris never worked for an oil company, but he once taught petroleum engineering at the University of Oklahoma. Second, How old is the Earth?' 'If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.' Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College, and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. The were utterly unprepared to face the geologic facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis. Morton neglected to add that ICR is much better known for ignoring or denying problems than dealing with them."

Young-earth creationists don't like being told they are wrong. The reaction to the pictures, seismic data, the logic disgusted me. They were more interested in what I sounded like than in the data!

It appeared that the more I questions I raised, the more they questioned my theological purity. When telling one friend of my difficulties with young-earth creationism and geology, he told me that I had obviously been brain-washed by my geology professors. When I told him that I had never taken a geology course, he then said I must be saying this in order to hold my job. Never would he consider that I might really believe the data. Since then this type of treatment has become expected from young-earthers. I have been called nearly everything under the sun but they don't deal with the data I present to them. Here is a list of what young-earthers have called me in response to my data: 'an apostate,'(Humphreys) 'a heretic'(Jim Bell although he later apologised like the gentleman he is) 'a compromiser'(Henry Morris) "absurd", "naive", "compromising", "abysmally ignorant", "sloppy", "reckless disregard", "extremely inaccurate", "misleading", "tomfoolery" and "intentionally deceitful"(John Woodmorappe) 'like your father, Satan' (Carl R. Froede--I am proud to have this one because Jesus was once said to have been of satan also.) 'your loyality and commitment to Jesus Christ is shaky or just not truly genuine' (John Baumgardner 12-24-99 [Merry Christmas]) "[I] have secretly entertained suspicions of a Trojan horse roaming behind the lines..." Royal Truman 12-28-99

Above I say that I with drew from publishing for 10 years. I need to make one item clear. It is true that I published a couple of items in the late 80s. The truth is that these were an edited letter exchange I had with George Howe. When George approached me about the Mountain Building symposium, I told him I didn't want to write it. He said that was ok he would write it, give it to me for ok and then publish it. Since it was merely splicing a bunch of letters together, it was my words, but George's editorship that made that article. To all intents and purposes I was through with young-earth creationist (not ism yet) because I knew that they didn't care about the data.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM.

And being through with creationism, I very nearly became through with Christianity. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist. During that time, I re-read a book I had reviewed prior to its publication. It was Alan Hayward's Creation/Evolution. Even though I had reviewed it 1984 prior to its publication in 1985, I hadn't been ready for the views he expressed. He presented a wonderful Days of Proclamation view which pulled me back from the edge of atheism. Although I believe Alan applied it to the earth in an unworkable fashion, his view had the power to unite the data with the Scripture, if it was applied differently. That is what I have done with my views. Without that I would now be an atheist. There is much in Alan's book I agree with and much I disagree with but his book was very important in keeping me in the faith. While his book may not have changed the debate totally yet, it did change my life.

References
For an example of a seismic karst during the middle of the geologic column go to

http://seg.org/

Select 'publications' from that page

Select 'Geoarchives'

Select '1996'

Select 'September and October'

Select 'pdf' from 3-D seismic reflection tomography on top of the GOCAD depth modeler
Jean Luc Guiziou, Jean Laurent Mallet and Raül Madariaga

Scroll down to page 6-8 on the acrobat reader. These are pages 1341-1343 of the original journal.

There you will see 3d seismic data that shows evidence of a subaerial erosional event supposedly in the middle of a world wide flood!

For those who want to go to the library it is Vol. 61, No. 5
September-October 1996 Geophysics.

For more articles on this topic, visit noanswersingenesis.org.

You were never a real Christian!

2008-07-09T13:58:00.008-04:00

By Webmdave

“You were never a real Christian!”

That’s been the constant mantra in my life since 2001. Well, to be more precise, it’s never been my mantra; it is the mantra I hear from the mouths of innumerable zealots who feel duty bound to harangue me about my apostasy.

If I had ever been a “true Christian,” I was told for the thousandth time in a recent argument over the phone with a relative, "it would have been impossible for me to have every left the fold."

Impossible!

Conveniently, for the Christian, there is Biblical support for the “no true apostates” position. The writer of I John emphatically declares,

“They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.” – Chap. 2 v. 19.

In other words, anyone who leaves the church was never a real born again, blood bought believer.

Of course the writer of Hebrews didn’t see it that way. That writer states quite clearly that “Those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit…” (Chap 6, v 4) can most certainly later on decide that Christianity is not for them.

"If I had ever been a true Christian, it would have been impossible for me to have every left the fold." Obviously there has been considerable disagreement among Christians over how to deal with apostates, clear back to very the genesis of the Jesus cult.

My purpose here isn’t to discuss which is the best Biblical interpretation, however. My purpose here is to illustrate the gross contradictions Christians embrace when it comes to dealing with the existence of ex-Christians.

Freewill

Many Evangelical Christians insist that God holds freewill in the highest esteem. Evangelical meetings are all about enticing people to “Make a decision for Christ.” Christians constantly insist that it is the unbeliever’s God-given right either accept or reject the gospel message. The offer is made, but it is up to the individual to turn toward or away from Jesus. These zealots insist that God Himself won’t override a person’s freewill when it comes to letting Jesus come into that person's life.

Once HE has set up shop, though, apparently freewill is over.

Think about it! If no “True Christian™” can ever turn away from Christianity, then what happens to freewill? Do Evangelicals mean to suggest that only the godless possess freewill and believers are stripped of that nicety?

If believers retain full possession of freewill, then believers most certainly have the capacity to change their minds about… well, anything. Right?

Wrong! Believers who state there are no ex-Christians are claiming to be bereft of the ability to leave Jesus. Their wills are held captive and “No one can snatch them out of my hand.” – John 10:28.

Once HE has set up shop, apparently freewill is over. Freewill is a right so precious that supposedly even God refuses to violate that right when it comes to deciding to become a Christian, but once a person bends and bows, the right to reject His son is forever denied? In fact, the believer is not only denied the right to change his or her mind, the potential to even consider changing his or her mind is permanently removed?

“For if they had belonged to us, they would have REMAINED with us.”

Clearly, freewill believing Christians have no comprehension of what freewill really means. How could they? Once they were free, but now they are in bondage.

And how was their freewill removed? Why how else? Magic!

The magical power of the Holy Ghost, that same spirit who inseminated a virgin with a male-god version of Himself, is now invading the bodies of believers. While residing there, He so rearranges their genome that deciding to leave Christianity is no longer a possibility!

Yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Here’s a thought. Perhaps the reason the writer of John wrote his scathing denunciation of apostates is because there were so many people leaving his little cult that it was creating consternation among the remaining faithful. The loss of numbers is not something any cult leader wants to see. In just a few words the writer of I John not only marginalizes those deceptive apostates, calling them antichrists, but he bolsters the pride and confidence of those who remain as the “True” and “Faithful” and “Elect of God.” This John guy could have had a nice career in corporate public relations.

Well, if a person is able to make a decision for Christ based on currently available information, then that same person can come to a different decision when more information is acquired. There is no question that people can believe things with heart, mind and soul, devote a lifetime to a cause or two, and then one day figure out that some beliefs were based on erroneous and false information. It happens all the time. It is no different for Christians.

Believing in things that don’t exist or aren’t true are part of being human. Religious belief in all sorts of nonsense is part of being human. The reasonable human is willing and able to admit the possibility of being deceived, mistaken, or just plain stupid. The rational human can decide to be a Christian, decide to remain a Christian, or decide to cease being a Christian. The true human never loses freewill.

If we accept the “no ex-Christian” rhetoric as fact, then the only decisions a true Christian can ever make once having said the “sinner’s prayer” are those you’d expect of a mindless automaton.

What do you think?

So much for integrity from the Christian Community

2008-07-06T20:13:00.003-04:00

By boomSlang

Recently I attempted to engage an aspiring Christian apologist on his own blog-site in an attempt to oblige him on his site's supposed mission statement, which in part was to seek to "understand" Atheists. Let it be known that for this endeavor I even made sure to check my normally biting sarcastic edge "at the door," and I did my best to respectfully stick to the facts of the conversation.

Well, to no avail, nonetheless.

Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" atheists, I call "bullshit."This person, who by the way, frequently makes guest appearances on this site (ExChristian dot net), and who has also posted his opinion about this site on his own blog, has recently removed our entire conversation, as well as other comments I've made. At one point - a point when he evidently could not address my questions with sound, reasoned answers - this person even sought out the assistance of an apologist "pinch hitter." His excuse and method for doing so was supposedly under the premise that if I had questions regarding the articles he posted, that I should address the author of the article directly, as opposed to asking him---that is, as opposed to asking the guy who links, supports, and extols the articles on his blog in the first place. The nerve of me.

In any event, his "pinch hitter", a "she", eventually showed up on the scene to presumably set me straight on one topic of discussion, which was who has the "Burden of Proof" between theists and atheists. Without getting into great detail, it was offered by this person that "initial plausibility" can be entered into the equation when determining who has the burden of proof, depending on the nature of the discussion..i.e..whether it's "formal debate," or "just a discussion." While both she and I concede/conceded that "initial plausibility" is a debate in itself, she, of course, maintained that her position is more "plausible." Well, I maintain that that amounts to special pleading.

As for our aspiring Christian apologist claiming to want to "understand" Atheists, I call "bullshit." For him, it is not about honest inquiry at all; it is about wanting his beliefs to be true, and thus, surrounding himself with people who agree with him and who support his worldview. The atheist?...huh, the atheist is the LAST person on earth he "wants to understand."

In reason, boomSLANG.

Atheism vs. Christian Myth

2008-07-05T09:55:00.002-04:00

Please God, forgive my already paid debts

2008-07-04T09:19:00.005-04:00

By webmdave

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. -- 1 John 2:2

The doctrine of propitiation isn’t something that’s talked about too much in modern Christian circles. Hell, heaven, sin, repentance, prayer, Jim Dobson… these are all topics that get covered constantly, but propitiation? Not in any church I attended. I think I know the reason. The doctrine is bizarre, inconsistent and incoherent to even the most religiously brainwashed.

The definition of propitiation is “An atoning sacrifice to gain or regain the favor or goodwill” of God. To propitiate is “to appease or pacify” God.

As in the verse quoted above, Jesus’ purported death on a cross was to placate the wrath of a god who supposedly has a considerable grudge against humanity. Humanity just didn’t work out as He intended.

So, propitiation is a blood-soaked offering lifted up to appease the wrath of blood-thirsty deity. When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about things and can finally overlook offenses that normally cause his eyes to blaze with righteous indignation.

When this deity sees hemoglobin, he feels better about thingsBut modern ears and minds aren’t accustomed to thinking of God in the throes of blood-lust. Why in the world would killing something and looking at its plasma satisfy anyone’s – including a deity’s – righteous indignation? Has God got a thing for vampires? To tone things down a bit for 21st Century Christians, propitiation has been repackaged for the modern ear. Christians are now told that all humanity has a “sin debt” to God: We are in debt to God for our sin and the debt must be paid. The death of God’s only son on the cross paid that debt, so it is said.

Enough of the introduction already – get to the point.

How many reading this have ever received a traffic ticket for some driving infraction? After paying the fine, do we turn around and cry out for forgiveness? Think about begging and pleading and weeping to be forgiven by the court for the traffic violation – after already paying the fine.

If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive.

In Christianity, however, the payment apparently isn’t sufficient. God won’t forgive your debt even though Jesus paid the full penalty for the sin debt of the entire world!

If the penalty has already been paid, there is nothing left to forgive. If while on your way to traffic court a friend unexpectedly steps in and pays your debt for you, do you still have to appear in court and pay your debt? Do you a have to beg anyone’s forgiveness to be free of the debt? Obviously, once your debt has been paid, it’s been paid! You are off the hook. You have no legal requirements toward the court or even toward your friend.

Forgiveness and debt paying are two different things. If the court forgives my debt, I don’t have to pay anything – the debt is forgiven. If, however, someone else pays my debt, then the debt is paid and I no longer need seek mercy and forgiveness to get out of the debt.

Forgiveness of debts and paying of debts are mutually exclusive exercises. Either one pays a debt or one is forgiven of a debt, but no one paying a debt begs forgiveness of the debt. Conversely, if a debt has been forgiven, there is no longer a requirement to pay the debt.

Jesus’ death on the cross is said to have paid the debt for the whole world of humanity, but all of humanity is still supposed to actively seek the forgiveness of God!?!

Has the debt been paid or not?

What I am suggesting here is that having been placated through the blood of His son -- the debt payment He supposedly required – God has nothing left to forgive. The entire debt has been paid. Even God can’t forgive a debt that has already been paid, because if the debt is paid, there is no longer a debt!

So which is it? Does God forgive sinners of their debt, or has the debt for sin already been paid?

Somehow, in Christianity, it makes sense to have a debt that has already been paid and yet still must be forgiven. Somehow forgiveness for a debt can only be granted once payment in full is credited to the account. And, once a person becomes a Christian, regularly groveling for forgiveness of daily stumbles is a regular routine, even though propitiation has already been made.

What do you think?

Edinburgh University Resurrection Debate

2008-06-30T21:07:00.017-04:00

A two-hour video debate on the historicity the resurrection between Liberty University Professor Gary Habermas and JesusNeverExisted.com Author Ken Humphreys. The debate was held McEwan Hall, Edinburgh University on March 10, 2008.From Wikipedia:

Gary Robert Habermas (born in 1950 in Michigan) is an American Christian apologist, theologian, and philosopher of religion.
Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion; and an M.A. (1973) from the University of Detroit in Philosophical Theology. He is a prolific author, lecturer, and debater on the topic of the Resurrection of Jesus. His work defending the resurrection is often cited in the area of Christian apologetics. He has also specialized in cataloging and communicating trends among scholars in the field of historical Jesus and New Testament studies. Habermas has authored twenty-one books on religious and philosophical subjects. He continues to do research, publish popular and academic papers, give debates, and he frequently appears on television.

From JesusNeverExisted.Com:

About Ken HumphreysSome people want to know where I'm coming from:I'm an ex-college lecturer, ex-photographer, ex-computer salesman – but not an ex-Christian, Jew, Moslem or Nazi! I had a religion-free childhood and from the youngest age acquired an interest in history. In turns I was both fascinated and appalled by the history of the 'Christian Faith' and have made its legacy and crimes a life-long study, not because – as Christian apologists often imagine, I was ever 'hurt', abused, or rejected by the Church or Christians – but because humanity's fate has for so long been held captive by this pernicious creed. But all religion is inherently dangerous.

His eye is on the sparrow

2008-06-29T21:13:00.002-04:00

A video by TruthSurge showing how much God loves each of us and how he looks after us all. Matt 10:29-31

God is your ATM, Prayer is your PIN

2008-06-28T10:37:00.005-04:00

Betty Bowers Explains Prayer To Everyone Else

Betty Bowers's Music Video - You're Going Straight To Hell

http://www.bettybowers.com

The True Christian

2008-06-28T08:23:00.003-04:00

By billybee

According to recent statistics, there exists approximately 4,684 different denominations, groups or sects of Christianity in America.

I think it fair to assume that most -- if not all -- of these different and distinct faith-based groups possess what they believe to be a substantially clear understanding of the book they present as an authentic message from the single most powerful being in the universe.

There exists approximately 4,684 different denominations, groups or sects of Christianity in America.Understandably these various groups consider this message (when correctly understood) to be the most important collection of ideas to which the human race has ever had access. Therefore, it is not only their strong desire, but it is their duty and obligation to see that this message is delivered to all human kind.

The method of transmission of the message is extremely varied. The components of the message are extremely varied. Usually, however, there is one factor that appears to be common among most (if not all) carriers of this special proclamation. That common factor is a nearly universal mind-set that their group has the best, most correct and truest understanding of the message. This not-so-subtle attitude of superiority may remain mostly unspoken by the group members, but then at other times, this faith-fed confidence will surface, causing rise to division and mistrust between the groups of people who might actually be seeking the same ultimate goal.

When a Christian religious leader, like Dr. James Dobson, accuses Barrack Obama of not being a "true" Christian, Dobson provides himself as a perfect example of the person described in the previous paragraph. Dobson, in my humble opinion, could be unintentionally contributing to the erosion of the religion that he mistakenly believes he is trying to protect and nurture.

I will assume, of course, that Dobson and the members of his flock might strongly disagree. As for the other 4,683 possible points of view, I will not even begin to speculate.

Jesus shows up in another ultrasound

2008-06-26T06:26:00.006-04:00

Is it a blessing from above?

A Lorain, Ohio, woman got an ultrasound in preparation for her first baby, but instead of seeing the image of an infant, Monet Sledge saw something else (video: MyFoxCleveland).

"I was shocked like really," said Sledge.

She showed the picture to her sister Tequoia Smith, a married mother of four who has seen her share of ultrasounds.

"I was expecting to see little body parts," said Smith. "Like a face, arms and legs." But instead she too saw the image of Jesus on the cross.
"As soon as I saw it I was like oh my gosh."

The baby girls legs are completely extended and straight in the photo, which resembles Jesus' arms stretched out on the cross.

Her developing knees look like Jesus' head with a crown of thorns.

Sledge said she also found it weird that when you turn the picture sideways, "her legs are perfectly crossed at the ankles, like Jesus' legs would be nailed on the cross."

Doctors say the baby is perfectly healthy and due August 12th.

Some people are encouraging the mom to sell the image on eBay, but she has not decided wether or not the image is for sale just yet.

She embraced the picture as a positive message from above.

"People say maybe my baby is gonna be blessed and maybe it is a good sign," said Sledge. "I don't know, I've done wrong in my life, maybe he's forgiven me early."

Big sister Smith agreed.

She added that the family has had some challenging times lately with injury, employment and other stresses.

"Maybe it's a sign of a good pregnancy or maybe we've just been through so much it's a sign that everything is gonna be okay. After the initial shock it's like God is here even when you don't know it."

Story Link

More Jesus appearances: Jesus is nearly everywhere.

God loves America best

2008-06-26T05:00:00.003-04:00

I confess. I have a degree of loyalty to the my homeland that is probably typical to that of any U.S. veteran after 20 years of active duty military service. However, when I attend veteran's organizational events, am asked to stand for prayer, and forced to hear people prattle on about how God loves and blesses America, well...

The Doyle and Debbie Show is sublime parody, simultaneously lampooning and idolizing country music's tradition of iconic duos. Bruce Arntson and Jenny Littleton take audiences on a freewheeling joyride through a wickedly funny script and slew of equally hilarious original songs. Over the past year and a half, Doyle and Debbie have developed a rabid cult following in Nashville, TN.

That was the Old Testament...

2008-06-25T16:41:00.002-04:00

By DocMike

Evangelical leader James Dobson said, yesterday, that Obama was "distorting the Bible" when he made the following statements in a speech:

Obama asked, "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?"

Dobson said, "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." He went on to say that Obama should not be referencing "antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament."

Isn't this typical? It's okay for Dobson and other Christians to distort the Bible to fit their world view; for example calling certain parts "antiquated" and "no longer relevant" while claiming other parts are still completely relevant. I wonder who decides which is which...

In my world view, the entire book is antiquated and irrelevant!

I especially like the phrase "traditional understanding of the Bible." I guess that means don't use your own mind (or reason) to figure out what it says or means. Just ask Uncle Jimmy. He'll set you straight on the "real" meaning. After all, we're all too stupid to figure out what the sky-daddy was talking about. Right?

Technorati Tags:
humor Atheist Bible Christian Comics religion Evangelical

Christian charity raises money for non-gay famine victims

2008-06-25T14:25:00.002-04:00

A report from The Onion news network

Christian Charity Raising Money To Feed Non-Gay Famine Victims

Sexual symbols in religion

2008-06-25T07:03:00.004-04:00

Note: This video is not work friendly

A look into the symbolism of sex and it's reflection in religion, modern symbolism, and architecture.

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism - Michael Martin

2008-06-24T07:54:00.001-04:00

The Cambridge Companion to Atheism - Michael Martin - Upload a Document to Scribd

One less god

2008-06-24T07:00:00.002-04:00

What is Atheism?

2008-06-24T06:46:00.003-04:00

A paper by Psycholex

What is Atheism?

What is Atheism? Just about everyone knows what an Atheist is, right? Well, judging by what I've read on the internet, read in chat rooms, & received in Emails; many people still have no clue what Atheism really is! Since not all Atheists have the same view of Atheism as I do, I may not cover your individual outlook on it, but I will attempt to define the basics of Atheism. Defining Atheism To define Atheism, you must first look at its root word, theism. Theism is simply the belief of a god(s). Theism by itself is not a religion; it is just simply a belief, nothing more. Theists can be either polytheists or monotheists, depending on how many gods they choose to believe in. After this we go into specific religions, like islam, judaism, & christianity. Atheism is simply the opposite of theism. The prefix A means "without" or "not", so Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god(s). It is not a religion, just like theism is not a religion, but there are specific philosophies of Atheism that can be defined as religion, thought since they all lack a belief in a god or the supernatural, they are not true religions, for example Humanism. Atheism also has branches off the basic disbelief. There are "strong Atheists" and "weak Atheists." Strong Atheism usually is a total denial of the existence of god(s); it usually is aimed at one or two specific gods for various reasons. Most Atheists, who think this way, see a belief in a particular religion's god to be totally irrational and see no possibility for the existence of their god. Weak Atheism, is what most Atheists would be; simply without belief in any god(s). Weak Atheists do not believe in god(s) for the simple reason that it is irrational and no evidence for the god has been brought to their attention. Most weak Atheists are quite ready to believe in a god as soon as there is some sort of evidence in its favour. Weak atheists will not choose a particular god to deny, they look at all gods equally. Theists & Atheism Theists generally focus on their individual gods and fail to realise that other gods are believed in besides theirs! They then use this lack of understanding to make all sorts of wild and irrational claims about Atheism. They would like to think that since Atheism does not follow their one "true" god(s), then Atheists must be against their god. We are often lumped together with other theists when this happens, since every other belief system in the world would deny the trueness of that one god, just like Atheists do. They all fail to realise that Atheism is not focuses on individual gods, in some cases they are, but not in the general definition. Atheism deals with the disbelief of all gods, not just those of christianity, islam, wicca, judaism, etc... Theists simply assume that everyone has the same image of god as they do. But the christian's gods are not even remotely similar to the gods of Wicca. So first we must define what a god is, and then can debate weather or not it exist. As long as the theist holds the belief that there is only one god, then the conversation is pointless, because of flawed logic on the part of the theist. This can lead to many headaches as the Atheist attempts to explain how everyone else in the world views god, so the theist can actually understand the position of the Atheist. Theists tend to make some very irrational assumptions about Atheism, most are based on either incorrect information or flat out lies based on hatred. 1. People stop believing in god, so they can sin and do whatever they want. This misconception stems from the idea that atheists not only cannot be moral without god, but in fact do not want to be moral. Theistic, particularly Christian, attitudes towards atheists can often be summarized by the oft-quoted verse Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. Despite numerous attempts, no theist has ever conclusively demonstrated that belief in their god is required for morality - and in fact there are many good reasons to think that such a claim is simply false. Perhaps there are atheists who rejected belief in gods in order to avoid morality - but I've never encountered any, and the many atheists I have known have had quite different reasons for their atheism. 2. Atheists hate God. This is just a misunderstanding of what Atheism is! Atheists cannot hate something that they do not and cannot believe exists. It's one of those arguments that are designed to make people hate Atheists, nothing more. 3. Atheists worship Satan. Again, we find a theist thinking that for some reason that only their god is relevant to the atheist - and if the atheist does not believe in their god, then they must worship the antithesis of their god, Satan. But the fact of the matter is, atheists who don't believe in a god also aren't going to believe in the god's supernatural competitor, either. 4. Atheist relies as much on faith as theists do. This is theists trying to place their irrational beliefs on Atheists, which is impossible, by definition! Faith is the assumption that something is their without any proof; it is pretty much wishful thinking. Theists try to say everyone has faith in something, but this degrades faith. To say Atheists have faith in science could just as easily be applied to theist’s faith in science. That would then make the theist definition of faith lose al its supernatural meaning, therefore destroying their so-called proof of god through faith. 5. Everyone worships something, so atheists must have some god. This complaint runs along lines very similar to the previous, and sometimes this idea is also expressed by claiming that "Atheism is a religion." Since they cannot imagine living their life without worshipping their god, they also cannot imagine atheists living without worshipping something, like money or humanity. We must redefine worship to make this make any sense. Worship would have to include anything that ultimate concern or most important. This is a grasp at straws, just because you can identify one "most important" aspect of your life, does not constitute worshiping it. By defining worship like this does an injustice to the religious meaning of worship. 6. Atheism is due to bad childhood experiences with false religions. It is certainly true that many atheists have had poor experiences with religion, often in childhood. It is also true that such experiences have caused people to reconsider how they feel about religion and, in some cases, to finally reject religion and even belief in gods. However, this is by far not the only reason why people are atheists. Some, for example, never believed in any gods and never belonged to any religion. 7. All atheists believe in "X." Many theists still try to pigeonhole atheists into a single philosophical straight-jacket - be it humanism, communism, nihilism, objectivism, or something else. By claiming to have identified this other belief system necessary to Atheism, they can then proceed to attack that belief system and pretend to have refuted atheism without ever actually addressing atheism itself. It is certainly true that atheism can be a part of the aforementioned worldviews, among many others, but it is not true that atheism necessitates any of them. Not only does atheism fail to imply an agreement with any one belief system, it also fails to imply agreement with any other atheists. My neighbour might also be an atheist, but we might disagree on nearly every single philosophical and social issue imaginable. Just because we agree on not believing in magic elves, unicorns or gods does not announce to the world that we agree on anything else. Psycholex

Grow up, already!

2008-06-24T02:27:00.002-04:00

By Astreja

One of the odder things about Christianity is its tendency to exalt the child at the expense of the adult. In fact, the "Ye must be born again" meme lies at the heart of the evangelical form of the religion.

But is this desirable? Well, it all depends on what the "keepers" of that faith are actually trying to accomplish.

Consider this: In most cultures, the transition to adulthood is a highly significant time. "Childish things" are put aside, and the mantle of responsibility is assumed. In return, the initiate gains the authority to participate in adult matters such as procreation, governance and support of the tribe.

Contrast this with the infantilization of Christians by Christianity. Cast in the role of eternal child to an Eternal Parent, the natural maturing process is short-circuited. Responsibility gives way to "I'm not perfect, just forgiven". Reasoning, skepticism and problem-solving skills are downplayed or denigrated, while credulity is elevated to a virtue.

And then there's all those late-night chats with one's Invisible Friend. Lovely, just lovely.

For the average person, this deliberate abrogation of full maturity is a tragedy of the highest order -- Both for the self and for the community at large.

For those who would lead such trusting young lambs, however...

Oh sinner do not stray from the straight and narrow way, for the Lord is surely watching what you do.

2008-06-23T18:27:00.002-04:00

Is God a Delusion?

2008-06-23T08:10:00.004-04:00

A two-hour debate between Bill Cooke, Senior Lecturer at Manukau Institute of Technology and William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada.

Born and raised in Kenya, Bill Cooke was educated there, in the United Kingdom, and in New Zealand, where he now lives. He is currently Senior Lecturer at the School of Visual Arts, Manukau Institute of Technology, in Auckland and is editor of the NZ Rationalist & Humanist. Cooke has authored several books, including "A Rebel to His last Breath, an intellectual biography of Joseph McCabe" and "A Gathering of Infidels."

William Lane Craig is an American philosopher, theologian, New Testament historian, and Christian apologist. He is an author and lecturer on issues related to the philosophy of religion, the historical Jesus, the coherence of the Christian worldview, and natural theology. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

A tribute to George Carlin

2008-06-23T07:34:00.004-04:00

Bullshit

The Ten Commandments

On June 22, 2008, American comedian George Carlin was admitted to St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica, California complaining of chest pain. He died later that day at 5:55 p.m. PDT of heart failure at the age of 71. He had a history of cardiovascular issues, including several heart attacks.

"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck."
-- George Carlin Raised in the Roman Catholic faith, Carlin often denounced the idea of God in interviews and performances. He invented the parody religion Frisbeetarianism, defining it as the belief that when a person dies "his soul gets flung onto a roof, and just stays there" and cannot be retrieved.

Carlin also joked that he worshiped the Sun, because he could actually see it, but prayed to Joe Pesci (a good friend of his in real life) because "he's a good actor", and "looks like a guy who can get things done!"

Carlin also introduced the "Two Commandments", a revised "pocket-sized" list of the Ten Commandments in his HBO special Complaints and Grievances, ending with the additional commandment of "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

Why I Deny the Virgin Birth of Jesus

2008-06-22T18:27:00.006-04:00

By Daniel Florien of UnreasonableFaith.Com.

The test read positive. Ayesha’s face flushed; tears formed in her eyes. She was trapped. She would be killed. She was a stain on her family’s honor. Amir, her soon-to-be husband, would turn her in as soon as he found out. She knew she deserved death. The shame was unbearable.

That night she had a vision. The brightness blinded her at first, but gradually she saw an angelic face and it said, “Ayesha! You are favored indeed by Allah! For God himself is the Father of your child. Do not be afraid. He will be great and be called the Son of the Most High.”

The next day Ayesha told her fiancé that God had impregnated her, she was still a virgin, and an angel had told her this. Would you believe Ayesha?

An ancient book says a man 2,000 years ago was born of a virgin and was sired by God himself. I once believed this, because I believed the Bible — a book I thought God himself wrote.

I was wrong. Here are five reasons why I no longer believe in the virgin birth.

1) There is no reliable evidence.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples…

Ordinary events require evidence, but extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. By any classification, the virgin birth is an extraordinary event, yet there is no evidence to support it.

We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples — we have nothing except a couple references in the Bible that were written many decades after the event occurred.

2) The earliest references are late and sparse.

Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources?
Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the virgin birth. For someone who we rely upon for much of Christian theology, it is an odd omission. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You’d think that would be important.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? Probably because it hadn’t been made up yet.

Why would the story be made up? Perhaps to fulfill an old prophecy of a virgin birth, which the Gospel of Matthew cites:

Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation!

It seems likely the virgin birth was created to boost the authority of Christianity through prophecy and compete with rival gods who were born of virgins.

3) It’s the same old myth.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends.

Jesus was not the first god to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and (therefore) said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The claims of Jesus’ birth are no different from any of the other virgin birth legends. It doesn’t have any more evidence or appear to be any more likely. Why believe it over the others?

4) Is it more likely to be a lie, or to be true?

“It is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”
Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine, American revolutionary and author, said “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course, but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.”

A betrothed teenage girl finds out she is pregnant. The father is not her soon-to-be husband, and he knows this. In her society, the penalty for this prescribed by God is death by stoning. What does she do? She claims an angel appeared to her and told her God impregnated her, and that she is now carrying the Son of God.

Now what is more likely, that she is lying or telling the truth? Even if Mary claimed this herself, we would not believe her. Now consider that the story didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened.

The likelihood of the virgin birth being true is very, very, very low.

5) We would never, ever, believe this today.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

If she insisted on it being true, we would put her in a mental hospital.

Why does this change just because Jesus’ birth happened 2,000 years ago? There is no evidence in favor of it. Even if Mary herself claimed it, there would have been every incentive to lie about it since the only alternative was death. Again, why would anyone believe this?

* * *

We have seen this incredible claim has no reliable evidence and no early Christian sources. There were claims of virgin births before Jesus, and Jesus’ virgin birth was probably invented to compete with those claims. It is far more likely to be a lie than true. And we would never believe anyone who claimed such a thing today.

Because of these reasons, I have no choice but to deny the virgin birth of Jesus — and all other claims of virgin births and divine fathers.

Daniel Florien was an evangelical Christian for over a decade. He attended Bible college to be a pastor and was the guy handing out tracts and knocking on doors. Now he admits he was wrong. To read more about his journey out of Christianity and other tremendous articles like the above, visit Daniel's blog, Unreasonable Faith, at http://unreasonablefaith.com.