Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder

from the everyone-is-going-to-hell dept

If you aren’t a certain Christian denomination or a zillion years old, you may not be too familiar with Pat Robertson. Minister Robertson is the man behind The 700 Club, which is apparently still on the air, as well as the Chancellor of Regent University, a former presidential candidate, and an author. Amongst his other accomplishments was incorrectly predicting the end of the world in 1982 (though that is the year I was born. Hmm…), praying away hurricanes, calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez (for Jesus!) and basically indicating that most natural disasters and terrorist attacks of late come strictly as a result of all our sinful ways, which is to say acting in any way Pat Robertson didn’t specifically tell us to. That last bit should now be taking on an epically more terrifying hue of fear, given how Robertson recently answered an emailed question on his television program.

Holy shit (get it?). Should you be unable to see the embedded video, the question asked how sins are assessed in video games. Robertson answered by quoting The Nazarene as saying that lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery (Yay! Thought crime!). Building off of that, Robertson suggested that “that’s a virtual sin, if you play one of those [violent/salacious] video games” before gleefully stating he’s never played a video game in his life. Then, to drive the point home, he brings up Grand Theft Auto and says “if you murder someone in cyber-space, in a sense you’re performing the act whether you like it or not.”

Hoo-boy. Here I was, going about my day, looking up obscure trademark and copyright stories while thinking up penis-jokes, all the while I had no idea that I’ve committed more murders than Stalin. And I did it gleefully. And it isn’t just murder I’m guilty of either. Think of the number of animal abuse charges that could be leveled at me for all those turtles I stomped on in Super Mario Bros., or the genocides I’ve committed in Mass Effect. And, yeah, I’ve played GTA too, and you don’t even want to know the stuff I’ve done in that game.

If all these are sins equal to their real-life counterparts, there’s got to be a terrorist attack or tsunami bearing down on me at this exact moment. Or, perhaps we shouldn’t be asking the elderly and willfully ignorant how they assess what we do in video games. Otherwise, we’ll just get the same responses we’ve received about nearly every other form of entertainment before they became commonplace.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Pat Robertson: Murder Committed In Video Games Is No Different Than Real Life Murder”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
312 Comments
Ninja (profile) says:

Holy shit! (*giggles*) Hittler would blush if he saw my assassination count!

And the moles, chickens I’ve kicked around! Or the girls I raped in those sick Japanese games (Rapelay comes to mind as the classic example)!

And the people I’ve killed while speeding with my car (Carmagedon)! Children, women and the elderly are worth double the points! If you kill a pregnant woman you get triple score (I think?)!

And the sin of the sins, I played GOD my friends. I devastated entire cities with my mighty power, enslaved people and ordered my servants to commit mass murder, raping and pillage (Black & White, Sandbox)!

No really, being a sinner is fun. Mr Robertson can go sodomize himself with a retractable baton.

Rafael says:

Re: Re:

YHWH never allows that, as a matter of fact 10 Commandments forbid slavery, The 8th Commandment translated do not steal is actually Do not Kidnap as the Hebrew word is Ganab, the 10th Commandment word covet is hebrew Chamad, which actually means Take

Also the “genocides” are interpolations, whenever a Minority of text contradicts a Majority(and I mean Majority here) then it’s not the intent/purpose/events of text, Especially considering that you cannot form a story with these minor text, the evil text are Interpolation, most likely from scribes.

No problem with The Bible, Lust is not a sin savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/lust-is-not-sin.html and Homosexuality is not a sin, savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/homosexuality-is-not-sin-part-1.html

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Why would anyone care?

He has an audience. Of what size I’m not sure, but unless I’m mistaken, it’s fairly sizeable. Some of those people are stupid enough to believe the stuff he spouts, especially on issues where he’s not as ridiculous as in this example.

Most of those people have votes equal to yours, and can pass those votes based upon ridiculous or just plain false information and advice that they’re getting from him. Why wouldn’t it concern you?

brian burrage says:

Re: Why would anyone care?

You really need to be very careful what you say. He is right about these games. I too have struggles because I like to play them to. But God is slowly showing me that they are just plain demonic and really can corrupt a person. I will pray for you my friend. May God have mercy on us both.

nasch says:

Re: Re: Why would anyone care?

He is right about these games.

No he’s really not. I’m not guilty of thousands or millions of murders, in any way. And neither are you.

But God is slowly showing me that they are just plain demonic and really can corrupt a person.

That’s a different question, and one for you to decide for yourself. But to state that doing something in a video game is the same as doing it in real life is just ridiculous.

PRMan (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I don’t agree with Pat Robertson on this issue, but he gets unfair treatment in the press:

* He didn’t say he wanted to assassinate Hugo Chavez but rather than get involved in another long war like Iraq, couldn’t we just assassinate the leader and be done with it? He was mostly referring to Saddam, but the conversation started with Chavez.

* The list of countries affected by the tsunami did match a list of countries killing the most Christians because of their faith. An odd coincidence maybe, but I can’t say he’s wrong on that one.

* The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses (which are taken too literally by Pat) is that crime doesn’t start with the crime itself, it starts in your heart and mind. Rape starts with lust, murder starts with hate, governments killing people and jailing innocents starts with thirst for power and money. If you can find ways to reduce the sinful thoughts, you’ll have less crime.

Now, personally, I find that getting those angry feelings out by killing pixels makes me hate real people less, so I don’t agree with him. But that’s where he’s coming from.

Many of his predictions have been wrong so he should stop trying to be a prophet since according to the Bible he is a false one.

But the press never mentions the following:

* Katrina
* the tsunami
* building hundreds of village wells all over Africa
* free surgeries for poor people all over the world that can’t afford it

The good that he does all over the world to make it a better place should not be overlooked just because he makes an ignorant statement from time to time. I mean, if you and I were on TV every day for 30 years, I’m sure they could come up with 5 ridiculous, ignorant things we said as well.

https://xkcd.com/1053/

DannyB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Many of [Pat Robertson’s] predictions have been wrong so he should stop
trying to be a prophet since according to the Bible he is a false one.

According to his accountants, he is a good Profit, and should continue making these predictions.

The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses
(which are taken too literally by Pat)

Matt 5:27-28
NIV:
27 ?You have heard that it was said, ?You shall not commit adultery.?[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

NASB:
27 ?You have heard that it was said, ?You shall not commit adultery?; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

KJV:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

I agree Pat is taking it wrong.

Another common POV about the meaning of those verses is that if you look at her lustfully you are already as guilty as if you had committed adultery with her.

Even with that view, Pat gets it wrong. If I hate someone, maybe I’m as guilty as if I killed them. If I think about how to do someone in (probably because I actually hate them whether I admit it to myself or not) I’m as guilty as if I actually did it.

Yet I would consider that shooting pixels on the screen, without intent to harm any actual living person, is no worse than the horrible violence that occurs in a violent game such as Frogger, or Space Invaders.

If I modified a game so that the people I shot at had the likeness of a particular person I wanted to keep shooting at in the game, I would seriously have to question my internal motives.

Pat is simply wrong about
fictional shooting (no actual blasts occur)
at fictional people (who do not actually exist)
in a fictional setting (virtual world)
being equivalent to even contemplating (internally) or thinking about how one might kill another person; let alone doing the actual act itself.

My opinion would be that playing video games does not make any of us any worse of a sinner, and more importantly (hey Pat!) NOT playing them doesn’t make us any less of a sinner.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well Pat Robinson is partly right about this. Never forget that a large majority of priests and ministers in this world are also marriage counselors which means they have a Masters Degree in Psychology.

His psychological standpoint is good, he just involved religion. The thing is that while children aren’t necessarily always going to be influenced by what they see in a game, they will be desensitized by it when something similar happens in front of their eyes in real life. They’ve done a lot of studies to do determine that.

The main idea is that it’s really up to the parents to raise their children and to be mindful of the content they want them to see. The ESRB rating system is in place for the specific purpose of providing parents with a content guide. It’s better developed than the MPAA system.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Speaking of selective memory on the part of the press, why don’t you trumpet his successful efforts to pass all sorts of homobophic laws in Africa, including getting the death penalty for homosexual acts? Robertson and Rick Warren are two of the fundamentalist prime movers over there.

As for the “The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses”, a) know man can know the mind of god, b) even if the Jesus character really did exist (there is no contemporaneous evidence that he did) then you can’t claim that bible verses represent his intent because none of them were written until more than half a century (and probably more like 100 years) after he was dead and gone. There are no first-hand accounts.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

In the Bible it is written to “Love Thy Neighbor”. Doesn’t specify who “thy neighbor” is supposed to be…just love them.

“If homosexuals seek The Lord, who am I to judge them?”

~Pope Francis

“As for the “The point Jesus is trying to make in those verses”, a) know man can know the mind of god, b) even if the Jesus character really did exist (there is no contemporaneous evidence that he did) then you can’t claim that bible verses represent his intent because none of them were written until more than half a century (and probably more like 100 years) after he was dead and gone. There are no first-hand accounts.”

So after avidly attacking my core beliefs as a Christian, you decide to use that? You realize you acknowledged subtext that “No man can know the mind of God”….well it’s fairly obvious this is why there are so many interpretations of biblical scripture and denominations of Christianity.

Damnit Didnt read far enough says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Sorry late to the party

Sorry, I was reading it as a threaded conversation and as I go further through it I do see a bit of the old r/atheism enthusiasm coming out.

I couldn’t figure out why theoldfarts comment above would be considered attacking your faith.

I beg your forgiveness as I continue to make my way through the comments.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Sorry late to the party

The fact that it’s religion is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the fact that his entire thought process (I use the term loosely) is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Claims that gods are real are identical to claims that the Easter Bunny is real. There are equal amounts of evidence for both. If he claimed the Easter Bunny is real, I’d ridicule his beliefs for that.

What he’s bitching about is that he thinks beliefs in gods, devils and angels are somehow different than beliefs in unicorns, elves and wizards. He want “special dispensation” for his beliefs.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Sorry late to the party

“The fact that it’s religion is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the fact that his entire thought process (I use the term loosely) is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Claims that gods are real are identical to claims that the Easter Bunny is real. There are equal amounts of evidence for both. If he claimed the Easter Bunny is real, I’d ridicule his beliefs for that. “

Read what you just said…very carefully…you claim your attacks are irrelevant to religion….yet you mention that my claims adhere to fake gods that don’t exist??

You really really need help….go see one of my colleagues…he or she will get your skitzoid anabolism straightened out and treated in no time šŸ˜‰

So many comments so little time says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Reply from one of the ignorant ignoramuses

Yeah, I guess I have to retract that apology. When the great comment archaeologists discover this thread in a hundred years buried under that old chevy impala over there they will probably need medical attention, sorry guys.

Wally, sorry bro, I’m guessing english isn’t your primary language because I’m having a hard time making sense out of everything your keyboard is throwing at the screen, but chill man. If someone makes a comment about christianity, they are not necessarily targeting you and every single christian on the planet. More than likely they are targeting the christian assholes who somehow manage to get their gob on TV or in the public spotlight and are pushing to limit other peoples rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hahaha, I’d have too much (or incredibly negative) fun with this guy.

“So… what about a game like X-Com which are quite violent but you are killing space aliens in defense of earth? Is it ok to kill aliens if I’m defending earth? Also at the end through my actions of commanding virtual humans to kill virtual aliens the Earth is saved… does that make me a saint?”

Corwin (profile) says:

"sins"

This guy and each and every last person who takes him seriously should be legally considered a minor.

Wait, let’s do one better. Each and every last person who confuses fact and fiction should legally be considered a minor.
So, anyone who seriously speaks to an imaginary friend, believes in magical sky-men who come back from death, or what-have-you : no right to vote, drive a car, hold a gun, get a loan, on grounds of proven immaturity and likely mental instability.

This would definitively solve the problem of policies based on superstition.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: "sins"

I see your point but I also see his point. People who can’t tell reality from fantasy are at best like children. And yet they are guiding policy making. Not that we should trample with their rights but they are as dangerous as some lunatic making the rules. Nobody would let a kid take important policy-related decisions and yet..

I’m not supporting what he said, just discussing the idea of them being like children.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: "sins"

“Why do you think that believing fiction is true should not be considered a mental health issue?”

Because it isn’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

Can you say that you have never in your life believed ANY of the things listed? If you had, would that make you mentally ill?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "sins"

What about believing there are morals, human rights and right and wrong? If there is no God, then you must be pretty delusional to believe there is such thing as human rights. The only rights you have, assuming there is not God, are the rights you can take and hold on to.

So Christians admit they live on faith, the Godless don’t even realize the contradictions of their own beliefs.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "sins"

Sorry sport, you’re going to have to at least graduate from first grade at Troll U. before you can talk to my secretary and make an appointment to engage me.

If you should ever crawl out of your mom’s basement and buy a dictionary, you’ll find that the definition of ‘atheism’ has nothing to do with faith, ‘religion’ has nothing to do with morals, and ‘human rights’ existed for about 4 million years before your imaginary gods supposed wrote a magic book.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "sins"

“Just like any adherent of any other religion, an atheist has great faith that his beliefs are true, has no objective proof but tons of subjective proof, just like every adherent of every religion does.”

This is a common misconception about atheism. An atheist does NOT say “there is no God”, he/she says “there is no evidence that a God exists”. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not on the party with no starting claim. There is no “faith” in atheism, only conclusion based on evidence and a refusal to conclude anything where no evidence exists.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "sins"

Actually, some of us (strong atheists) do say there is no god.

The religious rely on the fact that you can’t prove a negative as a “defense” of their gods existence in the natural world, but the rational do not.

Does the Easter Bunny exist? You can’t prove a negative, so that puts the Easter Bunny on an equal logical footing with Thor, Ganesha, Satan and the gods of Abraham.

Yet any rational adult will tell you with confidence that the Easter Bunny does not exist. Not that there is no evidence, but that it simply does not exist.

That’s simply because the odds of such an aberration actually existing are so impossibly low that it can be dismissed out of hand by any rational adult human being.

At some point rational human beings must dismiss such implausibilities, otherwise any rational discourse would be impossible.

Gods and Easter Bunnies are objects/creatures embedded in a bigger context called the natural world. You can’t isolate the Easter Bunny from the context of the natural world where all of human experience and all that we know of the prehistoric clearly indicate no such claim should be even considered.

BTW the Carrier video on youtube I referred to earlier is ” “Are Christians Delusional?” Richard Carrier Skepticon 3″

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28PjVaW4kKI&t=243

On topic, I think the only difference between Robertson and mainstream Christians is that Robertson simply doesn’t know enough to be embarrassed by his beliefs. He’s the ultimate true Christian, a genuine believer who will say and do anything that his invisible gods put into his mind regardless of how he is mocked.

Mainstream Christians are self conscious of their beliefs in invisible wizards. They want to pick and choose what words and actions they believe are/aren’t telepathically implanted by their gods. They feel much more comfortable pretending that the gods implanted their words and ideas in Martin Luther King, but not in David Koresh and his followers. Mainstream Christians only want to be a little crazy.

In short, they know their beliefs are crazy, they just don’t want to be associated with the craziness their beliefs imply when taken to their logical conclusion.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“The religious rely on the fact that you can’t prove a negative as a “defense” of their gods existence in the natural world, but the rational do not.”

I find your lack of faith disturbing

~Darth Vader

“On topic, I think the only difference between Robertson and mainstream Christians is that Robertson simply doesn’t know enough to be embarrassed by his beliefs. He’s the ultimate true Christian, a genuine believer who will say and do anything that his invisible gods put into his mind regardless of how he is mocked.”

It’s called turning the other cheek. If you hadn’t been so ignorant and read the Bible before making this rant, you would know that he ignores it because that’s what Christians, Buddhists, Hindi’s, Muslims, Jews, and other religious groups teach. Mahatma Gandhi had the best take on the concept….and taught it to a Catholic friend of his.

“Mainstream Christians are self conscious of their beliefs in invisible wizards. They want to pick and choose what words and actions they believe are/aren’t telepathically implanted by their gods. They feel much more comfortable pretending that the gods implanted their words and ideas in Martin Luther King, but not in David Koresh and his followers. Mainstream Christians only want to be a little crazy.”

You’ve never heard of the concept of free will? Most of my fellow Christians and I try not to ram our religion down your throats…if it seems like I am now…I’m clearing up your rather ignorant and bigoted comments…I don’t mind Atheists….but it’s the type like you that argue in the same bigoted manner that you accuse Christians of…that are the most ignorant people of all.

“In short, they know their beliefs are crazy, they just don’t want to be associated with the craziness their beliefs imply when taken to their logical conclusion.”

So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy? I’m sorry to hear that. I’ll do my best to be a stereotypical bigoted Christian for you if you like.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy”

Of course not. There’s evidence of that everywhere.

Believing that this can only be done with an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent being you have no real evidence to show exists in order to control things? That’s another issue.

You can believe whatever you want, and I don’t really care. But, try to control the law and claim I have no similar morality just because you believe in something that I consider to be no more true than The Iliad and Norse/Greek mythology and we’ll have to disagree.

“Mahatma Gandhi had the best take on the concept”

Mahatmda Gandhi also had this quote I like (although the attribution is disputed):

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Yet I’m taking Mahatma Gandhi’s take on the matter. You’re only attacking my core beliefs and yet I’ve showed civil defiance towards you as Gandhi interpreted Christ’s words. He didn’t like some Christians, not all. The ideas he had were straight along the lines of that “magic” book you claim that Christians are too dumb to realize is not at all magic.

We say it is the word of God because the meaning of that is simple. It was written in a way by humans on how to treat other humans. Ignorant folks such as yourself, Christians or not, take each word to the letter and assume that all Christian values have no subtext. All you see is “People reading from a ‘magic book’ “, and assume we are ignorant for having the capacity to interpret it differently from others.

I respect Dark Helmut’s Atheist beliefs and yours PaulT because neither if you attack the core principles and never assume that I think that those beliefs are exclusively Christian….oh FFS, I even mentioned all that concerning other religions way before TheOldFart started chiming in like an ignoramus that I’m wrong because he don’t believe in what I believe in.

It should be noted that I never once said anyone with their Atheist beliefs were wrong. Yes maybe I pointed out that the assumption that religious individuals are ignorant is totally wrong.

However, after seeing Dark Helmut’s, your’s, and everyone else’s Atheist beliefs I have a great comparison now by which I can compare truly intelligent, logical thinking Atheists, who don’t bother Christians or any other religious folk about their own beliefs and don’t press it upon them, to the ones such as yourself who wholeheartedly see religion as a threat to their own beliefs and are totally not open to the ideas of others. TheOldFart’s type of Atheism is the type that causes genocide and disruption in what is otherwise peaceable relations. Both Christians and Atheists can be at fault for such disruptions.

I love my Christ, but I don’t always love the actions of my fellow Christians. I try my best to be like him and yet TheOldFart attacks me for it.

So Dark Helmut, and every other Atheist here on these threads, let me assure you I respect your decisions and beliefs. You all made it clear you don’t believe in them. My only goal was to point out and help everyone understand some of the misconceptions of Christianity that your ignorant types of Atheists (of which you and the others aren’t….just TheOldFart is) assume. I love you because you are all my fellow humans.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“So Dark Helmut, and every other Atheist here on these threads, let me assure you I respect your decisions and beliefs.”

This is going to sound waaaay more cruel than I intend, but I put it like this to my faithful friends: I may not respect your beliefs, but I definitely respect your right to believe them.

It’s a subtle difference, but an important one, because too often people of faith are shown respect simply for the fact that they have faith, which I think is a silly reason to assign respect to anyone. But I’ll fight to the death people’s rights to their own religion, even if I think that religion does more harm than good and that some religions in particular are indeed a threat to mankind….

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Hey Wally. Show us where atheism causes genocide.

You keep breaking those commandments about bearing false witness. Don’t you need to run out and say a few hail marys and toss some salt over your shoulder or something?

I understand your frustration. All those atheists bursting into churches and mosques shouting “There is no god!” and detonating their suicide vests. We’re a violent lot. I remember when we… no wait, it was the Christian nation that invaded Iraq that has killed over 120,000 innocent civilians there so far. But I do remember when the atheists bombed around the clock through the Tet holiday… no, wait, that was the Christian nation that started that war too, wasn’t it? Now, the Inquisition, that was some really nasty atheist activity there, wasn’t it? Oh, wait, I’m looking at the pictures and those guys seem to be holding up crosses.

You know, that powerfully magical amulet that can ward off vampires and attacks by the demon possessed.

Sadly they don’t work on virulent atheists hell bent on freeing minds from the idiocy of superstitions about evil curses cast by invisible wizards.

So, have you read Genesis yet? Do you agree now that your gods were in fact corporeal and that “invisible wizard” is a perfectly accurate way to describe someone who conjures objects from the void and casts evil spells on an entire species?

You are telepathic, right? I mean, that’s how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right? You telepathically convey to him that you accept that the 1/3 of him that he magically implanted in that woman, that bit of him died so that you could be free of the evil curse, right? That’s why you send out on invisible waves for him to listen in on?

Since you’ve got those sort of skillz and I obviously don’t, I wonder if you could deliver a message to him. The message is this: I have seen his actions and I judge him to be the lowest form of filth, evil, and not worthy to lick the dog shit off the soles of my boots.

I tried to be terse, just in case he charges by the number of words sent or something.

Oh, shit, that’s a telegraph, not telepath, isn’t it?

In any case, tell him that I have judged him and found him to be a shitbag.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“Hey Wally. Show us where atheism causes genocide.”

Adolf Hitler.

“You keep breaking those commandments about bearing false witness. Don’t you need to run out and say a few hail marys and toss some salt over your shoulder or something?”

Have I lied about you?

“You know, that powerfully magical amulet that can ward off vampires and attacks by the demon possessed.”

Did I make such a blatant mockery of you for being honest in what I believe? Or only when you got mixed up in terms of the Fantasy genera?

“You are telepathic, right? I mean, that’s how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right?”

You’re that ignorant? I am a psychologist with a freaking PhD in experimental psychology.

“Since you’ve got those sort of skillz and I obviously don’t, I wonder if you could deliver a message to him. The message is this: I have seen his actions and I judge him to be the lowest form of filth, evil, and not worthy to lick the dog shit off the soles of my boots.”

I got a message back from him….he still loves you..ego I should love you too. And I do.

“I tried to be terse, just in case he charges by the number of words sent or something.”

I am sure he already knows. After all, in the mythological sense, God is supposed to be an omnipresent, omnipotent supreme being after all.

“You are telepathic, right? I mean, that’s how you communicate with the invisible wizard, right? You telepathically convey to him that you accept that the 1/3 of him that he magically implanted in that woman, that bit of him died so that you could be free of the evil curse, right? That’s why you send out on invisible waves for him to listen in on?”

This question would be sort of a good point if it weren’t for your mal-intent. Have I mocked your beliefs in such a terse manner? Was I really that mean to you? If so I am truly sorry. I should probably pray over you so that I may find forgiveness and peace and to help you find it as well.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 "sins" Schooled in Style...

You keep injecting fact into his fantasy world. He really, really, really needs to attack/blame atheists.

He can’t defend his beliefs in telepathy, telekinesis, invisible wizards, evil curses and all the other rubbish, so he has to resort to “Well, Hitler was white so all whites hate Jews” sort of stuff.

It’s fun to watch him flounder, but I’m done with him. I’ll just note that countering anti-science with evidence doesn’t work. A hundred separate lines of evidence won’t convince fundies that biological evolution is real. A hundred separate lines of evidence that there is no correlation between atheism and acts of war or torture won’t convince them either.

They’re basically inflatable clown punching bags, hit them with a fact and they’ll bounce right back with a different lie. They can make up more lies than you can ever have time to address.

Aim for demonstrating that their thought processes/lines of “reasoning” are constructed of nothing but fail. That lets the air out of their whole schtick.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“You keep injecting fact into his fantasy world. He really, really, really needs to attack/blame atheists.”

Maybe you should look at the chronological order and check out who attacked what first…you started your crusade upon my beliefs on me first and I’ve done almost not but turn the other cheek or otherwise be stern towards you. I still love you.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 "sins" Schooled in Style...

If you mean to try and imply that that means he was not only an atheist, but that his actions were caused by it, then yes, you do.

Anti-theist does not automatically mean ‘atheist’, it would simply mean he was against religion, most likely due to the competition for control it would present, which as a dictator would be something he would not tolerate.

By the logic of ‘anti-theist = atheist’, both catholics and muslims would also be atheistic groups as well, as they both heavily disagree with, and have attacked, those of other faiths in the past.

These of course are still moot points though, because even if he was an atheist, you would still have to prove that his deed were because of it, and not due to him simply being a murderous, power-hungry nutjob, something that both atheists and theist have had their fair share of as members.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 "sins" Schooled in Style...

I know you’re usually far too proud of your meagre tech certs and regularly come up with theories that prove you don’t really have a clue about some basic concepts. But I didn’t think you were this stupid.

Go on, keep naming dictators and despots at random, you might hit one who actually did what he did simply because he didn’t believe in your god.

It’s unlikely, and very hard to prove (hint: being an atheist doesn’t mean he did what he did because of his atheism, and more than Hitler’s vegetarianism or Catholic upbringing caused his actions). But go on, keep pretending that not believing in a god somehow makes someone a bad person. You might as well come up with some proof for your random insulting of people you’ve never met on a forum that has nothing to do with religion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“It’s unlikely, and very hard to prove (hint: being an atheist doesn’t mean he did what he did because of his atheism, and more than Hitler’s vegetarianism or Catholic upbringing caused his actions). But go on, keep pretending that not believing in a god somehow makes someone a bad person. You might as well come up with some proof for your random insulting of people you’ve never met on a forum that has nothing to do with religion.”

Can you give any conclusive evidence that Wally might be defending himself and his beliefs? Just because a person randomly insults you doesn’t mean they don’t still love you..maybe if you would see how TheOldFart kept attacking Wally because Wally’s beliefs you would not have much to say.

SarcasmOh wait…Wally is a Christian which means he’s Christian! His religion automatically makes him unintelligent!!!sarcasm end

PaulT, you’re a dumbass.

“I know you’re usually far too proud of your meagre tech certs and regularly come up with theories that prove you don’t really have a clue about some basic concepts. But I didn’t think you were this stupid.”

Please tell me what A+Certification has to do with a debate concerning religion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Attacking Wally? You think an “adult” claiming that invisible wizards are real, can conjure a universe from nothing and can be communicated with telepathically should be tolerated? Treated as if they’re sane/rational?

If he claimed Superman is real, or the Easter Bunny is real, would it be attacking him to call it absolute bullshit?

What about Thor or Ganesha? Unicorns? Is that ridiculous bullshit?

But change the imaginary creature to “god” and now it’s an “attack” to call the claims ridiculous bullshit?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“PaulT, you’re a dumbass.”

Is this the kind of maturity that belief in a fictional character inspires? If so, I’m glad I don’t suffer from that delusion.

“Please tell me what A+Certification has to do with a debate concerning religion.”

Wally, stop posting anonymously and pretending that you’re being insightful in any way. You have a habit of using your basic entry level certification to pretend that you’re knowledgeable about advanced tech concepts, even though you typically get even the basics wrong. That proves that you’re either dishonest or that you have an inflated ego that’s not backed by any facts or real knowledge whatsoever. I suspect that you use the same degrees of honesty and intelligence in this debate as well, which means your opinion is probably just as worthless.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Ah, never mind. I see from other comments here that you’re so ignorant of your own religion’s history that you don’t know the difference between Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the 16th century reformist from whom he took his name. I’m sure everything else is based on similar levels of knowledge.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Show your proof that Hitler was an atheist.

Had you had read a history book or even watched the Richard Carrier youtube video on “Are Christians Delusional?”, you’d already know that not only was Hitler a Christian, the Nazi platform was point-by-point an image of Martin Luther’s Protestant platform.

From wikipedia:

“A German census in May 1939, completed more than six years into the Nazi era[2] and incorporating the annexation of mostly Catholic Austria into Germany, indicates that 54% of Germans considered themselves Protestant, (including non-denominational Christians) and 40% considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan “believers in God,” and 1.5 % non-Christians, or “non-believers”.”

That commandment against lying keeps rearing its head, doesn’t it?

You can’t mock my beliefs – I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any gods. Did you miss all those other a-words like amorphous, asymmetrical, atonal, amoral, atypical, arrhythmia, acellular, asynchronous, and all their other “has no” pals?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Martin Luther King emphasized on equality for all man kind and achieved that through the same methods that Mahutma Gandhi did in freeing India from British rule…it’s called civil disobedience asshole fucktard.

Adolph Hitler had an abused childhood. He was genetically Jewish and regularly got beetimgs from his drunken Atheist father. NOTE: Wally was asked to produce the name of an “Atheist who committed genocide”….not an “Atheist who commited genocide based upon his or her Atheist beliefs”.

Once again Atheism has not one thing to do with how a person acts or thinks…it’s a belief system…it does not dictate a behavior. Just because a belief system says one thing does not mean that people won’t do bad things.

All that shit about rape in the Bible some people like to point out purposefully while attempting to bring validity to their arguments against Christianity ignore the huge consequences for the rapist….typically death by stoning…

Anyway…Adolf Hitler hated EVERYONE that was not German. He either claimed being Catholic to perpetuate hatred against the Pope…who didn’t agree with him and you know how Hitler felt about who he considered political dissidents… He was also a psychotic suffering from The Clap.

He was a week Atheist.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Ya know, the anonymous posting is good. You should definitely keep it anonymous, because the irony and dishonesty in your response is not something you’d want to be associated with.

Martin Luther is not Martin Luther King Jr that you’re thinking of. Try wikipedia.

You missed the bit about all the Christians claiming “god is on their side” as the reason for starting wars. Maybe your internet was out during that bit?

You also seemed to have missed the dictionary lesson. a-theism. It means without. It is NOT a belief, it means “without theism” just like “amorphous” means “without form” and “asymmetrical” means “without symmetry.”

You obviously haven’t read the bible – or else you’re just plain dishonest. Then penalty for rape is a small fine and then the woman is forced to marry the man who raped her. That would be Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where it says:

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”

The only killing for the crime of rape is the killing of the woman who was raped, as in Deuteronomy 22:23-24

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”

You neglect – or in your ignorance don’t know – that the gods commanded rape. Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18 and roughly a dozen other places in the bible.

Don’t you just miss the good ol’ days when you could sell your kids for fuck toys, like Exodus 21:7-11

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.”

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins" Schooled in Style...

“So believing in unconditional love and kindness is crazy?”

I’m sorry, I thought you were Christian? Here’s the simple math: you absolutely cannot espouse unconditional love AND Hell in the same breath. They are incompatible. Now, I have some Christian friends that forego the Hell story, and many Jewish friends that de facto do the same, and I find their faith more pallitable and compatible.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Hell is an unsupported myth that has nothing to do with scripture.
At All.

It got picked up from, among other things, Norse myth and intigeated into the tradition.

Biblically, there is the place where the dead wait for the end times, equated to Hades. At that point they are sorted. Those who did not chose to follow Jesus/God are described as, from memory, being cast into a holocaust. A great destructive fire, which Ends them, in exactly the same way most atheistw claim death does to Everybody.

There Is No Eternal Torture.

Further more, the place where the demons reside, which Does suck that much? They don’t run it. It’s a prison for them. And at the end the go into that destructive fire and stop existing too. (there’s also some descriptive factors that equate it with the earth’s core.)

Somehow, the demon prison was fused with the land of the dead and the fire at the end in the common mythology, but there’s no scriptural support for that At All.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Have fun with that, reading over the wiki entry on it right now, and it looks like it would come down to the person you are talking to due to their not really being a ‘core’ set of beliefs with Hinduism, though for the most part it looks similar to Buddhism, with rebirth/reincarnation.

Fascinating read regardless, you should check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Please cite the part in this ENTIRE THREAD where I specifically ever stated the my core Christian beliefs were either A) At the core of all religion, or B) Exclusively Christian.

Now let me educate your ignorance in trying to point out a “logical mishap” in my use of the words “core Christian Beliefs”….I never once said these concepts were exclusive and they clearly aren’t. The phrase of “Core Christian Beliefs” means by terms of properly spoken English that the beliefs I adhere to are based upon the teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth. I only said my beliefs stem from the teachings of Jesus Christ….not the core of the freaking world’s other religions….Come on TOG, you have got to be smarter than that!

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 "sins" Schooled in Style...

… and now you’re just lashing out randomly.

Read my comment. Then read it again. Then tell me what the deuce it has to do with anything other than pointing out that Hinduism beliefs have several interpretations based upon who you’re talking to, some very different than the others(something that causes no or almost no friction by the way, due to the inclusive nature of the core belief system).

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 "sins" Schooled in Style...

Hinduism embraces and encompasses a lot of beliefs…because it is likely older than both Christianity and Buddhism. Those two might have evolved from it actually. When I say beliefs…it’s not the mythos I speak about…it’s about the core humanitarian altruistic practices of the three that parallel.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "sins"

You are not a ‘strong atheist,’ you are an antitheist. They are closely related, but antitheists believe there is no god, and thus is faith based. Atheists require proof one way or the other. You cannot prove that god does or does not exist. There is no evidence to prove the existence, and you cannot prove a negative.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins"

Actually, you’re wrong. All those words have meanings. This is how it really goes:

Theism describes a belief in a god or gods. The prefix a negates the meaning of a term. So, a theist is someone who does believe, an atheist is someone who does not.

Gnosticism describes a claim of knowledge. So, a gnostic claims to have knowledge while an agnostic makes no claim of knowledge.

So, a “strong atheist” is a gnostic atheist – someone who no only believes that there is no god, but also claims knowledge that this is so. An agnostic atheist (or, colloquially, an agnostic) believes that there is no god but will not claim absolute knowledge of that.

Neither requires evidence to hold the belief they hold, but both could normally require evidence in order to change their mind. I’d personally say I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe god exists. I don’t claim to hold absolute knowledge, but it would take extraordinary evidence to change me into a believer – and I’ve seen little actual evidence from theists that any god exists, let alone whatever version their particular sect adheres to.

The other term you’re using – antitheist – means what the word means. That’s a person who is opposed to theists. For many of them it’s a natural reaction to a lot of the 100% religion-based laws that theists keep trying to pass to restrict the freedom of others, but that has nothing naturally to do with atheism. It’s possible to be any form of atheist without being antitheist.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins"

Strong atheist and anti-theist are two different things, and I am both.

Atheists do not require evidence. Look up the word in a dictionary. It’s really not that hard, is it?

a?the?ism
(th-zm)
n.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
[French ath?isme, from ath?e, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]

It’s also impossible to prove that the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist, but rational adults draw a cutoff based on the fact that the Easter Bunny claim is embedded in the context of the rest of reality. It can be dismissed out of hand as so fantastically unlikely that it’s childish and stupid to claim otherwise.

Just like gods, angels, devils, faeries, unicorns and bigfoot.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 "sins"

“2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
[French ath?isme, from ath?e, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]”

It’s a doctrine…which means any claims coming from it whether proving or disproving any existence of some deity or icon will always be bias in the absolute thought of trying to find every reason to debunk conjectures coming from the other side. The doctrine tells you to always look for things to disprove.
The other thing the doctrine teaches you in its extremity is to take every thing you see in front of you in the literal sense right?
Best example is Rational Wiki’s idea that the Bible indicates that Jesus was a homosexual right? I sort of object to that based on the fact that it cites Jesus receding to one of his disciples as hi beloved…in the Bible he really does….but they failed to notice that it’s in the context of “best friend”. Jesus loved everyone no matter what and never shunned those in need.

You do realize it is a theory (a proven repeatable scientific fact….astronomy) that a man named Jesus did in fact exist around the time of Pontus Pilate as he was Governor of Judea right?

It’s not the that things may or may not exist that internally drives my belief system. It’s the fact that I feel strength and comfort at my week moments when I can’t talk to anyone about my troubles.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "sins"

Wally, if there’s anything sadder than your ignorance of the bible, it’s your absolute ignorance of science and logic.

There is no such thing as a “scientific fact”. Never has been, never will. There are theories, and theories accepted as laws, but all genuine science is always subject to change if new evidence is found. Maybe you should at least come up to speed on what was being taught to young kids back in the 50’s and 60’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw “Feynman on Scientific Method.”

No one who has ever even read the freaking title of a book on logic has ever attempted to disprove the existence of anything. If I didn’t interact with the anti-science types so regularly I’d have sworn nobody could possibly be stupid enough to seriously consider it. It’s always one of the first arguments the religious reach for though. I wonder why that is?

Your total ignorance of such simple things does go a long way towards explaining your beliefs in the supernatural.

How are the telepathy exercises coming along?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "sins"

“You do realize it is a theory (a proven repeatable scientific fact….astronomy) that a man named Jesus did in fact exist around the time of Pontus Pilate as he was Governor of Judea right?”

Wow, as ignorant as the rest of your posts here have been, I just had to dive in…

First, wtf does astronomy have to do with whether or not a particular man existed? Are you so clueless that you can’t even distinguish astronomy and history?

Secondly, so what? That doesn’t mean that any of the mythology surrounding him is true. It doesn’t even mean that the story of Barabbas is true, let alone the supernatural crap.

If you think this is proof, then I submit to you that Abraham Lincoln was actually a vampire hunter. After all, there’s a book that documents this fact and we have historical evidence that Lincoln was real.

King Arthur and Robin of Lockswood were both real people, but it’s doubtful that most of their exploits have been documented accurately – and they’ve had hundreds of years less time to be exaggerated than the story of Christ. Why should I believe that particular story?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 "sins"

“King Arthur and Robin of Lockswood were both real people, but it’s doubtful that most of their exploits have been documented accurately – and they’ve had hundreds of years less time to be exaggerated than the story of Christ. Why should I believe that particular story?”

I don’t recall saying “these events mentionef in the Bible actually happened because they’re in the Bible,” did I? I’m merely trying to say that Jesus may have existed based on evidence. I never said any of the miracles in the Bible actually happened…I never claimed anyone of them did occurr….if I did it was purely in the mythical mentioning of certain meanings behind it and possibly a light hearted religious joke concerning wine.

You do realize that RationalWiki claims that Jesus may have been homosexual because of a common phrase typically used to express that you care for a friend of yours right??? In the Bible Jesus calls one of his deciples his beloved. It’s not that a homosexual Jesus would bother me, but to suggest that idea blindly without looking into the entomology and historical use of that word in the context in which it is presented in the Bible simply shows that whoever wrote that article clearly has no sense of comprehension.

Also…when did I ask you to believe in miracles…which is what the stories of mythological Jesus performing them is supposed to teach…it’s in the context of believing in yourself and pushing yourself to achieve your goals?

The trouble with TheOldFart’s virulent display of Atheism is a lack of belief in anything bigger than himself. It’s his arrogance in that particular substraight if Atheism that makes him just as delusional…and in his case it’s self delusional grandeos. He has no respect for others’ rights to believe in what they believe. It is his arrogance which you are defending PaulT…not his beliefs.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 "sins"

Well, you really didn’t address anything I said, you just went off onto tangents about what other sites I’ve never read might have said. I don’t care about those claims, I was only addressing the part of your post that I quoted, nothing more.

Let’s put it simply: you’re the one who brought up Jesus’ existence as if that means something. My response is: so what? Even if there was a man named Jesus and even if he was crucified and executed at the hand of Pilate, that means bugger all in terms of whether there’s a god as described in the Bible. So, why bring it up? A man possibly existed. That doesn’t mean a god does.

Nobody except Christians would give a crap about his sexuality either, except that so many so-called “Christians” are using their book of fiction to deny rights to others. Whether he was gay, bi, straight, whether he banged Mary Magdelene every night of his adulthood or died a virgin, I don’t care.

Similarly, you seem to be wanting to redefine atheism to mean something that it simply does not. That’s where I dive in. I’m fine with historical facts and language being used to make arguments. But when you have to redefine words in order to attack people and twist facts to pretend they prove something they don’t, that’s where I respond.

Stop doing that, and we’ll be fine. Believe whatever you want. Just be honest about your beliefs and those of others. At least use logic – selective attacking of what a website I’ve never visited says about a subject I care nothing about means exactly nothing.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 "sins"

The Hebrew word for “Beloved” also translates to “kind” as in “kindred” or “kin” in the adjective….clearly that website missed a step or two in logic when conflating the idea. I’m not against the idea of homosexual Jesus, but the semantics of what “Beloved” translates back to Hebrew from in the adjective form blow that notion out of the water.

You will never be satisfied with the way I think as long as you look smart huh PaulT?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins"

I’m thinking perhaps he meant that the majority of common Christians (excluding the Westboro Baptist ilk) realize that much of the DOGMA is nonsense. While Catholic leadership is extremely conservative and anti gay marriage, for instance, you’ll find most Catholic parishioners are either in favor of it or don’t care one way or the other.

Most Christians don’t keep holy every sabbath day. Most Christians ARE selective in which parts of the bible they follow. This is, by the way, the same of every other religion as well, because deep down people are skeptical enough to know at least some small parts of any book claiming to be holy is going to be bullshit.

None of that refutes the existence of God, of course, or even the primary Christian claims, but anyone laying claims to a “perfect” book is pissing into the wind….

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "sins"

Is English your native language?

Regardless of whether it is or not, you’ve got no excuse for not using a dictionary.

Tell me, what shape does an amorphous object have?
What rythm can be found in arrhythmia?
What is moral in an amoral story?
How typical is an atypical event?
What sort of symmetry does an asymmetrical object present?

Are we sensing a theme here? Okay, let’s go for the big one:

What sort of theism does an atheist have?

Here’s a hint: look in the dictionary under t… th…. the….thei…. theis….

Come on, you can get there.

Now for bonus points, if the lack of belief in gods is a belief, tell us (in 100 words or less) what sort of belief your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny is.

You don’t believe in it so you must have beliefs that it doesn’t exist, right?

For a triple word score, explain this: If your gods only claim to fame is that their non-existence can’t be proven, and the Easter Bunnies claim to fame is also that its non-existence can’t be proven, what exactly distinguishes your gods from the Easter Bunny?

Remember you get extra points for staying within the lines and not drooling on the picture before you turn it in.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "sins"

Would you please stop being a bigot?

Here’s a word you likely never learned…

Faith

Here’s another one

Love

Here’s another one…

Kindness.

Concept…
Turning the other cheek.

My goal as a Christian is to have faith in my God to help give me the centered mental strength to love you as my own fellow human being. I can only do this through unconditional kindness in spite of the mean things you say I must turn the other cheek.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "sins"

Good grief–do you treat all people this way? You really might want to check your hypocrisy meter.

How can you not see this as bigotry? Don’t you get it? Racism and bigotry are born from this perspective: “I love and respect all people… except those guys over there–they’re crazy.”

You have rationalized your behavior by convincing yourself that because religious people are stupid/delusional (so you believe) treating them in this manner is ok.

Rhymes with orange says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:threatened

I believe he is saying that if the only thing keeping you from going all psycho and whipping out a machine gun to kill all those dirty dirty atheists is your belief in god… he’s a bit afraid that you may decide not to believe any more.

To tell the truth, so am I.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 "sins"

Here’s a word you likely never learned…

Faith

Here’s another one

Love

Here’s another one…

Kindness.

Concept…
Turning the other cheek.

With the exception of faith, I’ve learned and practice those things in my daily life. I also hold a high level of skepticism of religion and a deep aversion to anything involving blind faith. Not sure what your comment has proven, except that those things can be achieved with or without religion. I prefer to make my own moral decisions based on reality and my own life experiences, not some dogma based on blind faith, half-truths and a desire to control the unwashed masses from a couple of centuries ago.

Basically, my “religion” involves only myself and my moral beliefs and has nothing whatsoever to do with any fictional book, Sunday social gatherings, ornate buildings or a collection tray.

Wolfy says:

Re: Re: Re:3 "sins"

Ola, DH.

Even though you consider “faith” to be willful, consider someone who has been indoctrinated since birth. It must necessarily be very difficult for them to even entertain an idea that exists outside of their mental framework. I’m thinking of a young Mormon I know. Grew up in the “faith”, and cannot entertain any idea that is in conflict with Mormonism.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 "sins"

Isn’t it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?

The only thing that has significantly contributed to the quality of human life and to the length of human lifespan is science and rational thought.

It isn’t praying that cures cancers. It isn’t priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don’t resuscitate dead people, electricity does.

Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn’t it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress – and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?

I don’t make apologies for people who refuse to think because I believe their narcissism/weakness/mental frailty is very, very bad for the future of the human race and the planet.

Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that’s child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It’s simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged.

I bet Pat Robertson would do both ends of the kids if he thought no one was looking.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 "sins"

“Isn’t it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?”

Quite constantly….it teaches us to love each other no matter what others believe…problem is you haven’t examined any religious beliefs well enough to understand how we keep our faith in our beliefs.

“It isn’t praying that cures cancers. It isn’t priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don’t resuscitate dead people, electricity does. “

No but if you’re prayed over as a cancer patient, it often comforts a person which increases the potency of the immune system. A psychosomatic response. Laughter eases pain….which helps a patient live a better life until they die.

“Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn’t it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress – and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?”

Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Marie Curie, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Neil Armstrong, Hippocrates….all religious…all forwarded human progress.

“Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that’s child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It’s simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged.”

Seems your fear of religion is causing your ignorance. Those pastors were not only charged, but defrocked by their respective Christian denominations. You’ve gone straw man.

Corwin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 "sins"

“”Isn’t it a moral duty for the religious to examine their beliefs?””

“Quite constantly….it teaches us to love each other no matter what others believe…problem is you haven’t examined any religious beliefs well enough to understand how we keep our faith in our beliefs.”

We understand well enough how you do it. Doublethink, i.e. training to flee thoughts and ideas that threaten your precious fictitious belief system away from cognitive dissonance. That’s what you do in the post above, where you speak of “turning the other cheek”, “kindness” and “compassion”, citing anecdotes involving ‘authority’ figures; it obviously means “please stop making me think that maybe all I believe in is BULLSHIT, by kind compassion for my feeble tolerance to actually thinking about the superstitious angle where my magical sky-man just might not exist any more than the Easter Bunny”.

“”It isn’t praying that cures cancers. It isn’t priests that perform heart transplants. Nuns don’t resuscitate dead people, electricity does. “”

“No but if you’re prayed over as a cancer patient, it often comforts a person which increases the potency of the immune system. A psychosomatic response. Laughter eases pain….which helps a patient live a better life until they die.”

So, praying works as well as a placebo. Thus, does nothing to actually stop the cancer.
Medicine wins, prayer fails.

“”Given that religion has never saved a child, extended the human lifespan or caused an extended period of peace to break out, isn’t it the moral duty of your Mormon pal to question why they spend their days putting the brakes on human progress – and worse, molesting the minds of children with the same crap thereby dooming them to a less productive and less valuable life than they could have had?””

“Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo, Marie Curie, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Neil Armstrong, Hippocrates….all religious…all forwarded human progress. “

Religious people. Not religion. Conflating much? And, appeal to authority. Two fallacies in as many sentences. Some you cite even had so much problems with religion that the Church still hasn’t forgiven them 400 years later. An other wasted half his life doing alchemy and chasing ghosts. What would Newton have discovered if he’d been totally sane? Maybe we’d have had relativity half a century earlier.

“”Putting fear and ignorance into the minds of small children, telling them blatant lies, that’s child molesting. Churches and priests should not get a free pass for fucking their butts or fucking their minds. It’s simply wrong to allow either act to go unchallenged.””

“Seems your fear of religion is causing your ignorance. Those pastors were not only charged, but defrocked by their respective Christian denominations. You’ve gone straw man.”

Oh and now YOU’re talking about logical fallacies? That’s so fucking precious. And, are you doing so while defending the teaching of fiction as fact to children?

ethorad (profile) says:

Re: "sins"

Problem is you are conflating these two items:

– belief in God
– inability to make a rational voting decision

There are plenty of people around who are religious and yet manage to make a considered decision on who to vote for.

Admittedly there are plenty of people who can’t, but then religiousness isn’t a defining characteristic. I would argue lack of education is a better filter.

Amber (profile) says:

What about spawning? Zombies?

So, if you kill someone in a video game, and they respawn, does that count? I mean, they didn’t stay dead. What about killing zombies? Technically, they are supposed to be already dead. In Katamari, you don’t really kill people either, you just trap them in a big ball. Does that count? Maybe some of you commenters aren’t as bad as you think you are. We’ll just have to ask Pat Robertson about that, because he knows.

Anonymous Coward says:

“incorrectly predicting the end of the world in 1982”

If you incorrectly predict the end of the world in a particular year, I fail to see why you should continue to be looked at as a theological expert. You’re obviously doing something very wrong.

That said, he isn’t totally wrong here.

“lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery (Yay! Thought crime!).”

Sin and crime are not the same thing. And Jesus DID say this. Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don’t apply?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don’t apply?”

I’ve talked about my views on religion in the comments before, but I don’t want to derail this thread early on. I’m more than happy to have an exchange based on this question, but why don’t we let the thread mature a bit first, if that’s okay?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry Dark Helmut…it has to be said, and I’ll end the debate here too lol šŸ™‚

Metaphorically speaking, Eve is formed of Adam’s right rib….this symbolizes that women are to be by our sides…our right hand…which makes her the equal.

In a metaphorical sense, the sin of lust only really means that it’s easier to look at a pretty thing and do what it tells you without question. When you lust after a woman, it basically objectifies her. The objectification of any person is considered a sin. It’s not bad to look though…unless you are dating person or married to a person.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Metaphorically speaking, Eve is formed of Adam’s right rib….this symbolizes that women are to be by our sides…our right hand…which makes her the equal.”

That is a horrific misrepresentation of what the Genesis story has to say about women. You can’t gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that’s obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray. Neither are coincidence. But if you need the point driven home, Genesis 2:18 20 is quite clear that women ought be man’s helper (subservient) and follow man’s lead (subservient). Bible apologists will explain this away as being that God simply devised different roles for each to play, glossing over the fact that man’s role is leader and woman’s is follower. There is nothing equal in that.

“When you lust after a woman, it basically objectifies her.”

All sex includes an element of lust, or extreme want. Otherwise it wouldn’t be so much fun. You damn all sex with talk like that.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You can’t gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that’s obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray.

And let’s not forget the very first woman, Lilith, who was not made from a rib, but was made in exactly the same way (and time) as Adam. her sin was that she was an independent, intelligent woman who refuse to be subservient to Adam.

After she left Eden, Eve was created with a specific eye toward being subservient to Adam.

It doesn’t get more sexist than that.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

You can’t gloss over the fact that Adam was first (in the Bible story, I mean, since that’s obviously all it is) and that Eve led him astray.

Actually the first creation of men and women in Genesis 1:26-27 has them clearly created on an equal footing:

Genesis 1
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The Adam and Eve story comes later.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Richard, come on, are you REALLY arguing that Genesis paints men and women in an equal light?
Well Genesis 1 does – and if you look at Genesis 2 – which seems to be a completely separate story – you will see that whereas Eve was made from a rib Adam was made from dirt – which seems to put Eve above Adam.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Whoever sex isn’t fun? Oh sure meant to be private…but not fun? How would we humans not have fun reproducing willfully with each other. Women are our equals….they lead us astray from our parent’s homes and basements ;-)…tell me, how boring would it be in a perfect world? I think it’s the fact that Adam and Eve loved each other very deeply to a point of wanting each other badly. The King James Bible never really states what the forbidden fruit is…and as we are mortals….I’ll leave your imagination to its own psychological wanderings ;-P

While lust and love involve each other, fully relying on lust without love is the issue.

Amber says:

Re: Re:

Pat Robertson thinks lusting after a woman is a crime even if she’s your wife. You’re only supposed to endure having to have sex if you want to make a baby. If you’re a man though, you can be forgiven if you go around not just thinking about sex with other women, but actually doing it — lots of it — because, well, he’s a man.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/pat-robertson-cheating-comments-males-tendency-wander-19200017

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Are you saying that God cannot judge our thoughts? Do you think lusting after a woman is not a sin, and the 9th/10th commandments (depending on how you count them) don’t apply?

1 – No, evil/weird/pervy thoughts are common and harm nobody, actions do.
2 – No, you can lust another woman while not having the slightest intention of leaving or betraying yours. If you are a mature adult.
3- Yes, the Commandments apply but not as broadly as the extremism wants everybody to believe. Remember that much of the progress we achieved through the ages were considered sins at some point by the Church. Because the church is fallible, composed of fallible human beings and thankfully they evolved to accept a lot of things.

MondoGordo (profile) says:

Re: Re: According to traditional religious perspective ...

is all about your soul … not society.

if it harms your soul it’s sin. Thinking “impure” thoughts harms your soul, Indulging in fantasies of killing harms your soul… so these things are sins. This is why they burned witches at the stake … not for the good of society but for the purification of their souls … so that they would go to Heaven.

So in a traditional religious sense that religious nutbag is correct.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: According to traditional religious perspective ...

They burned witches at the stake because they didn’t practice Christianity, but were followers of the old ways. It had nothing to do with impure thoughts, and just being accused of being a witch would get you burned since you had to prove that you weren’t.

Followers of the old religions, aka Pagans, call these The Burning Times. Read up on them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You just have to read the context of the commandment to understand that lusting does not mean thinking your neighbor’s wife is hot. It is lusting as in actively pursuing the chance to sleep with her. This is why it is the same as adultery because you are actually taking action and would be willing to do so.

If God were going to judge everyone for little every stray thought, WHO is going to be in heaven?

Suddenly everyone around you becomes suspect and your neighborhood becomes an unsavory place of sin and wretchedness.

Interpreting the 10 commandments in such a micromanaging way will just lead to frustration, unhappiness and paranoia. They are meant to be rules on how a society should behave, not something to chain yourself to.

Is anyone really qualified to say how God run things? Are you?

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Oh no, no no no no no no. God was the author of the Bible? Even if we take your view, that he acted through man, then that would mean that this perfect god dictated a hypocritical and self-contradictory work. We’ve got this book telling us that God is perfect, and loving, just and kind – while ordering the genocide of entire civilizations. Oh sure, God grows up and becomes a loving father figure in the New Testament, but that would imply that he grew, evolved, changed, in some fashion – thus meaning he wasn’t perfect before, and thus, wasn’t God.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You do not understand the relationship between the old testament and new. In the old we were given the law. But the law could not save us, only show us our sin. In the new testament, Jesus came to fulfill the law.

There are no contradictions, only when you read things out of context. The bible is the most studied book in history. Was written by 40 authors (though really only one, God), spanned over 1000 years and 66 books and does not have contradictions.

As for wiping out civilizations; that is God’s judgement upon those people. We will receive our judgement upon our death. You view death as the worst thing possible because you think that is all there is. Death is not final but hell is. And so is Heaven.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I’m a biblical scholar friend. I’ve studied the Bible through and through. Jesus came to teach about love and peace? What about the quotes “I come not to bring peace but a sword”? or “I come to affirm the old laws”?
Besides, not once does the Bible actually say that God wrote it or dictated it, as compared to the Quran.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You need a study in sociology methinks…explains the symbolism. When Jesus said he was not brining peace but a sword…he was likely stating that he’s cutting through the misdeeds of the Pharisees at the time. They were so focused on law they lost sight of their own sins and basically added on laws that took advantage of the Jews at the time. Jesus basically cut through the barrier they set up and said to love each other as God intended.

Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Pretty sure there’s surrounding context there.
Jesus taught Love, personal peace, perhaps, but not pacifism. he became angry when faced with things which were wrong, and corrected them, in one or two cases destructively, but was always willing to give those who genuinly wanted to do better a chance to do so.

He’s saying (and goes on to describe in more detail) that his teachings will cause conflict. And, surprise surprise, they did, as those who saw them as a threat to their own power sought to suppress them.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

I don’t think Jesus was a pacifist. We have the story about his lifetime that indicate it..heck his first miracle in literal Biblical context was turning water into wine :-3 I’d say he was a disruptive force to the dogmatic system that the Pharisees had set up that were out side of the laws of Moses.

In subtext, the water to wine story could easily be interpreted as the old saying “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade”.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Ah, the “magic book” argument.

Explain to me, what kind of idiotic, incompetent gods would use a book to transmit their commands, commands that are the only thing that can stop an evil curse that will otherwise condemn every human being to an eternity (not just 500 trillion trillion trillion trillion quadrillion billion grillion billion centuries, but an eternity) of burning in fire?

Let’s examine this from he beginning. Stop me if I get something wrong, but your religion basically says this:

An invisible wizard conjured a universe from nothing.

The invisible wizard waited around for about 10B years before starting a small gas cloud swirling that eventually resulted in a star, some planets and then, 4B years later, magically conjured some creatures called humans on one of those planets.

The invisible wizard didn’t like what the humans did, so he put a curse on them. A curse so powerful that it is magically transmitted from parent to child, with absolutely perfect fidelity. No human can possibly escape this curse, not even by dying in the womb before their fetus has grown out of its gills. Everyone is afflicted with this curse. Period.

For unknown reasons, the wizard suddenly suffers from a case of curser’s remorse, but the only way he can come up with to remove this curse is if he splits himself into three parts, casts a spell on one part of himself to make it into a human fetus, implant it into a fat, ugly Arab woman with a heavy moustache (the woman, not the fetus) and let it gestate. This curse removal business gets complicated because it requires the humans to unknowingly execute this magic piece of the wizard, then if the humans of the future telepathically communicate to the wizard that they really, truly believe that the wizard had them execute a piece of himself so that they could be freed of the curse, only then can they be freed of the curse.

Now this wizard is apparently an omniscient, omnipotent and also somewhat forgetful wizard because he forgets to make any lasting record of this execution of his magical human-looking part. For a hundred years.

Now at this point, this omniscient, omnipotent, and somewhat forgetful wizard apparently does some LSD, a lot of tequila, smokes a few pounds of crack plus snorts some cocaine off a dirty toilet seat and suddenly thinks “Shit, I should have arranged for some press coverage of that execution! Oh, hell, I’ll just cast a magic spell on some humans and have them write it down for me”.

Now it might be a bit presumptuous of me to second guess this amazing, invisible wizard who can cast spells that are handed down from generation to generation with such perfect fidelity, but what in the holy fuck was the wizard thinking? A book? A freaking book? Really? A book in one language, before the printing press was invented, with all the unavoidable errors in manual copying and translation, he chooses to pass down his single greatest command to his followers using a book that 99% of them couldn’t even read when it was first written? Really? He cares about them so much that all that stands between them and an eternity of torture is is a freaking book?!?

I get the feeling that this particular wizard went to Durmstrang, and he didn’t get particularly good grades either. I bet all the death eaters there stayed away from him because he was too mean and stupid for their tastes.

Okay, so any invisible, omniscient, omnipotent, somewhat forgetful wizard capable of conjuring a universe from nothing and putting a curse that propagates with perfect fidelity for eternity could make a mistake. I mean, everyone has a bad day,right? Most of us mere mortals would have simply implanted the knowledge of our will in the humans using a very similar spell to the one he used to put the curse on them in the first place, but what do we know. Magic looks easy to us.

I’m willing to grant that we all have bad days, but can anyone explain how a wizard with such amazing magical powers was so unbelievably stupid that he decided just to inspire a small handful of people in one shit hole neighborhood in one tiny country in one small corner of the Earth?

Wouldn’t a semi-competent wizard have said “Gee, I know, I’ll inspire a few people in Rome, a dozen in Naples, maybe eight in Kirkuk, probably a couple of dozen in Athens as a lot of folks speak their language, maybe two in Plovdiv, a half dozen in Lisbon, a couple of those cute guys Rhodes with those fine-ass buns… oh yeah, ten in Carthage and maybe a few dozen in those other continents I made”

But this wizard is so mind-numbingly stupid he telepathically transmits his instructions to a handful of semi-literate grunts who then make a hash of the whole thing. The spell he cast on them is so weak that they can’t even agree on how many people were present at the tomb of the recently killed (spoiler: he wasn’t really killed) bit of the wizard.

And you think this wizard – oh, I’m sorry, you use the term “god” don’t you? Sorry, just do a search and replace on “wizard” and the history of your religion reads just the same. Anyway, you think this god/wizardy thing writes a great book? Magically inspired? Telepathically inserted into the minds of the authors with unerring precision?

Oh, wait, let’s not forget those Nicean councils (like Hollywood sequels “Nicea: Telepathically Inspired Editors on a Rampage” followed soon thereafter by “Nicea II: The Return of the Grammar Nazis”. The wizard (sorry, gods) had to magically implant the thoughts into the minds of some more humans so that they’d throw away entire books of the bible… why? Oh, that’s right, because the divine inspiration spell didn’t always work very well.

Isn’t a bitch that the wizard’s (god’s… mea culpa) evil curse always propagates with perfect fidelity? I mean, all we’ve got when it comes to dealing with this evil curse is this magically inspired book that doesn’t even vaguely resemble the original scrawls of the semi-primitives who wrote it down fifty to a hundred years after the magical 1/3 of a wizard got lynched.

If the bible isn’t certain how many people were at the tomb of the 1/3 of the invisible wizard immediately after it was killed, how can you pretend to be so certain that it has a magical origin? If you believe it does, then can faulty magic be trusted? Is faulty magic the magic of a real wizard who is just a bit sloppy and forgetful? Or maybe of a wizard just didn’t really care that much about accuracy? Or is he an evil wizard who just likes to fuck with people facing an eternity of torture by handing down two thousand years worth of translation errors and selective edits by power hungry religious rulers?

Oh, how rude of me! I’m sorry! You were about to tell us something important about your magic book. Please, by all means, go ahead and tell us how it works. It’s magic, right?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Your last comment proves your bigotry and your lack of understanding of and lack of tolerance for others beliefs.

“Oh, how rude of me! I’m sorry! You were about to tell us something important about your magic book. Please, by all means, go ahead and tell us how it works. It’s magic, right?”

???What leads you to that idea???

I’ve already explained what I could…but I guess you’re hungry for more ministering.

My goodness it took you that long to try and get me mad this time? Well the Bible isn’t a magic book…the most commonly held misconception is that as it is labeled the word of God it is therefore Christians automatically think it was written by a supreme being. The truth of the matter is far simpler. It’s a guide book full of metaphors and stories…some of which did in fact happen and you’d be a fool to deny that Moses, Joshua, and Daniel existed…which teach various lessons. As an AC mentioned above…the Old Testiment teaches us about what rules we are bound by, and the New Testament teaches us how we should carry them out. The Apostle Paul wrote a ton of letters to various Christian groups who were annoying others who had different beliefs asking said groups to just live to love as Jesus did…(Ephesians is that book if I recal).

By the way, if you’re going to try to claim that God is an “invisible wizard”, it is plainly evident you’ve never read into the fact that wizzards are corporeal…they are typically of the elementals of the Earth….God, since he is supposed to be omnipotent….is a supreme being in the realm of the fantasy genera. He’s ethereal. So try to get it right next time OK? You’re talking to a nerd here and a psychologist…a potent mix for intellectually making snide remarks. It is obvious you never read a fantasy book in your life so I’ll cut you a break.

Anyway, the Bible has a few correlations with known ancient historians Josephus for one) and as far as the account for Moses…the Korahn gives a better, and surprisingly accurate account of Moses…there’s lots of evidence that he existed and that the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites took place.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“some of which did in fact happen and you’d be a fool to deny that Moses, Joshua, and Daniel existed.”

Wally, and I say this as a friend, you want to be careful with what you say, because it doesn’t make one foolish to deny that Moses existed. More to the point, it doesn’t make one foolish to deny that the entire Exodus didn’t happen, since that’s been pretty well debunked by Israeli archeologists.

And…I mean, if Exodus didn’t happen, that’s kind of a big hole in the whole bible story, including Jesus’ stories too. And it DIDN’T happen. You sound like the sort of Christian I typically enjoy friendships with (hell, I’m marrying a Catholic), but come on….

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

They have found temples in Egypt that have Ramses II next to a figure that’s been carved out…and it dates back to the time period when Ancient Egypt and Ethiopia became allies. Ancient Egyptians also kept meticulous records of events.

How the exodus happened is debatable, but we do know of the culture of that time quite well….The 40 some years of wandering the desert was Ancient Israel literally staking their claim.

Now as for the plagues: It was a Volcano. The Nile turning into a river of blood was a volcano causing a red tide affect from all the dead fish…and it caused the what…3 days of darkness….the plague of frogs came from the resulting acidity of the Nile as said volcano erupted. The plague of flies came from dead cows…the plague of boils actually was from CO2 poisoning….so the plagues were a volcano…a rather well timed one, but a volcano nonetheless.

I minored in Ancient History…,

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

The Quran and Tohra and the Bible all give fairly concise ideas as to things that may have actually caused the 7 plagues…..the plauges needed to be explained some how and it seems to support evidence of a volcanic erruption at least somewhere in the region. The locusts and the flies behaved in ways that are consistent with what insects usually do when escaping a volcanic eruption….they get away from it.

The boils or legions and the death of Egypts first born can easily be tied to CO2 poisoning…

The frogs with the typical Ph change in the water imherrent with a volcanic eruption thereby making it too basic or too acidic for them to survive.

And the blood in the Nile could’ve been caused by slight tremors. The red color could have loosed red clay sentimentiary deposits and after a trip to the Grand Canyon after it has rained…and the dessert dust washed away…blood red rocks show up.

So when one really thinks about how the natural world really sort of works and you put it up with the rather concise descriptions attributing to the plagues given by all three scriptural accounts, it starts to make sense that whomever wrote it.

Funny thing with Moses is that his existence is vastly more probable because the language written in the Tohra is Aramaic….which was around as a written language since before Ramses II.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

If if if if if if if if if if if if… sounds like an epistemology fit for Easter Bunnieists and Santa Clausists.

“If wishes were horses we’d all be eating steak”

That has to be the lamest stream of completely stupid apologies ever proposed in a single post.

The bible also says the sun stopped going around the Earth, that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud, that daughters can be sold as slaves, that light was created before the stars, that whales were created before reptiles, plants were made before the sun, that the Earth is flat and the sky a metal disk held up by four pillars, that people lived 800+ years, that all humans spoke one language, that David’s army was more than 1.5M men, and that unicorns and dragons exist.

Oh yeah, and what about that talking snake? What apologies do you have for that one? Maybe there was a really good ventriloquist the bible forgot to mention the wizard conjuring from the void?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

While it’s nice that you’re looking to scientific explanations for what occurred in the bible, you’re still missing the point: the Exodus story DID NOT HAPPEN. The archaeological evidence is absolutely in on that one, making looking for the causes of the plagues described within that story a moot endeavor.

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

Randomly suggesting that it could have been a rare disease caused by bird farts is not “looking to scientific explanations”

It’s simply the core technique used by anti-science types everywhere, from Islam to Inhofe. Climate change? “Well, it could be caused by a distant planet that radiates invisible rays at Earth, maybe that’s what is causing it.” Biological evolution? “Well maybe the global flood made it that way and it’s just a silly accident that every single line of empirical evidence from geophysics to genetics support it”

You can’t prove a negative, hence you can’t prove it wasn’t bird farts, so that means that the supernatural gods could have done it, right?

Cherry picking bits of the bible and pretending that “it could be” is no more rational or valid than denying climate science, denying biological evolution or denying that the Earth is round.

The whole point of science is to eliminate what we know is most likely false.

The claim that it took this completely invisible tribe of 2 million people 40 years to complete a 3 week trip is patently false from every possible perspective. From the fact that no other record of them exists to the fact that 2M people could not have found enough food. Trying to explain how that could happen is like looking for explanations for how a bowling ball could jump from the floor and stick to the ceiling is not “looking to scientific explanations”, it’s pig-headed and infantile behaviour on the part of so-called adults.

What truly amazes me about the willful ignorance of bible literalists is the fact that they can’t recognize magic numbers. How many times does that number 40 occur in the bible? It’s a magic number, just as 3, 7 and 12 are. Magic numbers (i.e. numerology) incorporated from superstitions and traditions that predate the bible by hundreds (probably thousands) of years.

Mohammad was 40 when he supposedly became telepathic, 40 days of Lent, 40 days from death to ascension, 40 days and 40 nights, the 12 Olympians, the 12 leaders of Islam, the 12 labors of Hercules… ain’t no coinky-dince that ignorant ancient cultures shared certain magic numbers. It’s truly mind boggling that such superstitions persist in an “educated” society.

Though if you ever need proof that there is no such thing as coincidence though, all you have to do is search for Ray Comfort and his infamous banana video e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I was hoping that you would take a hint from the quality of the ridicule, but apparently you’re hell bent on displaying proof that irrational and dishonest behaviour is the hallmark of the Christian fanatic.

First, please stop repeating the lie/distortion about Josephus. Anyone who has given the history more than a cursory once over knows that Josephus recorded one incredibly small bit of third hand observation. He wrote down what he was told the Christians did/believed. Period.

There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus. The evidence that Jesus existed is identical to the evidence that Thor, Ganesha and Batman existed: someone who never met those characters talked about them in a book.

Yes, the OT teaches you what rules you should obey. Apparently you’re unaware that the NT does too. What did the Jesus character say? Something about not one iota of the law…? Maybe you should actually read the book?

And what laws does the OT present? Laws that Christians pick and and choose from regardless of their appearance in the magic book. For instance, when was the last time you killed an adulterous pair? A homosexual? When was the last time you ate shellfish? How can you reconcile this horrible ban on slavery when the Jesus character went out of his way to make sure it was known that Christian slaves must obey their master even if their master isn’t Christian, and that daughters can legitimately be sold into slavery?

Here’s the question that Christians are invariably unable to answer honestly: what specific characteristic uniquely distinguishes the bible from all the other books about gods/devils/angels/faeries/superheroes?

Their inability to plainly answer that question speaks volumes about their thought processes (or lack thereof) I can pick up any science and book and explain in simple terms the reasons the book should be taken seriously, yet those books don’t contain clear instructions on how and when murder, rape, slavery, infanticide and genocide are appropriate.

Christians on the other hand want people to take the rules about killing, rape and slavery completely seriously without being able to give a reason why the book should be followed. Pat Robertson is not out of line here, he’s very much on message: do what the gods inspire you to do, say what they inspire you to say. Be tolerant of his beliefs! Noah, one of the great heroes of Christian traditions, is revered for doing just that. Abraham is revered for being willing to commit infanticide for his gods regardless of what other humans might thing of a shitbag who was willing to murder his own children based on telepathically transmitted orders from an invisible wizard.

I find it interesting that you choose only to focus on my entirely correct use of the term ‘wizard’ yet you found no objection in the basic story itself. That’s good because it is an accurate description of Christianity. My description of the perfect spread of the curse of original sin, and my description of the incredibly inept method of handing down the secret of the cure for the curse is also accurate.

Instead of addressing how irrational the Christian narrative of events is, you choose not only to ignore the 1/3 of your magic wizard that was corporeal, you also deny the Old Testament. Surely you haven’t forgotten that your god walked on the Earth and wrestled with Jacob in Genesis 23:24?

Regarding your last fallacy (lie/distortion) I believe you haven’t cited any specific piece of “lots of evidence” for the exodus is because there is none. Doesn’t the OT put a prohibition on telling lies? It’s one of the better known flaws in the biblical account of history.

Like most atheists, I know the bible extremely well. I’ve also spent four decades now challenging Christians to think rationally about their magic book. I’m coming up on 30 years of presenting those challenges online (yes, since USENET days) Based on that experience, I can say that Pat Robertson is the ultimate Christian, in the same way that the 9/11 hijackers were the ultimate Muslims. None of them have any concern for their own lives, the lives of others. What matters is what their gods instructed them to do.

Whether it’s destroying the lives of non-believers in the immediate sense like the Saudis who crashed the planes, or killing non-believers in the indirect sense as Robertson advocates by banning reproductive health care, contraception, and passing laws in Africa that call for the death penalty for homosexual acts, they all follow their faiths to the letter.

As for my “bigotry”, why are you so intolerant of other beliefs? Why don’t you simply tolerate the beliefs of those Saudis who crashed the planes into those buildings? Why don’t you just tolerate the beliefs of paedophiles? Leave them alone, their beliefs aren’t hurting you, are they?

Picture this: You’re in a small, very crowded room standing shoulder to shoulder with 100 other people. There’s one small hose that lets the air into the room so that everyone can breathe. There’s some fat, stupid guy who doesn’t believe that air is needed so survive, so he’s standing on the hose and cutting off the air to everyone. He has absolute faith that his gods will provide what he needs.

His gods name are Mickey, Minnie and Goofy.

Do you advise being tolerant of his beliefs?

Welcome to planet Earth in the 21st century. We’ve got overpopulation, rapidly dwindling resources, a climate that may go catastrophically wrong in the next few decades/centuries, we’ve got massive wars by Christians in the name of oil, we’ve got a Christian government that can’t be bothered to even bring up the subject of regulating hazardous material manufacturing and storage facilities located right next to schools and hospitals because they’re far too busy trying to pass laws codifying biblical laws against homosexuals being allowed to love and marry.

There is one pipe delivering the vital supply of rational thought and science that provides the only hope for addressing these real life-or-death issues.

The fat, dumbfuck Christians are standing on that pipe. They’re molesting children by stuffing their heads with irrational beliefs that not only won’t help those children survive, but will actually prevent or delay those kids from even realizing that rational action is desperately needed. The Christians have absolute faith that Mickey, Minnie, Goofy, the father, the son and that wild and wacky “holy ghost” are going to magically act in the supernatural world and have some measurable effect in the natural world, to magically save us from our own actions.

You molest children’s minds. You cause endless misery and suffering to the human race (today and in the future) by your continued insistence that the supernatural world is real. It’s the 21st century. It is time for rational adults to think for themselves and reason out what is right and what is wrong and how best to implement fair and equitable laws and pursuits. It’s the 21st century. The inherent evil of Christian moral relativism should not be tolerated any longer simply because humans as a species cannot afford to tolerate such primitive ideas and expect to survive into the 22nd or 23rd centuries.

Call me bigoted, but there are moral absolutes, in spite of what Christians believe about supernatural beings and worlds.

In short, you’re fat, you’re stupid, and you’re standing on my air hose. Don’t expect me to expire quietly while you stand there stupidly unconcerned in your state of blissed out ignorance. Get the fuck off the hose.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“There are no contemporaneous accounts of the existence of Jesus. The evidence that Jesus existed is identical to the evidence that Thor, Ganesha and Batman existed: someone who never met those characters talked about them in a book.”

That isn’t strictly true. There is some good evidence that a heretical rabbi by the name of Jesus did indeed exist around the time the bible describes. However, nothing described in the bible is a first hand account of this person and all first-hand evidence suggests he was just a radical preacher, not The Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

“Regarding your last fallacy (lie/distortion) I believe you haven’t cited any specific piece of “lots of evidence” for the exodus is because there is none.”

That is correct. In fact, the overwhelming archaeological evidence is that it absolutely did NOT happen. And that’s REALLY important for Jews and Christians alike, since it sets the stage for the primary claims of each religion. The Jews claim to Israel and Christian’s beliefs in Christ, his “fulfilled prophecies”, and his claim to be God’s son. Christ referred to the myth, which was a lie. That’s a massive problem for Christ’s believers….

And you might want to tone down the anger a bit, friend. Nobody is going to be convinced of the truth if they’re too pissed off to listen….

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

You misunderstand. Words are tools to stir emotions and stirring emotions is the goal. Obviously you know that, but I think within the context of the “war” between the religious and the rational you’ve made some incorrect/stereotypical assumptions.

I don’t have to sway the crowd and get applause, I just have to make some of them question their own position.

Fortunately for the rational side of world, there are apologists like Wally who make the perfect backstop for a solo game of forcing people to question their own position.

Wally is lost to the world. He will believe in his fantasies of the supernatural to the bitter end. A million people could die in front of his eyes and if he convinces himself that is what his god wanted (which is always the case), then their fear and suffering wouldn’t bother him at all.

Indeed, all those children starving and dying in Africa because Christians won’t allow birth control to even be mentioned, yet tens of millions of Christians never lose one wink of sleep over it. True Christians can look at Kevin Carter’s famous photo and then pacify their genuine humanist response of outrage with “oh those silly gods, they work in mysterious ways” and sleep well that night. They truly believe that child’s suffering was not just good and acceptable behaviour on the part of their gods, they believe it was a profound expression of love. That’s monumentally sick, but it’s the all too predictable Christian response.

However for every Wally there are a hundred people who were simply raised not to question Christian dogma and they’ve just never considered the facts: that gods are imaginary, that morals don’t come from books or from gods, that books aren’t magic, that evil spells don’t exist, and the core principles of Christians are ridiculous and intellectual bankrupt at best, and at worst pure evil on steroids.

They don’t think about their beliefs because they have no desire or motivation to ask. No Christian is going to suggest that they think rationally about them and most atheists are too polite or too far in the closet to bring the subject up.

However, if you introduce one knowledgeable and very out atheist who pisses those people off so badly that they have to look deeply into their beliefs to find something to hurl back… well, hey. Look at what that “angry” old man did to them.

Everything I said about Christian beliefs is accurate, but not using the words they want to hear. Invisible wizards, evil spells that spread from generation to generation with perfect fidelity and the monstrously idiotic concept of using a magic book to pass down the key to being freed from this evil curse. They hate the use of those words because they’ve been raised to believe that their supernatural beings and super power are “different” somehow. They’re not, they’re just standard tales of the supernatural.

The only thing that Christianity ever added to earlier traditions/religions/philosophies is some absolutely 100% batshit crazy crap about an evil curse and the magic telephatic incantations needed to break it.

It doesn’t matter where the people who read my words look in their bible, it doesn’t matter what their priests, bishops or other shaman tell them, when they hear or read “original sin”, “evil curse” is going to flash into their minds, and they’re not going to be able to come up with a satisfactory way to differentiate those two ideas to their own satisfaction. What I said won’t change them, but what they think will. Once that particular door is open a crack, no rational person can shut it again.

Religious people are also looking at the idiotic things Pat Robertson said and what that the “true believer” Christians have written here, and they’re turned off by what they read. The apologetics and the endless avoidance of the key points I made do not sit well with thinking people. They read the lame-ass (non)responses to the points I made and they like those responses even less than what I wrote, because they recognize the apologetics as lame and intellectually dishonest.

Wally will stick fingers in his ears and shout LALALALALALALALAL, but I’ll bet one or two people who read my words will be pissed off about them for a long time. Maybe their eyes will open someday and they’ll say “That guy was a total asshole… but he was right, rational thought works and religion doesn’t”. If so, I win. If not, they lose and I break even. I’m good with that, I did my part to end religious tyranny of the mind, that’s the best I can do.

Speaking of minds (or the lack thereof) I forgot to drive a stake through the “Newton advanced human progress and he was religious” idiocy. It’s true, Newton was brilliant in some ways, however the time he spent doing science was almost insignificant compared to the time he completely wasted on pseudo-science gibberish.

Newton believed he was a “special messenger” from god. He was also a firm believer in astrology and alchemy. In other words, he was a human being with all the normal human frailties and he pissed away a great deal of time he could have been advancing human progress even more than he did. Superstition (including religion) is always a drag on human progress.

Newton’s bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin’ Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! What have astrology, alchemy and religion accomplished during that same time frame? 900 numbers, infinite free energy youtube videos megachurches, televangelists, homophobic and misogynist campaigns to take away basic human rights for no rational reason whatsoever. Whoopee.

For some reason none of the Christians never want to brag “Newton was an astrologer” or “Newton was an alchemist and he advanced human progress too”. They only want to cherry pick the religion part.

I wonder why?

(why I do believe I just poked a hole in my cheek… again. Fucking hell that hurts!)

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Newton’s bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin’ Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! What have astrology, alchemy and religion accomplished during that same time frame? 900 numbers, infinite free energy youtube videos megachurches, televangelists, homophobic and misogynist campaigns to take away basic human rights for no rational reason whatsoever. Whoopee.”

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Newton was one of the first known astrophysicists….and an Astronomer…there is a huge difference. I shall inform you now that my only intent is to inform you. In no way am I striving to be hypocritical of my own beliefs…this is just too much for me to hold back as I see huge ignorance and hypocrisy out of you.

It’s funny how you cling to the same argument that Religion has no place in the world because it blocks it. You are really that willing to ignorantly deny scientific advances occurred solely based on the simple fact that said certain scientific discoveries were made by a religious individual? I was merely pointing out that religious people, in spite of your erroneous claims, did in fact help forward progress in this world. I even pointed out who. I never claimed that their faith was the cause of their discovery. To say that my intellect fails me because of my beliefs is the single most ignorant claim of all….Sir Isaac Newton studied a rather interesting force of nature we smart folks, religious or not, call gravity. He was already a mathematical genius and his works contributed to a lot of the field of science we now call physics.

Astrology is the religious concept that the movements of how the movements of planets and stars through the constellations affect your life here on Earth. It’s a regular and concise system of movements concerning constellations. Outside of knowing which star or planet is where at any given time, there isn’t any correlation between it and Astronomy.

Astronomy is the Scientific Study of the movements they make, and the study of various astro-phenomenon that occurs in outer space.

The bottom line is that Copernicus, Galileo, and Sir Isaac Newton were religious. They contributed to the world as much as their atheist counterparts did…and you still group that into religious ignorance?

Any other Atheists here now see why we religious types sometimes facepalm at some of your claims? Sorry, I know that not all Atheists are to blame for such ignorance which is why I respect your rights to believe the way you do. The non-anti-theist Atheists are doubting Thomas’s in my book so I try my best not to press my beliefs on you because y’all are only waiting for evidence one way or the other. However, certain types of ignorance such as displayed by TheOldFart really do not help your cause. We religious folks have them too…they are called radical zealots….or that these people are so delusional that they refuse to be worldly and sensitive to other beliefs.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

Any other Atheists here now see why we religious types sometimes facepalm at some of your claims? Sorry, I know that not all Atheists are to blame for such ignorance which is why I respect your rights to believe the way you do.

And it’s too your credit that you do, just because you disagree with someone, does not mean you have to personally attack them and sling insults left and right as this poster seems to constantly do, as that just undermines any credibility you and your arguments might have otherwise had.

Now personally, I don’t care for religion in general. I disagree with the idea of believing something that cannot be demonstrably proven through tests and observations. I also don’t care for how it separates people into a ‘them vs. us, the religious vs. the non’. But as long as those that hold those beliefs aren’t trying to force them on others that don’t share those beliefs, whether through the laws or just pestering/harassing people to convert, I try and maintain a ‘live and let live’ way of looking at it, though I will point out inconsistencies in claims if they bring them up, as I would hope they would do the same for me.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“Wally is lost to the world. He will believe in his fantasies of the supernatural to the bitter end. A million people could die in front of his eyes and if he convinces himself that is what his god wanted (which is always the case), then their fear and suffering wouldn’t bother him at all.”

You assume too much then. I have plenty of evidence to convince me of your ignorance.

“Newton believed he was a “special messenger” from god. He was also a firm believer in astrology and alchemy. In other words, he was a human being with all the normal human frailties and he pissed away a great deal of time he could have been advancing human progress even more than he did. Superstition (including religion) is always a drag on human progress.”

In the 16th century, alchemy was actually what we know as chemistry today. Sir Isaac Newton made the discovery that you cannot turn any metal into gold. We get the word “Chemist” from the then used term “Alchemist”. It was their “delusional” beliefs that led them to the scientific trial and error methods we use today in making discoveries concerning materials.

Here’s the entomology of that word “Chemistry”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry_%28etymology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemistry

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

” Maybe their eyes will open someday and they’ll say “That guy was a total asshole… but he was right, rational thought works and religion doesn’t”.”

How is that statement rational?

“Newton’s bullshit was long ago forgotten (except by apologists) but his testable science and provable mathematics got our rovers to freakin’ Mars and Voyagers to (almost) interstellar space! “

Don’t forget it landed human beings on the Moon too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“we’ve got a Christian government that can’t be bothered to even bring up the subject of regulating hazardous material manufacturing and storage facilities located right next to schools and hospitals because they’re far too busy trying to pass laws codifying biblical laws against homosexuals being allowed to love and marry.”

Do you actually believe what you write?

Do you really think that government cannot regulate hazardous material because it is “too busy”? And that any time that IS spent is totally the fault of your opponents and not your side?

“we’ve got massive wars by Christians in the name of oil”

Wars over oil have nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with the economy. I mean, you even say so: they are “over oil”. Do you think we should have just let Iraq invade Kuwait and then Saudi Arabia? Do you think that we definitely would have not gone to war if an atheist had happened to be President at that time?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

“Do you think that we definitely would have not gone to war if an atheist had happened to be President at that time?”

Not only agreed, but I’d go you one better: an atheist president would have been more likely to have recognized the Kurds as an ally and would have finished Saddam off in the 90’s instead of letting him fester like a cancer for another decade. The eye would have been on the true enemy: Islamic facism, chiefly in the govt. of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan….

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“I was hoping that you would take a hint from the quality of the ridicule, but apparently you’re hell bent on displaying proof that irrational and dishonest behaviour is the hallmark of the Christian fanatic.”

If your ridicule were of any quality at all in what you were saying, You would have converted me by now.

The thing about ridicule is that the more of it thrown at my core beliefs, the more my core beliefs tell me to still love you as a brother. When you ridicule someone, your only goal is to prove them wrong by attempting to humiliate that person. So far I have given mostly logical, kind, and loving matter of factness on explaining my interpretations of my core values as a Christian. The only thing you’ve done is make fun of beliefs that don’t match yours.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“You just have to read the context of the commandment to understand that lusting does not mean thinking your neighbor’s wife is hot. It is lusting as in actively pursuing the chance to sleep with her.”

Lusting/coveting is not the same as actively pursing, by definition, and I don’t see any obvious “context” that would change the meaning like that. A fleeting thought isn’t a sin, but dwelling on it (even if you don’t “actively pursue”) can be.

“If God were going to judge everyone for little every stray thought, WHO is going to be in heaven?”

If everyone who ever sinned was barred from heaven, it would be pretty empty. You’re not going to “earn” heaven – we pretty much all fall short – but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And God can forgive sins.

“Is anyone really qualified to say how God run things? Are you?”

Most of us are not lawyers and are thus unqualified to interpret the law, but we do it all the time in these comments. Since when does being unqualified stop anyone from expressing what they think is true?

TheOldFart (profile) says:

Re: Re:

No, the Jesus character DID NOT say that. Or 99% of the other things attributed to him. Look up “Jesus Seminar”, and in particular have a look at the educated opinions of 150 mostly reasonable “mainstream” bible scholars as to what Jesus actually did say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar#Sayings_of_Jesus

Strangely, he never said “I will fuck with Pat Robertson’s tiny brain in about 1950 years, don’t let me forget to set an alarm”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Don’t expect us Christians to believe that Jesus didn’t say something based on that seminar. Among other things, the seminar said “The empty tomb is a fiction ? Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead.” The resurrection of the body is one of the core tenants of Christianity.

And as it says in the “criticisms” section:

‘… I cannot understand how, if a majority … thought a saying authentic or probably authentic, the “weighted average” turned out to be “probably inauthentic”. A voting system that produces a result like this ought to be scrapped.’

“it requires the assumption that someone, about a generation removed from the events in question, radically transformed the authentic information about Jesus that was circulating at that time, superimposed a body of material four times as large, fabricated almost entirely out of whole cloth, while the church suffered sufficient collective amnesia to accept the transformation as legitimate.”

It also seems bizarre that you would reference a “Jesus character” and then debate what he did or did not say. Either he existed, in which case referring to him as a “character” serves no purpose, or he did not, in which case it is meaningless to debate what he “actually” said.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hyperbole much ? I think we have enough real economic/political issues without dragging religious views into the discussion.

All he said that violent entertainment (like videogames, television, books) makes one less sensitive to god (I interpret “god” as “nature”). I think its true to some extent, compare ourselves with the 60s or our forefathers who founded the constitution, they achieved much more than the present generation, where our kids can’t even finish their homework without google.

Again, I don’t see anything wrong with violent entertainment, but anything done in extreme does have a numbing effect on our brains. I believe cultural acceptance for violence is more nowdays than before.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“All he said that violent entertainment (like videogames, television, books) makes one less sensitive to god (I interpret “god” as “nature”).”

That is certainly NOT what he said. His quote of Jesus makes his point plain: the thought of the crime is as bad as the crime itself. It’s a “virtual” crime in the same way video game crimes are “virtual” crimes, or sins.

I’m not quite sure how you missed that part….

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

He said “it isn’t that God’s going to send you to hell or anything, you just miss out on that precious presence of God”. Yes, he also said “if you’re murdering somebody in cyberspace in a sense you’re performing the act” (emphasis added). I think this whole article is blown out of proportion.

And I can’t believe I just defended Pat Robertson. Blech, thanks a lot Tim.

Transmitte (profile) says:

Honestly..

Why give Patty-cakes any more publicity? Those of us that are somewhat rooted in reality know this guy is pretty much out the door with Alzheimer’s or the onset of elderly dementia. Let him flail and rant until his clock winds down, which hopefully will be soon.

I get where you’re coming from, but anytime we give Patty-cakes or any of the members of the hyper evans. the 700 dur’s club any press is just another reason for them to want to hang around.

That said, I must be a present day Hitler, Jeffery Dahmer and Pol Pot all wrapped into a nice chunky bundle of horrible according to our favorite dipstick.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Honestly..

“Why give Patty-cakes any more publicity?”

Simply it’s vast entertainment value. Schadenfreude. It’s as simple as that.

And because they can’t really stand up for themselves on this, I will take offense to your statement for them. It’s offensive and to degrade Alzheimer’s patients for their illness of which they have no control by insinuating that Robertson is a member of their group.

PS. Perhaps it’s “Patty-cakes” instead of pancakes that they were trying to protest against and just got a little confused.

Anonymous Coward says:

What if I murder evil demons in a videogame? Am I sinner Pat?

According to my Diablo 3 profile I’ve murdered over 330,000 demons in my Diablo 3 career, including 12,000 ‘elite’ demons that are much more dangerous. I’ve even killed a bunch of prime evil demons like 50+ times, the kings of the demons themselves!

Does that make me an evil sinner who’s done the unforgivable crime of murdering 330,000 innocent people, or a big hero more holy then any real life exorcist? Real life exorcists claim to do no more then 200 exorcisms a year, a far cry from killing 330,000 demons in their lifetime.

ltlw0lf (profile) says:

Re: Well of course

an imaginary entity would take a dim view of killing other imaginary entities.

I don’t know, last time I heard that imaginary entity had god mode turned on. Its like the invincible scorpion in Serious Sam if you pirate the game…kinda hard to kill an imaginary entity with god mode turned on (and when you have god mode on yourself, you just sit there until you both run out of ammo.)

Mike-2 Alpha (profile) says:

Well, then I’m screwed. Forget first person shooters, I’ve engaged in nuclear warfare in the Civilization games. For that matter, my usual method for conquering planets in Spore is to destroy their environment until they can’t support life, then terraform them back to my liking.

Forget Hitler, I think I’m moving into Xenu territory here.

A Monkey with Attitude says:

Re: Re:

Hell i played Defcon, you know EARTH WIDE ANNIHALATION… Im in the Billions on that, and Galatic Civs, i was sending 5-10 Billion Soldiers at a time to conquer a planet (average game is 20-50 planets = 500 Billion of my soldiers alone, not counting what they squashed so not its trillions… ), so MAO, Stalin, and Hitler dont have a spec on me… Im screwed LOL

Anonymous Coward says:

So as a healer in many MMO’s I have also resurrected, healed and sacrificed myself for countless people so in essence I can pretty much say that Jesus is an amateur… or where was he going with this?
If murdering the pixel people is real murder; wouldn’t that make game creators gods? Holy cow that is alot of competition right there.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Simple solution to all of this...

Probably wouldn’t be so successful now that I think about it. Of course it would have to have the always online DRM, with an In-app purchase offering requirement in order to receive said atonement which would pretty much doom the game to failure.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Simple solution to all of this...

For the cartridge’s Baby Moses and David game…yes…oh definitely yes…codes would definitely be helpful…especially the Baby Moses game where you’re his mother and you have to carry him above your head…and one hit…just one hit…baby Moses flies out of your hands and bounces like a freaking ball into the Nile River…or randomly lands a few screens back….if he lands in the river, you can finish the level but since you did a “Great Job” of “Finishing The Level” you start back at the beginning in stead of advancing.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Simple solution to all of this...

AVGN picked on it because it was Christmas time. Most of the complaints he brings to the table from the “Baby Moses” and “David and Goliath” game…the latter of which, quite unfortunately, doesn’t involve giants šŸ™

That being said, the Noah’s Ark game is a hidden gem :-3 Rikou I invite you to play it….you’ll get a kick out of it.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Simple solution to all of this...

You wouldn’t even need a pope.

Just find a Catholic priest who is also a gamer, and confess to him online.

“Bless me Father, for I have sinned. It has been one game day since I have last confessed. And I accuse myself of the following sins: today I murdered 43 orcs, 52 goblins, 19 furbolgs and a dragon. I lusted after three blood elves that were probably men in reality and felt avarice for Bobthetauren’s new shoulder armor. For these and all the sins of my past life, I ask pardon of God, penance, and absolution from you, Father.”

Hey, why not? If virtual murder is a sin, then virtual confession would work the same way as an in-person confession. Jesus can certainly go online as well as the next divine being.

Jasmine Charter (user link) says:

It's all REAL!

Don’t you know… playing monopoly makes you guilty of greed!

And playing Candyland makes you guilty of gluttony.

Playing cops and robbers makes you guilty of murder.

And the list goes on.

I’m sorry, but that’s not what the Bible REALLY teaches.

I love how certain religions and people follow the LETTER of the Bible on certain things and then say other things are “symbolic”, etc.

It must be nice to have a pick and choose religion.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Agreed, with a condition:

I’ll agree that digital murders are the same thing as real murders(in which case my body count is easily in the thousands if not hundreds of thousands) if good old Pat here agrees that the opposite is also true, that saving a life digitally is the same as saving one in reality. Because in that case, I’ve saved towns, cities, planets, and even the galaxy once or twice, so I’d say it about balances out in that case, wouldn’t you?

Anonymous Coward says:

While I agree with the overall point of this article, the sensationalist tone is way too much for TechDirt.

I really enjoy this site, but Timothy is the worst writer here. It’s really a shame, because some of these topics are important, but I really wish they were discussed by the other writers.

If all these are sins equal to their real-life counterparts, there’s got to be a terrorist attack or tsunami bearing down on me at this exact moment.

This statement is the epitome of what I mean. What you are talking about here is Karma, which is a concept that doesn’t carry over to Christianity. You could argue the whole “reap what you sow” philosophy, but that isn’t quite the same as karma.

I certainly wouldn’t say that Pat is “willfully ignorant” – at least on this topic. He has his beliefs on the subject, and that is not ignorance. He knows what he is talking about, whether or not you agree with it.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“This statement is the epitome of what I mean. What you are talking about here is Karma, which is a concept that doesn’t carry over to Christianity.”

I’m not commenting on actual Christianity, only Robertson’s view of it. He’s said in the past that terrorist acts and natural disasters are due to sinful actions. Seems like my line was perfectly on point.

“I certainly wouldn’t say that Pat is “willfully ignorant” – at least on this topic. He has his beliefs on the subject, and that is not ignorance. He knows what he is talking about, whether or not you agree with it.”

He’s commenting on video games without having EVER played one by choice. How is that not willfully ignorant?

“I really enjoy this site, but Timothy is the worst writer here.”

I really enjoy the comments section, but you’re the worst commenter here….by, like, a lot….and I’m including the trolls in this assessment….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

In Christianity, God doesn’t “punish bad behavior” by creating some terrible event in your mortal life. He punishes you with hell. This is a very different concept. Sure there, are examples of it in the Bible. The thing is, though, that Christianity centers on Jesus and being forgiven for sins. Consequences aren’t the same in Christianity as they are in Juddaism.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well that just isn’t true.. God clearly punishes people in worldly ways all over the place in the Bible. The new testiment adds the concept of punishment through hell, but at no point does it make any claims that the whole old testimant is a lie and God never punishes in worldly ways. Well, at least not up until past 2nd corinthians.. I had to set the book aside and calm down a bit after the “woman must have their heads covered and must be silent in church” stuff.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Gotta agree with you there, God just punishes you to settle a bet with the Devil if you happen to be named Job.

Of course, there is Genesis 13:22-33, where Abraham has a lengthy discussion with God about Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham challenges God, asking him if there were 50 (then 45, then 40, then 30, then 20, and then 10) righteous men in Sodom, would God save Sodom. Later God destroys Sodom, only saving Lot (Abraham’s son,) and his family (but not his wife because she didn’t listen and looked back at Sodom when it was destroyed,) far less than the 10 righteous men he promised he would save Sodom if he found them.

But other than that, the God of the Old Testament only seems to pick on people on a whim.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Funny thing about Karma…is that in a secular format, it’s defined as the consequences of the actions you took. Neither good outcomes nor bad outcomes come from good or bad decisions, but consequences are a constant and that’s what Karma is. It’s not punishment, it’s a consequence of certain actions. Some consequences are more painful than others so choose your actions wisely..

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Karma isn’t really defined as a consequences of actions. If you jump off a bridge and break your leg, it’s not Karma, secular or not. Karma is about retributive justice. Do good and good will come to you, do bad and bad will come to you, but only indirectly, not as a consequence of what you did, but because what you did was good or bad.

Franklin G Ryzzo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

” Timothy is the worst writer here.”

Agreed… Tech stories should be boring and devoid of humor. On more than one occasion Mr. Geigner has forced me to elicit a smirk, and this is unforgivable. Not to mention the penis jokes… After a long and hard day, I find techdirt to be a great way to beat the monotony of the daily grind, but many times the thrust of the article is lost due to his juvenile humor.

I was planning on attempting to refute your other claims until I realized your article was parody. You almost had me fooled, but when you said “he knows what he’s talking about” I realized my error. Well played, sir, well played.

raindog469 (profile) says:

Robertson has always been a nut job.

Of course pretending to kill someone isn’t actually the same as killing. Even fundamentalist Christian actors make violent action movies, even though acting requires you to actually feel that murderous rage well enough for viewers to believe it from your involuntary responses. Robertson knows this, too. He’s gotten way more than his 15 minutes of fame, and is just trying to keep it going until he drops dead.

But a realistically violent game isn’t exactly Pong or Space Invaders, either. I always ask my friends who enjoy the bloodier games — you know, the kind where you see blood splattered on the wall when you make a head shot, and the corpses just lie there on the ground staring at you — would you play a realistic, graphic rape game too? If not, why is pretending to kill someone more fun than pretending to rape him or her? It’s just a game… isn’t it?

The first time I was confronted with a situation in a real-looking first-person shooter where I had to take out an American soldier, I realized I don’t have it in me to play those anymore, any more than I’d play a game where one of my objectives is to rape someone. And that was a very, very well-reviewed, big-selling game, not some indie morality play that does the festivals and then disappears.

Sure, there are always justifications in the story. Maybe the soldier is part of a vast alien conspiracy trying to blow up the planet. Maybe the target of the rape is possessed by Cthulhu or whatever and it needs to be literally screwed out of him or her (let’s be realistic… mainstream game designers being who they are, it would be a her) or else the world is going to end. Either way, I don’t have the stomach for it. If you do, good for you… I guess.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Robertson has always been a nut job.

Just FYI, the reason is because “pretending to kill people” isn’t why people enjoy violent games. Gore is just there for shock appeal like in any movie.

You don’t pretend to be mario and jump on turtles or to be a spacesiop and blow people up or whatever in video games, thats just the setting for the game you are playing. Pretending requires you using your own imagination, not just interacting with a game.

In terms of why you wouldn’t play a game where the focus was to rape people.. Because it just doesn’t provide a decent premise to make a good game.. It’s pretty tough to come up with a plausible situation where you need to rape people to save the universe without just coming up with a horrible cheesy porno.

Anonymous Coward says:

Dark Helmet, you enjoy the comments section because you can come here to circle jerk with everyone else who agrees with you. The moment someone says something dissenting about the article, you think their argument is invalid. If anyone is worse than the trolls, it is you. What gets me the most, is you thought I was replying to one of your posts, when I was solely talking about the article. I hadn’t even read any comments when I posted.

crade (profile) says:

“The Nazarene as saying that lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery”

But the Nazarene doesn’t say this. He only says you commit adultery in your heart when you do this, and makes no claim as to it being just as bad as doing it in the world. Taken in context, it is clear that Jesus is varying levels of sin, and (and clearly cause her do do so as well, btw, which I found to be the best part)

It is clear that Jesus is giving advice on how to be a virtuous person and not a law to be enforced in any way. Such advice must surely include your thinking as well as your actions.

Anonymous Coward says:

The Godless amaze me

It amazes me to see the Godless put down Christians in one breath and then complain about human rights, morals and right and wrong in the next breath. If there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Only survival of the fittest. If you are here complaining about your rights being infringed then you are not the fittest. In the no-God world view, you take what you can get away with. Maybe society shuns you, maybe they persecute you, maybe they put you to death. But you, or they, are neither right or wrong as there is no such thing. It would be a man made concept that can change with the times, heck change with the person. Who says what you say is right/wrong is any more right/wrong than what anyone else says? Funny how you never think about that when bashing Christians. Christians can’t be in the wrong if there is no such thing now can they?

Fortunately, there is a God and a true right and wrong. Also fortunately we have his true, inspired, inerrant word on what is right and wrong.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: The Godless amaze me

“If there is no God, there is no right and wrong.”

Where in the sweet hell did you get THAT idea? Evolution produces society, which creates rights and wrongs for that society. That’s the entire point of Humanism: we have a collective interest in what we’ve determined to be right and wrong and we insist that our fellow human beings live within that general framework. Morality pre-dates, religion after all.

” In the no-God world view, you take what you can get away with.”

Interesting. That must be why there are so many secular and/or atheist charities out there….

“It would be a man made concept that can change with the times, heck change with the person.”

You mean like how it EXACTLY works in the world today? Or do you still not where clothing of mixed fabrics?

“Who says what you say is right/wrong is any more right/wrong than what anyone else says?”

Societal norms for the better of human kind says that, obviously.

“Funny how you never think about that when bashing Christians. Christians can’t be in the wrong if there is no such thing now can they?”

Oh, but they can, and are. Not always, but sometimes. Just like Jews, Muslims, and atheists too. Everyone is wrong at different times. No biggie, except when you try to take your wrong concepts and force them on someone else.

“Fortunately, there is a God”

Maybe so….

“and a true right and wrong.”

Hard to tell, since there’s been so many rights and wrongs to choose from. Do we go with the old testament decrees? The new testament decrees? Which branch of Christianity? Mormon? Catholic? Maybe something new age like Scientology. Or hey, maybe the Jews, Muslims, or Hindus have it right, or more right than you. After all, they certainly aren’t Godless and they make the same claim to authority you do. But, yeah, you’re probably right and they’re all wrong. That’s way more likely than ALL of you are wrong, right?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: The Godless amaze me

You miss my point about no right or wrong in the Godless world, maybe willfully? Society may say there is a right/wrong but there is no “real” right or wrong. It just shifts like the sand in the wind. So complaining you have the right to send emails, surf the net and make phone calls without the NSA monitoring you is just pissing in the wind. The NSA and the ruling class have more “rights” than you do apparently.

Morality does not pre-date religion. Much of what you are being told about history and evolution is conjecture and unproven theories. Go read Christian science sites to see all the evidence that the bible is right.

Societal norms for the “betterment” of society? Would those be the same ones that kill over a million unborn children every year? I guess you have no rights unless you are just lucky enough to make it out of the womb?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: The Godless amaze me

“It just shifts like the sand in the wind. So complaining you have the right to send emails, surf the net and make phone calls without the NSA monitoring you is just pissing in the wind. The NSA and the ruling class have more “rights” than you do apparently.”

And you apparently missed my point, maybe willfully? The judge of right and wrong is the population under the question. The NSA may have the ability to monitor my communications, but that doesn’t make it “right”. In fact, we know it is wrong, because of the majority backlash against it by the American people. In America, Orwellian oversight by the NSA is wrong. Interestingly, Orwellian oversight by a cellestial dictator is NOT wrong where Christianity is concerned.

“Morality does not pre-date religion.”

Of course it does. Take the 10 commandments. One of them is “do not murder”. The story (disproven by archeology) says that Moses handed that commandment down from God during the exodus. Do you REALLY think the Jewish people could have even made it to that sermon if they were under the impression that murder was okay? Morality is inate, not prescribed by a deity or religion.

“Much of what you are being told about history and evolution is conjecture and unproven theories.”

Not sure what history you’re referring to, but evolution is an established natural occurrence that is undisputed by the general scientific community. Please tell me you aren’t one of those “the earth is 10k years old” people….

“Go read Christian science sites to see all the evidence that the bible is right.”

I’m familiar with Christian science and why that is a misnomer….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The Godless amaze me

Is the judge of right and wrong the same society that gasped in disbelief when they found out in the late 70’s that the Chinese killed baby girls in order to have boys? Is this the same society that celebrates Roe v. Wade?

Is this the society that is split down the middle politically? Is this the society that is split on the Treyvon vs. Zimmerman verdict? Is this the society that says drugs are bad and thus illegal, yet a large percentage of the population does drugs?

Is society just the US, North America or the world as a whole? Seems much of the world thinks killing others not of their faith is ok; who are we to say they are wrong? Why are we trying to force our views on the rest of the world? According to your earlier statement, we should not.

Seems society can’t quite figure out what is right and wrong within one nation much less across nations.

Would you say that slavery was ok since society held that it was ok at the time? I am looking forward to your answer here as you lose either way you answer. To say yes says you think slavery is fine if others think it is fine. That makes you a racist. To say no implies you believe in a greater right and wrong that transcends time.

And that is exactly my point. People, knowingly or not, believe there is a right and wrong that transcends themselves, society and time. There can be no such thing without God.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Godless amaze me

You do realise that the Abrahamic faith you hold so dear once not only legalised but endorsed the very slavery you now condemn, I hope? (In case you don’t know what you mean, Abrahamic means one of the three faiths – Christianity, Judaism, or Islam – that have their roots in the same patriarch, Abraham). Your religion, as endorsed by God, embraced slavery, held it to be just and good.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Godless amaze me

“You do realise that the Abrahamic faith you hold so dear once not only legalised but endorsed the very slavery you now condemn, I hope? “

Yes, and that was his judgement on those people at that time. It may also be that he allowed it but did not condone it. Jesus was asked why Moses permitted divorce and his answer was that it was permitted because the people were weak and would do it anyway, but that is now how it was suppose to be.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Godless amaze me

“Would you say that slavery was ok since society held that it was ok at the time? I am looking forward to your answer here as you lose either way you answer.”

Oooh, poor choice of tactic, my friend. Would YOU say slavery is okay? After all, it was your bible that was used to justify it and many church leaders, including the Papacy, were either in support of slavery or ambiguous on it.

All you’ve proven is that morality is currently in flux. Of course we don’t limit our scope to America, nor do we export American morality onto other free peoples in other nations in general. However, we have agreed as a human population on some human rights and morals and we should enforce them. Other religions murdering people who are of another faith? That’s wrong, as judged by the majority of humanity, as evidenced by several UN decisions. Try again.

“To say no implies you believe in a greater right and wrong that transcends time. “

Nonsense. Slavery is wrong and that judgement by me is in line with the majority of human beings. Perfectly in line with my philosophy.

“People, knowingly or not, believe there is a right and wrong that transcends themselves, society and time.”

Sure, there are general societal rules of a human population the vast majority can agree on. You shouldn’t murder people is one of those, for instance.

“There can be no such thing without God.”

You’ve done nothing to demonstrate why that must be true. Why can murder not be wrong without a God to say so. Put another way, since you’re of the faith, you’re suggesting that if God was taken away from you, you would suddenly go out murdering people? Do you really think that little of yourself?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Godless amaze me

People can use anything to justify anything, doesn’t make it right.

So the UN is the majority of people? Give me numbers here. There are somewhere around 1.5 to 2 billion muslims and 1 billion Chinese so half the world thinks it is ok to kill newborn girls and people of other faith. Many, many people here and around the world think it is ok to kill unborn children. So no, most of the world does not agree on what is and what isn’t murder.

“Nonsense. Slavery is wrong and that judgement by me is in line with the majority of human beings. Perfectly in line with my philosophy.”

I see you didn’t back up how slavery can be “wrong” when “wrong” is defined by a society. Slavery being wrong cannot transcend time if it is up to society at any given time. You also say it is wrong according to the majority of humans yet I have heard there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in history. Seems many, many people disagree with you.

“Sure, there are general societal rules of a human population the vast majority can agree on. You shouldn’t murder people is one of those, for instance.”

Does this include the unborn? Infant girls?

You surely see that you have contradiction in your own beliefs, though you are unwilling to admit it. Your own statements show you believe in a transcendent right and wrong.

“Do you really think that little of yourself?”

No I don’t. I do realize though, that without God I might very well follow society, whichever society I happen to live in, and do things I wouldn’t do as a child of God.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The Godless amaze me

I see you’ve lumped all Muslims together like you probably claim everyone lumps all Christians together. Believe it or not, the bulk of Muslims are not the radical ‘kill everyone of other faith’ people you claim. You aren’t very educated outside of your indoctrination, are you?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 The Godless amaze me

Yes, of course morality predates religion. And this should be especially obvious to Christians. Judaism did not really exist until after Abraham, yet there was morality before that.

“Interestingly, Orwellian oversight by a cellestial dictator is NOT wrong where Christianity is concerned.”

It isn’t wrong if you have 100% assurance that the dictator is, and will always be, benevolent. It would be extremely foolish to assume that the NSA, or any human individual or group, can fulfill that.

“The judge of right and wrong is the population under the question.”

So gay marriage (for example) is wrong if and only if the population says it is wrong? I’m misunderstanding something here, right?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The Godless amaze me

It isn’t wrong if you have 100% assurance that the dictator is, and will always be, benevolent.

Okay, you get a funny vote for that.

In the bible, how many people is god supposed to have killed, either directly, or by ordering it done?

You’re talking about an individual that orders the massacre of entire peoples/tribes because they offend him, or worship the wrong god(same thing to a jealous deity though I suppose), or happen to live in a spot that his followers want(or that has been ‘promised them’).

An individual who killed, by drowning no less, every man, woman, child and animal other than the small number located on a boat, simply because they made him angry.

An individual who killed every firstborn in an entire country to show off.

An individual who ordered a human sacrifice, of a man’s own son no less, just as a test to see if the man would do it(which you’d think he’s of already known, given the ‘all knowing’ bit religious individuals attribute to him).

And so many other atrocious acts of behavior…

There are many titles and descriptions one could apply to the christian god as depicted in the bible, but ‘benevolent’ is most certainly not one of them.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 The Godless amaze me

So you blindly attack the what it literally says and refuse to think about the subtext in a subjective manner to prove all Christians are ludicrous for their beliefs? Other religions do the same thing and yet Christianity seems to be the target. I’m sorry I just don’t see the logic in arguing against a religion based on cherry picked sections of the Bible you fail to understand that others interpret things differently from one another.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 The Godless amaze me

Right, this is probably going to sound condescending, and for that I apologize, as it’s not my intention, but you need to take a breath, calm down, and not attribute things to me that I didn’t say.

I critiqued the christian god because that’s the one that was brought up, simple as that.

I said nothing about the followers of the christian religion(most of which I don’t have a problem with, until or unless they start mucking around in secular affairs/laws), I merely pointed out the clash between the characterization of the christian god as ‘benevolent’, which the AC seemed to be suggesting, as opposed to how the bible depicts him, which is anything but.

Also, literally or otherwise, how were any of the acts I mentioned even remotely resembling indications of benevolence?

How is a story about drowning all life on the planet other than a handful of people and animals an indicator of kindness?

How is a story about someone being asked to murder their own son(and incidentally not seeing anything wrong with that), for no other reason than to perform a completely pointless test showing a benevolent individual?

How is a story about the massacre of 3,000 men, women and children, a massacre brought about by simple jealousy, showing a ‘forgiving’ being?

You say I’m cherry picking(and I was only to the extent of pointing out evidence contrary to the claim being made), but how can any of the horrid, blood-soaked, and down right atrocious actions attributed to the god of the chrisitian bible possibly be considered indicators of benevolence?

Whether read literally or as metaphors, those stories depict an individual that is very much not