Your misunderstanding of religion is overwhelming, so your commentary is meaningless.

You say the major religions cannot compromise and work together, yet you ignore that Christianity and Judaism, often viciously at each others throats -- first the Jews attacking the early Christians, then antisemitic trends in Christianity -- is now a thing of the past and the two religions are close and cooperative.

Within Christianity, we see no wars against sects. The various Protestant sects don't war with each other; heck, we don't even war with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestants don't war with Catholics (Northern Ireland's troubles are over and were fundamentally political and economic in nature, not religious).

Islam stands apart; warring within itself (Sunni vs. Shi'ia) and warring against others (Islam against everyone else).

The fault with God's Warriors is that it minimized the evil carried out in the name of Islam and falsely attacked Christianity and Judaism by straining to find moral parity between their few and much-condemned terroristic warriors and the many and much-praised Islamic terroristic warriors.

What Laer said...

Laer, what a complacent crock of shit.

Christians and Jews are just as capable of fighting each other over "our God can beat up your God" as any other religion, including Islam.

You don't offer any substantiation for your assertion that Christians and Jews have buried the hatchet and don't fight among themselves. You might care to peruse some of the articles and comments of one of our BC contributors, Ruvy in Jerusalem, for a different perspective on that.

Northern Ireland's Troubles have been over for about 25 minutes and already you proclaim that peace reigns for evermore on the Emerald Isle. You may be right, but most of us would prefer to maintain some caution on the subject for the time being.

As for your claim that there is no intra-Christian warring in the world today, you might like to direct your attention to this charming little conflict in Uganda.

And I'd be delighted to see just a few citations for your fantasy that Islamic terrorists are "much praised" - by Baritone or anyone else who isn't also an Islamic fanatic.

Sure, the root of the vast majority of conflicts is economic. Religion is just used as an excuse. The current global "war on terror" is no exception.

Within Christianity, we see no wars against sects. The various Protestant sects don't war with each other; heck, we don't even war with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Protestants don't war with Catholics

Laer, what country do you live in? Surely not the US, where sects are constantly feuding and deriding each other in vicious competition for worshippers and the stamp of legitimacy.

As for the great struggle, it's not between the religious sects, it's between western secularism and ALL the fanatics, but particularly the muslims who remain more militant and expansionistic and exclusionary.

dave

Baritone,

Good article!

I think this same article can be written about any institution or engagement that human beings participate in.

It could be written about the scientific community, governments, sports organizations, humans in general. Its what we are. We are self consumed, wrong a lot, proud, needy, proud, and all of the things that cause us to have conflict.

People go to religion for a number of reasons. Many engage in order to feel right; more correct than everyone else. Many go to science for the same reasons. Again, the bottom line is where one's heart is, regardless of their engagement.

I wish that you would have left out the part about there not being a god and the rest. Your article sounded so profound and it declared your views about religion quite well. However your declaration sort of made you appear a bit zealous and a bit dogmatic; just as wacky and emotional as those who make all of the proclamations that make us loose respect for them.

The truth is you don't have proof for your major proclamation, no matter how certain you may be of your conclusions. You could have kept that part out and we would have gotten your point. Maybe that's what happens with the people that you disrespect. They say just a little too much.

Zedd, that last bit is a fair point. I don't know if you've seen, however, that Baritone has also posted the article on his own blog, which is much more strongly orientated around his atheist viewpoint - which BC, of course, is not. His argument is much more sound in that context. Perhaps he'd have done well just to reword it ever so slightly for its appearance here. It would have packed more punch.

Laer, it's not hard to understand the one god cult. The three divergent branches all believe our universe was made by some longterm absentee superbeing and devote far more time than is healthy to worshipping this improbable being.

Your point about sect conflict was shallow and inaccurate. It not only ignored current events, it also failed to take into account that Islam is the youngest of the three one god cults and is currently going through the same kind of evolution as Christianity and Judaism did long since.

Ruvy, Ms Amanpour's series was impressively neutral, fascinating and informative, a real triumph of television journalism reporting.

Zedd, that's right, scientists, governments and sports organisations regularly go to war over crucial details like who was the "messiah" and who a mere profit (sic), although I am not sure where the "loans" come in ;-)

Oh, it's entirely not the case in my experience that people turn to religion and science for the same reasons, although I can understand why you would like that to be true.

Similarly, your desire that Baritone had left out the part about the non-existence of this ultimate creator is also as understandable as it is predictable and misguided. It made perfect sense in the context of the article and was not in the least zealous or dogmatic, simply realistic. We are well aware that realism is as much a stretch for you as speeling, lol.

For your edification, it is not necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place. The onus of proof lies fully and uniquely with those who belief in the entirely unsubstantiated one god cult.


Doc D, maybe you believe Michael Owen is god, at least for today?

Chris,

That last tid bit in the article did not flow with the rest of its content. Calm down.


Again.

Zedd, I think it flowed perfectly.

I am calm.

Please offer me advice again when you have a) learned to read b) learned to think c) stopped talking to people like they were children...

I saw the headline "God's Warriors" and I thought of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode "Cave Dwellers."

I have absolutely nothing more to add.

Chris,

I realize that when you are passionate about a subject matter you revert to being literalistic to a nearly embarrassing extent. Your persistence and your saner moments give you enough credibility to afford you somewhat of an answer. Was that condescending :o)?

Now here goes....

Humanity has gone to war for a number of reasons. Well before there was organized religion, humans fought. Whatever tool that will propel one to top dog status, we have used as a battle cry. Whether it is racial superiority (disguised as science a la Hitler and gang), religion, race and science (a la the founders of this great nation), cultural superiority (Brits, Zulus, and a great deal of others, accept it true about Zulus), we fight. We just do. Bin Laden isn't fighting because of Islam, he is fighting because he doesn't like the fact that in this time in history, the West is king. Period. He uses his faith because it is the most powerful reference to align himself with.

Now focus my goonie freind....

You may notice that with all monarchies and leaders of nations there is a tendency to create ceremonies which involve God directly or the dead. The dead somehow represent a line to eternity or infinity. In your country the monarchy used to claim a Divine placement to their post. Now they just simply place wreaths in the tombs of the departed and make a public spectacle of the event. They marry, and bury themselves at Westminster Abby. That need to be perceived as being linked or favored by the eternal is a power play. Those ceremonies do more to seal their place (in stealing your taxes) than any other address that they could give.

Chris, religion in such instances is but a tool that humans use like other tools to convince others of their correctness or selected state in order to secure power.

The fact that science was used to justify racism for hundreds of years doesn't mean that there is no science or that all scientists are corrupt. Be a big boy about this.

Doc,

I'm watching the Doctor Whooo-eee-ooo marathon. I've got to run errands and cant seem to pull myself away.

Laer, you are gibbering. Christian sects don't war with other Christian sects?? What are you on, dear boy (or girl)?

Er, three centuries of trouble between Catholics and protestants (notice the lower case p, you pack of heathens :) probably indicates that's quite wrong. Right up until recently, the IRA and the protestant militias have been blowing the shit out of each other in the name of Christ. (Yes, the IRA is a political organisation ... a Catholic political organisation).

Please, get real.

Chris,

Would you care to correct vascodegama or will you choose the disingenuous route?

I should have realized that the atheists and religion haters here at BC would take Ananpour's piece of trash and praise it as "neutral and a triumph of journalism."

For them it is a battle of pagans - what "secularists" really are and those who believe in G-d.

I have been sufficiently educated by these idiotic comments to see that the atheistic hellenistic pagans of the west are blind fools who will not see truth until it kills them - literally.

And the truth WILL kill them.

I'm not sure I'm ready to get into the fray, but why the hell not.

I've come to the conclusion that I pretty much like all the comments that agree with me, and, well,I'm not too crazy about those that don't.

Go figure.

Laer has been taken to task by a number of you.
One thing I would add, just so I can slap him (or her) around a bit more is this: It's true that most christians in the west, at any rate do not openly battle with each other in the streets. And, of course the movement toward ecumenism has been on-going for many years.

However, many fundies have in recent years been working to put a stop to this: They look upon the less fervent denominations as "liberal" (the word used in all of its pejorative glory) and not of the true faith. They are now taking a stand against ecumenism - no intermingling, no tolerance. As they see it, to do so is a sure path to hot foot territory.

A few years ago the great old fart His Holiness Pope John Paul II issued a proclamation that pretty much stated the same thing, warning catholics against believing that other faiths were on an equal footing with catholicism. In effect he stated that catholics could be nice with, say protestants, but in the end they were not to be invited into the same sand box.

Of course, my charge that christians and jews are ready to do physical violence has been supported by others here. It goes without saying that Israeli jews constantly match violence with violence against the Palestinians among others.
Ruvy and others will deny, but the violence there is essentially over a big rock - a supposed "holy" place. How much blood is that hot dusty wall worth? In all the fucking universe, is one actually to believe that a totally unremarkable bit of stone on this insignificant ball of clay is somehow special to some omnipotent, omniscient being who purportedly created the entire universe?

The same can be said for all of the supposed "holy" shrines of muslims, or of christians or any other religious traditions for that matter.

A couple of years ago I visited the bahai temple in Wilmette, Illinois. It's an impressive place. We walked in and sat in the nave. It was an almost surreal atmosphere there. So quiet. Reverent. We had to move on rather quickly, but I believe I could have stayed there for some time.

It is a beautiful edifice and a very peaceful place to spend a little time. Bahai's doubtless look upon it and their other temples as holy places. I don't.

I've been in Manhattan's St. John the Divine Cathedral and Vienna's St. Stephens Dome. They are magnificent, awe inspiring spaces. But holy? No. Hell, I even delivered an issue of Playboy to someone right on the alter at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC many moons ago.

Again, go figure.

I also must in the end disagree with you Zedd. There isn't a fundie of whatever tradition who wouldn't stand on the highest roof top and shout for all to hear of their faith.

Why then is it thought "out there" for an atheist to say with the same conviction that there is no god? I understand that we are in a significant minority, but, hey, we're people too. In fact, if some of the numbers I've recently seen are correct, there are more atheists and agnostics in the U.S. than jews and muslims combined. Why should we be expected to be of less conviction or less vocal in our belief?

No, I cannot prove that god does not exist. But as Christopher so aptly put it "...it is not necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place."

The evidence that god does not exist lay mainly in the lack of evidence that he (she,it) does.

Of course, it is far more difficult to prove a negative. All god need do to erase any doubt is to reveal him (her,it) self in such a way that there could, in fact, be no doubt. Figuring just how to do that shouldn't be any problem for one who happens to be omniscient, right?

B-tone

Ruvy does a fine job of proving some of my points.

B-tone

Baritone,


I stand firmly for the right of atheists and agnostics to speak and believe freely. I am totally against prayer in school. Its silly. I am against the "In God WE trust" on our money. I am against the use of religion in the pledge. The Texas pledge has just included a similar wording as that of the US pledge which is eye rolling. Creationism on the curriculum is just sad unless it is reviewed in literature.

I get your belief and support your right to believe as you do.

I personally am annoyed with religiosity. I get reverence for the Divine. I even get ritual. I didn't use to get it when I was young but now I really get it. Having been raised non denominational, I wasn't exposed to ritual in my youth and thought it to be ridiculous but I now get it. However I see how it can be a distraction in many instances.

I believe that belief is personal. Organized religion tends to distract from ones own personal journey. While it has good qualities, it is now more of a nuisance and an obligatory practice in order for one to prove their faith.

I don't think that one's faith in the divine causes wars. I think it is the human nature, our need to be top dog that makes wars an inevitability. Again, religion is just a tool for some to justify their greed for power and control.

Zedd,

I fully agree with you. Well, not so much about ritual and the divine. But otherwise, yeah, we're more or less on the same page.

Most wars and other human conflicts are brought on by greed and/or lust for power. It's always been that way. But it's very difficult for a king, queen or warlord or whoever to get the people behind him or her for the sake of making that king, queen or warlord richer or more powerful. In so many cases, it has and continues to be religious differences that are brought to the fore - the stricken match that provides the flame for war. As noted above, it's sometimes race, or nationalism that fosters the necessary hatred and zeal to come to blows. Sometimes its all those things.

I'm not sure about the science thing, though. Hitler's rise to power came via many sources, but racial hatred was at its core, at least with respect to what it took to get the masses motivated. They did use some pseudo-science to "prove" the inferiority of jews and other so called "mongrel" races, but science, per se was not what they were about.

Again, though, I don't apologize or shrink away from my position against the existence of god. In times past, I could have expected to be burnt at the stake for making such a pronouncement. Atheists have been kept silent for far too long. Just as with other segments of society, we are, for the most part not nut jobs or some kind of wierdos.

If you take a moment to check out my blog site you will see along the left margin an "Atheists Blogroll." There are literally hundreds of blogs that are in whole or in part dedicated to atheism or agnosticism. I've no doubt that there are exponentially greater numbers of blogs dedicated to some god or other. But the number of sites noted on the blogroll is rather astounding.

You might also check out another site, A Complicated Salvation. -http://acomplicatedsalvationreborn.wordpress.com/ It is a very well written site by a Canadian woman mostly concerned with the trauma she and her family experienced upon becoming disillusioned with and then leaving, first the church, and then religious belief altogether. Her blog name is Zoe, and she is a good, intelligent and sincere person attempting to relate the pain and difficulties she faced. It's a good read.

B-tone

I haven't proven any of your points, Baritone.

MY big beef with Christine Ananpour's trash is not that she points out the dangers of "G-d's Warriors" but that she distorts Jews in Israel who believe firmly in messianic Redemption into something that we are not. But CNN has been doing that for a long time now. She only fits in with the mold.

I'm not interested in blowing you to bits. More to the point, I'm not interested in pushing my philosophy down your throat. For as long as Man is allowed to retain free will, you can believe whatever the hell you please and I will not be bothered one bit - so long as you keep your fingers off of my country, and my destiny.

What I AM telling you, and I'm telling you this with certainty, is that at some point soon, G-d will show up and fulfill His prophecies. Whether YOU believe that or not is irrelevant to me. Either you will see and be so scared by what you see that you'll shit your pants and believe - or you'll die. Either way, it doesn't make a difference to me, though I personally prefer that you shit your pants in fear and recognize Truth before it kills you.

What I say here goes for you and for all the other non-believers reading this. I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. I do not seek your deaths. I certainly do not seek your conversion. Judaism itself will change into something else - the Religion of the Children of Israel - before all this is over.

But that is not an issue here. The issue is this. At some point in the relatively near future, the only way you will even live is by recognizing and practicing the Seven Laws of Noah. That choice will be yours.

Zedd, I would respond to your #11 but I realise that even though you use my name, in your own mind you're talking simplistic nonsense to a bunch of infants. If I were you, I'd just stick to parenting. If your swimming ability is of the same calibre as this, please don't ever leave the shallow end 'cos you're gonna drown!

#15 Ruvy, you just love making these pompous mystical statements, don't you? I reckon without your dodgy faith your ego would collapse. As usual, long on attitude, short on substance, which is par for the course for the rationally challenged.

#20 And there you go again, long on the pompous attitude and nothing to say. Ruvy, I've known you online a long time now and, when you're not talking about cults or politics you seem like a great bloke. Unfortunately you spend nearly all your time here talking about cults and politics.

I'd love it if you could actually put a specific date on all this mystical malarkey though. That way we could then get you to shut up about it until the glorious day arrives. Then, we could also show you what a load of mystical mantra you've swallowed.

You're not going to do that of course because, just like every other mad prophecer, it would then be so easy to disprove the theory and no faithist wants their con exposed.

C'mon, I dare you, put a date on this "relatively near future" of yours and then shut up about it 'til then. Rest assured, I won't forget that date.

"And there you go again, long on the pompous attitude and nothing to say. Ruvy, I've known you online a long time now and, when you're not talking about cults or politics you seem like a great bloke. Unfortunately you spend nearly all your time here talking about cults and politics.

I'd love it if you could actually put a specific date on all this mystical malarkey though. That way we could then get you to shut up about it until the glorious day arrives. Then, we could also show you what a load of mystical mantra you've swallowed.

You're not going to do that of course because, just like every other mad prophecer, it would then be so easy to disprove the theory and no faithist wants their con exposed."

Chris,

You might want to look up the word "prophecer" - I know it's supposed to be a take-off on "professor", but I am no academic. The title "mad prophecer", if it belongs to anyone commenting on this board, belongs to DR. David Nalle, or DR. Marthe Raymond.

Now, as for the rest of your comments. I cannot tell you what I do not know. I can tell you what I do know. The changes I outline in comment #20 will all be done and over with, according to Talmudic scholars, by either 5786 or 5790. This means that it will be all over by the Christian years 2026 - 2030.

No, I'm not going to shut up about it, either. I'm not going to keep quiet about the story of the millennium, (that is the Jewish millennium, not the Christian one, the one that began in the year 5001 [autumn 1239], and that will end in the year 6000 [summer 2238]) the Redemption of Mankind. I'll let you guys concentrate on which firm is swallowing which brand new internet product, which sexual disease Paris Hilton has contracted, or which player Manchester United will drop. I have bigger fish to fry...

Chris,

Its unfortunate that you would intimate that parenting is an inferior engagement; one which doesn't require much intellect. More personal disclosure? TMA Chris. Its getting a bit uncomfortable.

I do also regret to say that it would be a struggle for me to remain on the shallow end. Never fear however I may toss you my kid's floaty, on loan for a small profit, so you can hang out with us big kids on the DEEP end.

Baritone,

I hope that you didn't read into my comments that I thought your statements required an apology. That would be odd of me.

You have submitted other articles and your views are clear. You have articulated your position much in the same way as a participant on threads as well. There was no surprise in the statements that you made nor were the statements revolutionary. I however just noted that that outburst at he end of your article didn't match the tone of the otherwise well written piece.

Baritone,

You must read the notes of early explorers. They used science as a justification for the subjugation of people around the world. They would utilize formulations to determine intellect and civility, measuring skulls and off course using their make up as the standard. Thomas Jefferson's intellectualizing about slaves was an attempt to give scientific explanation for the abuse of that population. Social Darwinism was used to justify why the haves had (power). Today many, including many on this blog actually buy the rubbish which is The Bell Curve. Many espouse the notion that intellect (not education mind you) is correlated with social status, because of bad science.

Zedd,

I found your reference to early explorers utterly mystifying. From whence do you speak?

Ruvy, I'm well aware you're no academic, you don't display enough respect for facts over fancy for that, but the word prophecer was carefully chosen for its obvious meaning. There was a joke there too, but unless you're a Reggae fan you wouldn't have got it!

So, somewhere between 19 and 23 years from now, this whole religion of yours is going to be shown as the biggest and longest con of all time or as the real deal. I really hope both of us live that long!

Zedd, if your powers of inference were half as good as you think they are, you would understand me better.

Judging solely by your commenting on this site, the only thing that is big about you is not your intellect but your ego. I've rarely come across someone who writes so much to express so little.

Mind you, I have noticed you're really trying hard not to make so many blatant spelling mistakes at the moment. Thank you for that at least.

Chris,

You should know more than anyone that my comments are partly tongue and cheek. I do apologies if I have portrayed anything other than that.

Yes the views that I reflect are what I believe or understand however the teases are just that, I take yours to be the same, else I wouldn't volunteeringly participate on this site. I mean really, you called me a giddy goon. I'm gonna use that one. It's my poke from now on.

I enjoy your pick on's. I think they are funny most of the time.

Now here's that floaty.... (four dots, yeah boiy!!!!)

Now......

I would venture to say that Ruvy's got me beat on the writing so much, blah blah blah....

I would venture that if you thought that I was male you would not see my comments to be so condescending. You would think that I may know what I was talking about or I would simply anger you.

Chris, you and I don't quite speak the same language. I see a lot of similarities between you and Dave. Surprisingly, you both are editors (minute details).

You seem to like ideas to fit into nice little categories. While your affiliations are different, you seem to miss what is off of the path that is familiar to yourself. However Dave seems to get simplicity, you have a disrespect for it. I could be wrong.

As many times as you have insulted me, lectured me, approved of my words or corrected me on a topic that I was aware of but just making a wise crack about, I never once squeaked that you are arrogant, or preachy or breaking the rules. I just laugh and move on.

Toughen up buddy. I'm sorry that you miss my point most of the time. But don't attempt to make me feel deficient because of it. It could just be you who lacks in some way. Not calling you thick by the way.

Now does that semi groveling suite your White male sensibility? Are you now prepared to engage like a big boy?

Oh fuck! I wrote too soon. The illiterate Zedd is back and in full flow.

It's "tongue in cheek", though I admit your way sounds smuttier; you may "do apologies" although it sounds more like you do drugs; you can't "volunteeringly participate", not unless you're an editor at least; and, skipping over a whole bunch of equally inane nonsense, it doesn't "suite" me at all.

I really do think you're a bit dim and best left talking to children. Personally, I'm done with you.

I look forward eagerly to BC's own Ms. Malaprop's next discourse.

Aisle bed ids knot two bee mist!

you guys aren't what would be called 'pineapples of politeness'

But you are, troll, you are!

Chris,


I wonder if it is BC's policy that the comments editor would be making fun of the commenter's spelling errors, and INTENTIONAL word, phrase and grammatical license taking.

I understand that this is an area that you feel most confident in, however being the giddy sort, I give myself liberty to speak liberally, especially in such a venue. For those who don't have confidence in their ability to reason or debate, it may be important to write in a conversational forum as if they are writing an essay. They've got something to prove, perhaps. I am fully aware of the "literary liberties" that I take. A person with your mind would not appreciate them. I am having fun. Not trying to prove how capable I am. I am confident in my capabilities thus I don't feel the need to prove anything. Obviously that is not the case for you. I have explained that over and over again. You understand exactly what I am saying. THAT makes it pitiful that you would veer from the discussion at hand to correct conversational speech. I don't revere the English language. I comfortable in understanding that language snobbishness was designed to exclude those of your class (I presume) from fully engaging and having power. You seem to have bought into the entire concept of your being common or inferior and are obsessed, it would seem, about how smart or good enough you seem to be by the pattern of letters on this page. I don't have that problem. Keep it. Don't try to pass it on. I challenge you to think. Simply think and convey a sharp argument. Forget about dots and whatever else you hide under to deflect the fact that you feel insecure about your smarts.

Your obsession with minutia reveals your insecurity about conversing intelligently about matters of substance.

Next time before you, THE EDITOR, make a huge deal about a spelling error intended or not, if it is mine KNOW that I DON'T CARE. Also KNOW that it's your language, I speak it quite well, but I don't revere it. Its YOU who does. Also know that your easy "distract-ability" only reveals your tiny mind. I've let you go on and on for months smiling politely at your minuteness without saying anything about it. You are telling more about yourself than you realize. Let it go.

Now whenever you are ready do have a real discussion, I here.

Again, you probably will find a error or two in this post. Let it go. The point is that you understand EXACTLY what it is that I am conveying to you. I have communicated to you perfectly. Now try and focus will you?



I'm at home relaxing. I will take liberty. Get over it.

Huuuuuug again. You silly goon.

*Blood pours from ears, spittle from mouth and strange brown liquid from rectum. Falls twitching spastically to ground and loses consciousness*

Comment # 20 - Ruvy -

What would a gentile do about the law concerning eating blood? I don't eat blood per se, but my steak can be bloody before I slap that baby on the grill. :)

As for the rest of the Laws of Noah, I observe them because they were given by God, and I will at last answer to Him.

However, I will go to the Father only by my faith in Jesus Christ.

Sorry Chris.

Can we be buds again?

I spelled correctly....?!

Catey,

To the best of my knowledge, the law forbidding you to consume the blood of the animal is not necessarily part of the Noahide Laws, though it would only seem common sense that it would be. But google up the Noahide Laws to find out. I make no pretension to expertise. It may well be that they are included somehow.

These are the laws as I understand them.

1. You need to recognize the exisxtence of one G-d.
2. You need to bless G-d.
3. You need to avoid spilling blood. (maybe the rule is within here)
4. You need to avoid sexual immorality.
5. You are not allowed to cut off the limb of a living animal and eat it while the animal still lives - this is interpreted to mean you need to treat animals humanely.
6. Do not steal.
7. Institute courts of law to enforce these rules.

A more authoritative source can be found here or here

Zedd,

What I find odd is that you characterized my statements concerning the non-existence of god as "an outburst."

In a way that reinforces what I said above. Would you have considered it an outburst if someone included a "parise the lord" or a "thank god" in a post? Perhaps if it was totally out of context. But in normal conversation references to god are common. Some people can barely utter a phrase without giving a verbal nod to god.

I felt that my tying up the piece with my position on god was within the natural evolution of the piece. I certainly did not do it for shock value.

As you noted, most of the regulars here know my position regarding god and religion. And it is stated rather clearly in my profile. It never occured to me that reiterating it in the article would seem to some too great a leap.

B-tone

Amanpour's show was quite good and, as you say, as impartial as is possible.

Check out this scary site: The Truth About Islam

We can not change history, but we should learn from history. We should learn from crussades, armenian genocide and holocaust and so on.Most of theese wars had a religious component in it. We should seperate religion from politics.Only a secular, democratic, free society can avoid these kind of wars. Sharia courts in muslim countries should not be for all and it should be at mosque level on a voluntary base because it is so unfair to non muslims.Dhimmitude, sharia rule and jiihad could cause conflict with civilizations.

Baritone,

I really enjoyed your article. My statement about the last part was just a side note.

Silly as it is to go on with this however BC is rather quiet tonight... I would not write a paper on religion then start shouting hallelujah, praise his name at the end of it. It would be odd don't you think? Funny as heck though. We all enjoy a good meltdown. I wouldn't write a thoughtful paper on the upcoming elections, the issues at hand and the challenges of each of the candidates and then end it with a rousing scream about how Washington is full of scum. I'm just sayin'. (Chris no cow births today please, I meant to spell it that way).

But I enjoyed your article.

(re #32 - I offer up a bona fide Mrs Malapro and what do I get back - ? attitude

pearls before swine I tell ya)

Thank you, Zedd.

I suppose I should respond to Ruvy after his invective response to all this. I just don't know what to say. It's obvious that he doesn't care. He said so.

I won't try to be glib. There is something about the tone of his response, his conviction. It's frightening - moreso because I know he is not alone. There are many others who feel and believe just as he does.

He is so certain of his sight. Yet, so too are millions of others, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and on and on. They are, most of them, inflicted with tunnel vision. There is only one truth. Ruvy may not want to blow me to bits. I don't know that he, personally is of a violent nature. Actually, from some of his previous posts and comments, I'd say not. But there are many in his part of the world who are in fact ready and willing to do violence.

In the end it doesn't matter to what god they have pledged fealty - not to the rest of us at any rate. It doesn't matter if the fellow firing the machine gun is a Jew, or the woman detonating the bomb she's wearing is a Muslim, or if the guy launching a smart bomb from a remote location has an eagle, its talons gripping a flaming cross tatooed on his chest. The results are the same.

The delusions of all these people may bring about the destruction of all of us - deluded or not.

Ruvy is so inured in his faith, just as any number of other Jews, Muslims and Christians are, that he can't fathom any other possibilities.
His admonitions are so similar to those I've encountered from evangelical Christians - absolute certainty of his salvation and equal conviction concerning the tragic end of all who don't find and follow the right path.

The terminology varies, but Ruvy is, nevertheless a Raptile. He absolutely believes that the final atonement is at hand. Sadly, the same assertions have been made for centuries and, even sadder, will likely go on for centuries more. Each generation of true believers becomes so egotistical that they believe the "Judgement" is going to take place during their life time. Someone always finds a way to interpret "prophecies" so that they are convinced that it's all going to happen on their watch.

When "the end of days" does not take place as predicted, I presume all the erstwhile doomsday adherents must then scramble to find a reason why we are all still here drawing breath. Perhaps some wise up. Some probably lose all hope and go jump off a bridge, while others, the true die hards, just regroup and adjust their interpretations to fit a new paradigm, and go at it again. There will always be a fresh crop of newbies, the wide eyed, the uninitiated who will fall in line, divest themselves of their worldly goods and wait for god's spaceship or gaggle of winged angels or by whatever conveyance that will scoop them up to eternal bliss.

Good luck with that.

B-tone

I'm a wuvver not a writer! How to answer all this?

Irene,

If you really want to answer Baritone, reread comment #20 first - carefully. I can't answer now. Work calls...

And faced with words more compelling than those written in outdated old books, the faithists bail...

Baritone,

I never did figure out "Raptile". My 20 pound, 2,000 page Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary (Unabridged) went from "rapter," an obsolete word for rapist, to "raptor," a hunting bird.... Maybe it's one of them new crqpdoodle words, like "faithist."

But I did figure out what you mean by "invective". Evidently, to you, invective is when a person who believes in G-d opens his mouth. Whatever comes out, by definition, is "invective"....

Long on spluttering and sarcasm, short on any actual intelligent response...

"Long on spluttering and sarcasm, short on any actual intelligent response...."

As I said in comment #20,

MY big beef with Christiane Ananpour's trash is not that she points out the dangers of "G-d's Warriors" but that she distorts Jews in Israel who believe firmly in messianic Redemption into something that we are not. But CNN has been doing that for a long time now. She only fits in with the mold.

While this article from CAMERA does not represent ALL my objections to CNN's trash and its distortions of Israel and Jews, it is a fairly good start.

So shut up and read.

Oh yeah,

And if you want invective, I'll send it to your private e-mails, so that Christopher Rose cannot edit it out, and you know just how nasty invective can get - and what it really contains...

It seems as if everyone wants to equate the troubles of modern christianity with the troubles of modern islam and suggest that the levels of violence expressed by the fundamentalists of each faith are comparable.

Never have I seen such ignorance and stupidity....

Oh wait..yes I have......I've been hanging around BC for quite some time now.

A "Raptile" (aka a Raptarian - both my own coinage,) for the uninitiated are those mainly christian uh, crapdoodles (for lack of a better word) who ascribe to the scenario depicted in LaHaye and Jenkins' Left Behind series of, well, crapdoodle books wherein the true followers of jesus will suddenly and without prior notice be swept up to heaven leaving behind all of the rest of us heathens who will then be left to endure Satan's wrath and yada, yada, yada...

Perhaps Ruvy believes that Amanpour got it right in her depiction of muslims and christians, but presented only "trash" when it came to jews - the one and only "put upon" and misunderstood people of the world.

Israel is an anomaly in this world. Had the Holacaust not occured and/or were the Israelis people of color, few in the world would notice their plight. Had they ever been able to establish their country in the first place, owing to the situation in the middle east and its vast and hotly sought after oil deposits, Israel would likely have been very short lived and now be but a tiny blip in the history books.

I know the above is an ugly charge, but given what has been allowed to happen in Rwanda, the Sudan and other countries over the years, I don't believe it to be a stretch.

I would also say to Ruvy that what you believe is also irrelevant to me. You can believe that god incarnate is actually a Pez dispenser with the characature of Papa Smurf atop. I don't really give a rat's ass. But between radical zionist jews, and nutball muslims and christians, you could well send yourselves and most of the rest of us down in flames in defence of your faith and your "holy" land.

"Believer's" pursuit of an imaginary god's redemption is ludicrous and in this nuclear age presents the prospect of total annihilation.

B-tone

Ruvy, why don't you expand on the bald statement that Ms Amanpour distorts what messianic Jews are about by explaining where, in your view, she goes wrong and what the reality, as you see it, really is.

Simply making the statement you did, even by effectively shouting by putting part of your comment in bold doesn't really get you. or us, anywhere.

Furthermore, as I've told you before, linking to material off site and putting the rude imperative "read" isn't very attractive. Make your own case.

I'll do you the favour of ignoring your #51 and its threatening tone but I'll thank you not to do that again. Please. I know you just do that because you still can't come up with an intelligent response to Baritone's #14

Arch Conservative: Talking of intelligent responses, you do have another choice; you could just like, you know, tuck your oh so well thought out opinions in your pocket and fuck off... But we know you love it here really, you just can't quite bring your self to step out of the closet of stupid. But one day, one day...

I, for one, wait fruitlessly for the believers to present one shred of evidence for the truths they shout about.

All we ever get is, "it is written", "it was prophesied", "scripture says," "God said to___", and "you'll be sorry some day."

Imagination, interpretation, wishful thinking.

Not evidence, not rational knowledge, not logic, not facts.

Do you buy, based on advertising claims alone? Do you vote based on facts, or fantasies? Do you want empirical knowledge from the doctor, or is faith alone good enough?

Do you require evidence or proof for anything in life, or are sincere beliefs, strong feelings, and accepting an arbitrary authority for everything good enough?

I would prefer living in an Age of Enlightenment to being trapped in the Middle Ages, myself.

"G-d's Warriors"

Ruvy,

Just for my own edification, what's with the missing "O" in God? I'm guessing that you do it because you think the word is so sacred that it can't even be printed, kind of like Muslims get peeved if you print an image of Muhammed. But, you know, when you write it like that, it kind of makes "God" look like a 4-letter word. Well, a 3-letter 4-letter word, anyway.

As Ruvy and others have pointed out, "proving" the existence of God is a rather meaningless exercise. You either have faith that he exists or you don't.

That said, the most compelling attempt at a proof for the existence of a Supreme Being/Creator is the one posited by St Thomas Aquinas. In basic terms, St Thomas reasoned that because every thing and event in the universe has a cause, if you extrapolate far enough back you must eventually arrive at a Prime Cause - i.e. God.

The fundamental weakness of this argument, though, is that it assumes there indeed is a Prime Cause. It also does not answer the question of what caused God.

Dr. D:

I understand that faith is central to religious belief. I have no problem with that.

But then to present that faith as if it is literal proven fact and argue that it is, therefore, unquestionable truth--which many in all religious traditions do constantly--is illogical, irrational, and false...isn't it?

Doug #56 re looking like a 3-letter 4-letter word: Yes, I noticed that myself years ago. That's part of the reason why I've come to prefer using ^ rather than - . Another reason being that my preferred option suggests looking up (metaphorically at least).

To outside observers, definitely.

Although millions of words have been written attempting to prove the contrary - by those for whom, in their hearts, there is no doubt. From an internal perspective, having absolute faith trumps any possible proof.

Where things start to get unpleasant is when such people fail to appreciate that others may not view the universe in the same way they do.

Well, Baritone, now we know what a "raptile" is. That is the kind of thing you can use arguing with (or against) Christians. This kind of stuff just doesn't apply to Jews. In truth, your arguments against religion seem mostly directed against Christianity. Jews seem to get nary a mention. If you don't give a rat's ass what I believe, know that the feeling is mutual.

I do not necessarily think that Ananpour got it right with either Moslems or Christians in her show, but I leave it to them to do the arguing for their own cause. It ain't my problem.

"Israel is an anomaly in this world."

This is the first intelligent thing I have seen you write on the subject. You are right - far more than you know. We Jews are not supposed to be alive at all, and this country is not supposed to even exist. We, like the Hittites and the Alans, should be extinct by now, lost in history's garbage pail along with all the other little nobodies who have disappeared.

But we aren't. We Jews have outlasted all of our persecutors from ancient times - the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, the genocidal Romans.... And for all the efforts of you goyim to kill us, gas chambers included, we have still managed to survive.

Our state has survived not on your generosity, but on our guts and determination. Our terrorists drove the British from this land, kicked the scum out, and I'm damned proud of that. Israel is a stinking little third world country - but we have nuclear weapons, the best health system in the entire Middle East, the healthiest and best fed people in the entire Middle East, the second largest number of startups in the world, one of highest levels of home computer ownership. Our research leaves a lot of you eating our dust. This, all with the burden of a traitorous government that works to kill morale; a brain drain due to the government's policies; a criminal class (the government) - well supported by the mafia that calls itself the US government - that burdens us with policies that will kill us.

Some blip.

It's the anomalies in nature or history that should get your attention. Why are they there? What do they have to teach you?

Pay attention, Baritone. You might even learn something....

And with G-d's help and guidance, you may be privileged to see the day when the People of Israel are indeed G-d's Warriors.

Sorry, I don't understand why God needs warriors.

Nations do, yes;gods, no.

Doesn't that imply that:

1. God wants to use some of us to get rid of others of us;

2. We can figure out which is which on our own and,

3. If he does want some of us gone, he can't or doesn't want to do it for himself, but wants his children to be responsible for the killing, in his name and for his glory.

I'm very uneasy when the slaughtering starts in God's name. Hasn't history taught us that's not a real good idea?

#47 were you talking to me, Christopher Rose?
I wasn't bailing, and haven't bailed. My GOODNESS, consider the length, which speaks to at least an ATTEMPT at thoroughness, of my typical comment, when I'm asked a SPECIFIC question about the words of Jesus.

It has been made ABUNDANTLY clear to me that atheists such as the one writing this article, or the producers of "God's Warriors" believe that people of faith are to have laid at their feet the blame for most of the world's evil. I'm thoroughly convinced that this is what they believe about me. What's there to argue about?

Besides, if because I identify with the name Christian, I'm to be put in the same class as psychopaths like Joseph Kony of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army, what POSSIBLE chance is there for me to be taken seriously in this discussion?

I'm not going to disabuse any atheist of his low opinion of me by mere words. Actions and attitudes speak louder. I see a glimmer of kindness once in awhile at BC, but by and large, the opportunities to demonstrate it in ways that won't be misconstrued as condescending are scarce.

Ruvy,

You say: "It's the anomalies in nature or history that should get your attention. Why are they there? What do they have to teach you?"

You could ask yourself: What is it about Jews which has fomented so much hatred and persecution throughout history? Could it be your arrogance and presumption?

I'm sure you will take that in the assumption that I am anti-semetic. But in truth, I'm an equal opportunity opponent of religion. In my eyes jews are no better nor no worse than muslims or christians. You all mold your lives around a mythical, supposedly all powerful god who is either going to raise you up to eternal salvation or comdemn you to eternal hell. No matter what label you put on it. No matter how deeply complex your liturgy may be. It is all crap. Idiotic, wasteful crap.

Faith is NOT a virtue. It is, rather, irrational. It is one thing to have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. We have substantial proof that it will continue to do so. It is one thing to have faith in another human being. That faith may or may not be rewarded, but at least one can make reasonably rational judgements regarding another person's trustworthiness. And yet, hundreds of millions of people through their faith put their very lives and the lives of their loved ones, their neighbors, their countrymen in the hands of a mythical being for which there is absolutely no evidence supporting its existence.

Lee,

I have asked a similar question to yours: If god is omnipotent, why does he need us puny, insignificant little humans to do battle on his behalf? Presumably, with a blink of his lordly eye he could do away with everything and everyone.
The only possible answer is that god is an asshole playing a very cruel game. With a god like that, who needs the devil? Humans can and often do maintain a higher level of ethics and honor than any god who commands his followers to commit mass murder in his name.

But that begs the point. The point being that there is no such god. There are only us humans inventing gods and other equally specious reasons to wage war against our fellow humans.

It IS condescending to think that only one's views, efforts, beliefs, and values can contain, constitute, and communicate kindness.

No one has called Irene evil or a psychopath;those are strawmen she set up so she can swat them.

I know and respect many devout Christians and Jews. They're definitely not responsible for most of the world's evil. They're good people, and want the best for their families and society.

Most of them, however, think for themselves, indulge in independent scholarship, read, and ask questions.

What good is any faith that doesn't?

Whatever your faith may be, Lee Richards, I hope that its value is enhanced by independent thought and scholarship, the practice of reading widely and thoughtfully, the maintenance of a healthy skepticism, as well as an openness to the ideas of others, and the continued kindness, fairness and respect with which you've treated me each time you've addressed me in BC.

And, in the spirit of the Golden Rule, I wish the same for you, Irene.

Re: #64 Baritone. I was going to hold my peace until I read that comment. I'm afraid for you, Baritone. You are insulting not just my God, but YOURS, and with such VILE language--the One who gave you eyes and sight and things to see, ears to hear music, lungs to breathe the air he made.

I am STUNNED to hear of the disdain you have for things you know nothing about. The battles for God (I speak of spiritual battles of prayer and discourse and efforts against evils like poverty and disease ) engaged in by "us puny humans" are to shame powerful rebellious beings in realms you can't even imagine, beings who are perhaps pulling YOUR strings even now.

Daniel 10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

and

Ephesians 6: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of his world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Be careful, Baritone. Do be careful. You have less to fear from all the zany fundamentalist armies of the world than you do from your own Creator. He doesn't owe you a thing, remember that. And yet, in his mercy, he made provision to cover the sin of your insolent, ungrateful, persistent REFUSAL to acknowledge the Source of any of the blessings you might have in your life. It's COINCIDENCE, it's COINCIDENCE, it's COINCIDENCE, you say. What parent, other than God, could endure patiently that kind of pigheadedness, day after day, and yet continue to pour out His blessing?

I'd start exploring God right now if I were you. Ruvy's, Zedd's, Baronious', STM's...Better you should get a sense of the Divine in a faith different from my own than remain in the UTTERLY graceless state you now inhabit.

Don't cry me your blues, either. I've known quadriplegics with more of a sense of gratitude to and respect for God than you have.

If you still do, Lee Richards, then thanks much.

And the lunacy is revealed for all to see...

Oh, I didn't mean to make you feel left out, Christopher Rose. You may replace your name for Bari-tone's in comment #68.

Irene,

I appreciate your concern for my mortal soul. I don't share your concern, but nevertheless, I appreciate it. The fact is, I don't believe I have a soul.

I have been writing of my atheism for nearly 2 years now. I know others have been doing so much longer, and probably to better effect. But I have, especially in recent weeks, taken my game, as it were, to another level.

I am told by christians and others that in their opinion, I am going to hell. Now, from a christian's viewpoint that's as bad as it gets.

If your god is disturbed by my language, he can certainly do whatever he deems fit. I doubt that he needs you or anyone else to defend his honor.

To reiterate: Your god is omniscient. He knows all. That means he knows where I'm destined to spend eternity. That means that it's a done deal, does it not? I am predestined to my eternal fate. It matters not what I say, what I feel, what I write or what I do. My fate is already written in stone.

I didn't use the language above haphazardly. I figured it would have some shock value. That's the world we live in today. It's all about shocking people. I'm not a particular fan of it, but perhaps some of us non-believers need to "shock" some people out of their complacency about religion.

It is obvious that you are a true believer. Everything in your life flows through your faith and whenever you feel the need to make a point, you do it by quoting the bible. I won't go into my opinion of the bible, except to say that it is not a part of my life.

I don't "cry" my blues. I am not on the pity pot. I am not angry - at least not at god. I simply don't believe in god. I owe nothing to any god.

I prefer to face life rationally without any dependence on some etherial phantom.

B-tone

Dear Baritone, et al,

To consider Christiane Amanpour's opinion piece on CNN "a great bit of reporting" is absurd. What it amounted to was yet another slick, highly deceptive, production piece of liberal political propaganda by a mainstream news media outlet.

Below is the feedback I gave CNN on the subject... "for your reading pleasure."

"God's Jewish Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a one of the most grossly distorted programs I've ever observed in the mainstream media. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated
with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-murder.
There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in the numbers of perpetrators engaged or the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.
As a Holocaust educator, I find your distortions morally repulsive, not unlike presenting German civilian casualties by the Allied forces during WWII as the moral equivalent of Nazi genocide. Not to mention your decision to include the testimony of someone as unreliable as Jimmy Carter, which transformed Ms. Amanpour's program from a work of "journalism" to a work of anti-Jewish/anti-Israeli "propaganda." For instance, Jimmy Carter, was not soundly "criticized" for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, he was soundly "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians in his book, 'Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid.'
The same kind of empirical error that has been pointed out in Jimmy Carter's book can also be found in Ms. Amanpour's report for instance, when she states about the Temple Mount: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the Temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."
For the record, Muslim scripture never refers to Jerusalem, it refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed.
In the future, please consider doing the morally correct thing and disclaim your intention to present journalism to your watching public, and be honest in declaring the truth about such programming as being in support of your news agency's editorial opinion/agenda.

Sincerely,

Daniel A. Hennessy

Yes, Dan, but how do you really feel?

Only a hotheaded extremist could call Amanpour a propagandist or Jimmy Carter anti-Jewish. Temper your rhetoric, and you might start to make more sense.

That means that it's a done deal, does it not?

No, Baritone. It's not a done deal. I have no idea whether you will continue to walk down the road you are on, or will turn to your Creator God, and to your Redeemer, his Son Jesus.

God is so merciful, you could call out to him on your deathbed, and he would still hear you. I hope you don't wait that long, though.

You say you've taken your assault on God to a new level, to shake believers out of their complacency.

Well, you shook me out of my complacency, and you must expect, at this "new level" to shake other believers out of theirs, but not in the way you've expected. The stronger your attack on God is, the stronger their defense of God will be, not for God's sake, Baritone, but for yours, and for the sakes of people being deceived by your words.

"...will turn to your Creator God, and to your Redeemer, his Son Jesus."

Kinda leaves all religious believers except those who follow the Jewish hippie out in the cold, doesn't it?

Doc,

The notion of "The Prime Mover" is a bit different than the "Prime Cause". Cause infers that there is purpose and purpose could be construed to be in the minds of men. However the physical act of motion is physical and outside of our desire for it to be there. So if you trace everything back, there must be a Prime Mover. That which made what happened, happen, I think is how the argument goes.

Also, there is the idea that there is greatness and beyond that greatness there is even more greatness. God is "That Which None Greater Can Be Conceived of". The question would be how one defines greatness. Then one may say, if you can define it, it isn't that great. The later conclusion would be that we can not define Him for we have no real knowledge of such greatness because of our finite state. To go back to your original statement, we can not even prove He exists because of our "limitedness". But we know that there is something that is greater than great.

Now some say that that exercise would extend infinitely; that there is no end to that discovery or that it would be circular or even cone shaped and then we'd have to address Poincare's Conjecture and so on and so on.

Dan, as with Ruvy, is bordering on hysteria. One cannot possibly criticize Jews or Israel without the immediate charge of anti-semitism. As I stated above, they would have us all believe the Israelis are the most "put upon" and mis-understood people in the world. Poor them.

While I certainly do not support Palestinian violence, the Israelis are no less guilty. You are fighting over dust. I don't give a rats ass about who was there first; whose, temple or mosque was built first. You are no different than two toddlers fighting over the same toy. All the crap about it being "sacred" or "holy" ground is meaningless.

Of course, Ms. Amanpour's report was considered "trash" by jews because she didn't gush in empathy and praise in total support of the Israeli cause. Instead, she attempted to illustrate that there are in fact two sides, or in this case, actually at least three sides to this story.

As I've noted elsewhere, and as is delineated more thoroughly in Chris Hitchen's book God is NOT Great, all three of the major monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam originated in the same part of the world out of pretty much the same culture. Their holy books contain much of the same material. All have had periods in their history wherein slaughter was the name of the game. All in their god's name.

While the Muslims, the relative new kids on the block, are currently on a "lets kill all the infidels" roll, the same kind of violence has been waged in the name of Judaism and Christianity. Their holy books are filled with wrathful mass murder. So, kiss my grits! It is your right wing agenda and dogged belief in a ridiculous myth which have brought us to the brink of annihilation.

Thank you SO much!

B-tone

"So if you trace everything back, there must be a Prime Mover. That which made what happened, happen, I think is how the argument goes."

Not if the universe is infinite.

Lee,

The revelation of God to man is not by our request per se. He chooses to reveal Himself to whom he chooses. You may stand on the highest mountain and scream out your desire to know Him, but if He has not choosen to reveal Himself to you, you will never see Him.

How tiny would He be to jump to our own whims, especially for our own folly. If He is who He is, why would He feel the need to reveal Himself to you merely because you say it should be?

Now...

What if he has made Himself known to you and you have missed it because of your own expectation of what He would have to be in order to be God to you. For if He matched what you know or expect, He wouldn't be Him now would he?

The reason that He cant be defined is because He is not one thing. The reason that He is personal, is because he comes to us in specific ways TO us alone.

Hence all people can say is that He knows the whole of you and loves you completely. The rest is the rest.

Zedd,

I would say that if the question goes on in a never ending "who created the creator who created the creator of the creator who...." then what's the point? To what end could we hope to achieve?
Why even deal with it? If, through our living and learning, something that could be called god is revealed to us, let's deal with it then. If god is so egotistical and petty, that he would bring eternal misery down on us simply because we didn't acknowledge him adequately, then what kind of a god is that? Certainly not one who "loves" mankind.

And Irene,

Explain to me just how, if god is omniscient, that our fate is NOT a "done deal." Make that clear to all of us, because any other conclusion makes absolutely no sense. Either god knows all, or he doesn't. If something I say or do during my brief little life makes him change his mind concerning my eternal fate, then he didn't know all did he? He would have to have had second thoughts, no? If he knew what I was going to say or do and where I'm headed in the great beyond, then it necessarily follows that its a "done deal." Fess up woman! You've got some "splainin" to do.

B-tone

Zedd,

Are you suggesting that this great omnipotent god might go to the trouble to reveal himself to someone and that someone wouldn't notice?

Give me a break!

"Naw, man. I didn't see no god. I was text messaging my main squeeze. I got priorities, man."
(I know, "main squeeze" is dated, but I didn't want to be overly offensive by using "bitch" or "ho" or some such, given how much I've apparently upset Irene.)

You are much deeper into this god thing than I gathered from your earlier posts. That's too bad. You are lost to rational discussion on the matter.

B-tone

"What if he has made Himself known to you and you have missed it because of your own expectation of what He would have to be in order to be God to you. For if He matched what you know or expect, He wouldn't be Him now would he?"

Reminiscent of a dog chasing his tail....

Then, of course, there is Douglas Adams' delicious take on this in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy when he introduces the creature called the Babel fish, which because of its ability to translate any form of language is so incredibly useful that it could not possibly have evolved by chance...

Let me see if I can remember it - I know Hitch-Hiker pretty much word for word:

"The argument goes something like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
'Ah,' says Man, 'but the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own argument, you don't.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
'Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets run over on the next zebra crossing*."



^{* Zebra crossing = crosswalk - in Britain, marked with black and white stripes painted on roadway.}

Baritone,

I rarely ever use the term "anti-Semite" to describe anybody. I prefer terms like "Jew-hater" or "Jew-hatred," based on the original German "judenhass." "Anti-Semite" was a term used by an Austrian Jew-hater who wanted to give himself and his hateful ideology some intellectual respectability. He founded the "Anti-Semite Party" to run in Viennese municipal elections.

I don't give my enemies any honor they don't deserve. Repsect, yes - honor, no.

It is evident from your words here and your writings elsewhere that you are not a Jew-hater. I too, am very picky with my words and nowhere on this site - not in all 6,000 comments or so - will you have seen me call you a Jew-hater. You, and Christopher Rose, are militant atheists living in a largely allegedly Christian society.

There is a huge body of Jewish literature asking or attempting to deal with "why do the goyim hate us so?" It is called "the apologia." Persecution hurts and long before I was born, Jews cried out about it, asking why.

Non-Jews rarely ever gave an honest answer, but they did give them, and the truth is that Jews, for the most part, do not want to hear them.

These then, are the reasons.

1. Jews have developed, over time, particularly in Europe, and most particularly in Eastern Europe, a culture of petty thievery, swindling and lying. While among non-Jews, Jews will behave, out of raw fear of a pogrom, among their own, they are arrogant, mean nasty, vicious and brazen. This is the every day culture in Israel today - that's how I know about it. Kike culture. I have become educated in a hateful ugliness that I never thought I would learn in my middle years. Non-Jews who did not have this in their own culture were disgusted by this. I didn't have it in the culture I lived in in Minnesota - I too am disgusted by it...

But by and large, Jews do not want to hear this; they shut it out (watch how other Jews condemn me for telling uncomfortable truths, Baritone). And I'll be very honest with you. As a child, my father tried to warn me about this and I shut it out, too.

German Jews, more prosperous than their eastern European brothers most assuredly did not want to be associated with this, particularly after Napoleon closed the ghettos and let the Jews out. This resulted in a hatred of eastern European Jews by German Jews that resulted ultimately with the power base of German Jews in America, the "Reform" Jews, doing everything they could to keep out the Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Poland and Nazi occupied eastern Europe. There is a lot of Jewish blood on the hands of the leaders of the Reform Jews in America. Notice, though, I did not say "innocent" blood.

2. Jews have been powerless and everybody hates someone who is powerless. Since the Romans destroyed the kingdom of Judea, and initiated a program of killing off Jews here that lasted centuries, Jews have usually been powerless. And, once Christianity took over the Roman Empire, in addition to hating Jews for being powerless, Jews were hated for refusing to change over to the "new world order" in accepting the "king of the Jews" who died, according to the Christians, by the treachery of the Jews.

The standard position of the Jew, in relation to the Christian over the centuries, has been the supplicant asking for kindness, the weak begging from the strong. For Jews to tell Christians, "fuck you", "go to hell", "drop dead", "touch me and I'll kill you," etc. is very scary for Jews in exile. It's even scarier in a Moslem society, where killing a threatening infidel is no big deal. The standard line in Cairene anti-Jewish or anti-Israel riots is "al yahúd klabná!!" - the Jews are our dogs. Moslems have no trouble shooting dogs...

So, imagine how revolutionary the ideas of the martyred Rabbi Meir Kahane, may G-d avenge his blood, were to me when I was a young man. Kahane's answer to non-Jews was precisely what scared the shit out of the Jewish establishment in America.

-His answer? The problem of Jew hatred is not a Jewish problem at all. The problem of Jew-hatred is the problem of the Jew-hater. It is up to us Jews to educate him in this. If "educating" the Jew-hater not to attempt to actualize his hatred (beating or killing up Jews or vandalizing Jewish institutions) required breaking his skull, or his neck or his back, nu - that is the price of learning. This means that the Jew walks with a straight back, no longer begging for aid, or help or pity or sympathy. And if you go over the 6,000 or so comments of mine since I've been part of Blog Critics, as well as ALL of my articles, you will see that theme running like a silver thread.

The only way the Jew can deal with the Jew-hater is to "educate" him not to attempt to actualize his hatred. Killing the Jew-hater in the process is only an issue of self-defense. After two thousand years, we've taken enough shit from you goyim. The thief of Jewish souls, the proselytizer, is the same, if not worse than the Jew-hater, and deserves the same education - and fate - particularly in the Land of Israel.

You may not care about these answers, Baritone - but you have gotten them. And they are not pretty, either. But it is the cold unvarnished truth...

LOL, Doc.

Hate to admit I haven't read the book (though I am aware of it), but you just inspired me to.

You definitely must, Clav. Not only is it hilarious, Adams' irreverent humanistic outlook is truly inspiring. Which is a really neat trick considering that all the actual humans (except two) get killed off at the beginning of the book...

Ruvy - why the diaspora and the bent back - ?

do you think that what you call the kike culture that has evolved is 'pleasing in Hashem's sight'...who are you to declare the banishment over - ?

perhaps - by straightening your back and taking on the task of 'educating' jew haters you have moved away from your position of supplicant before your deity as well as before the goyim

where is the righteousness in that - ?

...just wondering

troll,

The diaspora and the bent back are punishments for idolatry, immorality, cursing G-d and for needless hatred. I didn't declare the banishment of Jews over. Who am I? Evidently G-d did; the State of Israel and the success it has had up to now is the proof of that.

The kike culture that evolved in Eastern Europe - a culture of cheating, lying, swindling and needless hatred - was not a pleasing aroma to Hashem; it was the likely reason for the holocaust of Jews - but according to Rabbi Kahane, z"l, hi"d, the actions of the Nazis were excessive against the Jews, just like the actions of the Egyptians were excessive against the ancient Hebrews - and Germany and Europe will be judged as was Egypt. They have not paid yet - they were merely defeated in war.

Egypt was destroyed - Europe will be destroyed.

The era of Jewish supplication to the goyim is not quite over yet - witness the behavior of the Israeli government, which is willing to excise Judea and Samaria and redivide Jerusalem under American pressure; and of the big shot American Jews who squirm with discomfort over the issue of the Turkish genocide of the Armenians in 1915-16. They are afraid to antagonize the Turks or the Turkish government for the sake of the Jews who still live in Turkey, and for the sake of the so-called "alliance" between Turkey and Israel. They are afraid to admit to the truth - even ninety years after the fact. Cowardice and spinelessness still characterizes the diaspora Jew.

And finally - the hard part to write - the kike culture that exists here virtually guarantees that G-d's judgment of us here will be severe and difficult. Many of us here will die - the seemingly innocent, as well as the clearly guilty.

But the straight backed Jew who is not afraid of the persecutor and who is willing to kill him, is the outrider of the future.

*I didn't declare the banishment of Jews over. Who am I? Evidently G-d did; the State of Israel and the success it has had up to now is the proof of that.*

in your own writings you have described how the State of Israel is far from the religiously just Kingdom that your book predicts will someday be home for the jews

yet you call for jews to return 'home' now

your faith in your ability to read tea leaves and your deity's will is impressive - almost diabolical...get thee behind me

#76 Clavos, but does it really leave every other kind of believer out in the cold? The righteous Jews who died before Jesus was born are in Heaven. What about the pre-Christian God-fearing people in other nations, and those who have never heard of his name today? God takes notice of those who love God even if they haven't heard of Jesus. Look at the example of Cornelius in the book of Acts chapter 10. Christians are told to bear witness to Jesus, but that isn't the ONLY way God has of getting the word out. But once you've heard and understood Jesus Christ's invitation to you, the ball is in your court.

By the way, God does know who will spend eternity with him, but I don't, and Baritone, well, I assume Baritone has surprised himself once or twice in the last few decades.

troll, Forgive my arrogant blasphemy, in advance, but isn't the OPPOSITE of "Replacement Theology" described in Romans 11:26-31? And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes, but as touching the election they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

Climb up to that pineapple of compassion, troll!

And Ruvy, you should lighten up a bit, too. If someone comes up to you on the street talking about Jesus, and you don't want to hear him, why not just walk away, or tell him you aren't interested? You told me once you'd be interested in reading what I had to say if I had a blog, and what gave you the impression that I'd go for more than 3 paragraphs without referring to My Friend JC? Why be so afraid of us? I'm not afraid of you. I think Judaism is interesting.

Irene,

I have apparently become the top bad guy here. I would suggest to you that as your god is apparently the ultimate egoist, simply my assertions that he doesn't exist earned me my walking papers to hell. My potty mouthed outbursts are irrelevant as regards my eternal rewards.

I am a bit puzzled, though about your comment above: "I assume Baritone has surprised himself once or twice in the last few decades." Just how may I have "surprised" myself?

Also, I have yet to see your response to my earlier questions regarding the reconciliation of god's supposed omniscience and predestination. Any thoughts?

B-tone

"Also, I have yet to see your response to my earlier questions regarding the reconciliation of god's supposed omniscience and predestination. Any thoughts?"

Yeah, that's one of the big ones for me, too. The catholic priests couldn't give me an answer that satisfied me on that one, either.

Some mumbo-jumbo about free will; but it didn't account for the paradox between omniscience and their insistence there is no predestination.

Baritone - What, am I yer Ask It Basket Handmaiden? But lo, I notice Clavos has obviated my scrolling clear up to the top to see the question about predestination.

How have you surprised yourself? Baritone, I will weave the answer to that in my answer (=stab at) your omniscience/predestination question.

In case time constraints prevent me from answering TONIGHT as thoroughly as I'd like, I will make like Socrates and give you a few questions to get your brains ready.

All set?

Irene - funny that you should bring up Romans 11: 26 - 31 coming as it does right before one of my favorite bits of Paul's sophistry: Romans 11: 32 *For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.*

what a load of twisted crap

...and whatever one's view of supersessionism it has no relevance in my conversation with Ruvy for whom the NT is not gospel

Doc,

I LOVE Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Didn't they try to remake the series or movie a few years ago?

I was addicted to the series in my early 20's (highly closeted super geek). I'm excited just reading your post.

OK here are those questions, Baritone and Clavos. I worked hard on these, and I want you to work hard to answer them. I will post them in 3 parts, so as not to jam the comment facility.

Troll: Do I look like a Pope? You need to wait in line if you want an answer from this Protestant. Better yet, let Zedd give it a whirl.

Baritone and Clavos

1. When did time start?

2. Assuming God exists, did He exist before time?

3. Or did time start when God started?
God, by definition, is the First Cause, and if God exists and is the First Cause, then he started himself, which means...he didn't HAVE a start. He always was. (Stephen Hawking doesn't have any trouble believing that the Universe didn't have a beginning.) So the answer to question 3 is obviously No. The answer is, No. And thus the answer to question 2 is yes. And thus the answer to question 1 is "God was before time was."

4. Have you ever heard a physicist propose that when you reached the end of the physical universe, you had actually reached the BEGINNING of the physical universe, too?

...I didn't ask a question Irene - so no pressure

5. Do you think the boundaries of time might share some of the same properties as the boundaries of the physical universe?

6. As a person who does NOT believe in God right now--the default belief is Evolution, am I correct?--do you believe that you truly are the initiator of any of your own thoughts and actions? Are they not the result of long-ago random events that caused chain reactions, the chain reactions combining to create new chain reactions that resulted in the activation of certain of your neural networks to produce what you call your own thoughts and actions? Has Baritone ever made plans to do something in the future, or said, I will NEVER do such and so, and then ended up doing it? Is it because Baritone changed his mind, or did random processes change his mind for him?

7. (Assuming there is a God) do you think the advent of your birth, and indeed your very being, come as rather a surprise to God?

8. Read 2 Peter 3:9 (remember 2 Peter, NOT 1 Peter). Is this consistent with the belief that God would predestine anyone to hell?

Why would anyone who doesn't believe in god care enough about those questions to answer them?

Dave

9. (Assuming there is a God) which came first, God's foreknowledge of you, or his predestination? (Read Ephesians 1:4-6.)

10. Is predestination necessarily an assignment by God to an eternal destiny in Heaven or in Hell? or might it mean predestination to something else? Read Ephesians 2:10. In light of the Scriptures you read in questions 8 and 9 is it possible that God gave EVERYONE gifts and abilities and resources and conscience--advantages that we could choose to disregard--to do foreordained good works?

11. Reread, and think about, your answers to questions 1 through 10. Now, please read Romans 8: 28 -39. Then reread your answers to questions 7 through 10 again. Can you express in your own words Romans chapter 8 verses 28 through 30?

Thankyou, and God bless you.

Baritone,

Why even deal with it? If, through our living and learning, something that could be called god is revealed to us, let's deal with it then.

Yes, that is the point. Those who come to know Him "deal" with him and those who don't, don't deal with him.

Now as to what the point is, if He does exist, that would be our reality. Not knowing what our reality, and purpose is my be sufficient but knowing it changes one's outlook.

If god is so egotistical and petty, that he would bring eternal misery down on us simply because we didn't acknowledge him adequately, then what kind of a god is that? Certainly not one who "loves" mankind.

I missed how we reached the conclusion that He is egotistical. That would imply that we understand His intent. If we knew His intent then He wouldn't be God. He would possess human characteristics.

I always go back to the toddler who wants to go into the middle of the street to play. While he may kick and scream when you scoop him up and put him back on safer ground, you remain steadfast in your decision to keep him off the road. While he may be angry and feel mistreated, and disregarded, your knowledge makes his desire unthinkable.

We can not understand God's ways because we are not God. We don't have a capability nor the vantage point to assess or judge what He does. We are tiny, much like the toddler to us.

Now, as to your assumption that your lack of belief renders you to be much more rational, I'd say, you haven't responded adequately to the arguments for the existence of God. You've basically attributed characteristics that you have made up to God and then said that because of those made up characteristics, he couldn't exist.

That is not lucid. Try again and THEN you can call me irrational once you've made a good argument. I'll warn you though, the greatest philosophers through time have let this one go :o) So you've got your work cut out.

Baritone,

It seems to me that you are saying that God is not God because He doesn't do things the way you think they SHOULD be done.

Now would he be God if he did?

Zedd,

Yes, a big-screen version came out a couple of years ago. I didn't think much of it, which was sad, because it's the only version of the story I haven't liked.

Besides the Hitch-Hiker canon, I'd also recommend Adams's Dirk Gently books, which are slightly more cerebral than Hitch-Hiker but have the same one-step-sideways-from-reality take on life.

Irene,

I don't know anything about Catholicism.

I was raised non-denominational but take by faith to be a personal thing.

Dave, that was just plain cutting and uncalled for. Baritone asked me in #95, and Clavos expressed interest in the answer, too, in #96. I think YOU should answer them, too Dave Nalle. It'll be fun.

Well that about does it. I actually think further commentary from me on the omniscience/predestination matter would be superfluous. It's best when people think for themselves. So have fun with those questions.

Doc,

Thanks I will look for them.

Ah, Zedd, I see. Well, I know practically nothing about Dr. Who. There's room for everybody in a discussi