Comments by Economist1943

Written on Letter: Show God we want back in his grace:

in response to Polycarp:

I'm sure Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Pol Pot, Kim il-Sung, and Christopher Hitchens would concur....

P.S. Wherever in Dante's great Inferno those great souls presently reside.

More craziness from the religious fringe.

Written on Letter: Too much suffering to attribute to all-powerful, loving creator:

in response to arsenal57#524248:

Yawn.........the great ape has spoken his continuous drivel with his unproven belief system. He has yet to prove to anyone he is who he says he is. Makes a lot of claims,but with no concrete evidence. He claims he lives 2 time zones proof. He claims he attends a church in proof. He claims there is no God and yet attends a universal church in Ft. Pierce. His belief system has no foundational proof. Sigh.

How's that Nobel Prize-winning paper on the origin of the universe coming along?

Written on Letter: New barbarians have corrupted our thinking:

The only reason to keep believing in the moldy New Testament, or the even moldier Old Testament, is the fear of death. Some people were taught they were born bad and the only way to avoid eternal damnation in a lake of fire is to deny their ability to reason and believe an invisible ghost really cares about them, if only they enslave themselves to it.

In the United States in the 21st century, such beliefs defy belief! The Bible has always been used by charlatans as a weapon to control the thoughts of others. Anyone who preaches the Bible as "truth" is lying, whether he or she knows or accepts it or not.

If you don't like gay people, don't be one. If you don't like women's rights, keep your wife barefoot and pregnant and don't let her vote. But it's the 21st century and this isn't Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. No theocracy will ever exist in this country. And no one will any longer be allowed to use biblical fictions to control anyone else's behavior.


More craziness from the religious fringe. Must be something in the electricity up in Vero Beach. Religion is in decline here in the U.S. (Hurrah!), but we still have a higher percentage of people who ID as "Christian" than any other developed country. If there were a God it wouldn't have any reason to think the U.S. was turning away. There's no "God," so all this blathering about one is a bunch of noise.

And that's the problem. Too many delusional people are looking for simple answers because the religion that was force-fed them destroyed their ability to think. Faith in a ghost is not only a waste of time, it stands in the way of getting at and solving our problems.

Written on Letter: Christianity is not defined by how churches interpret it:

in response to Polycarp:

Of course, I will admit that EnviroLefty2 may've meant Jesus when he actually said Francis.

P.S. Atheists are also known for mangling the English language... as much as they are for distorting theology.

Christian leaders are known for child rape and conspiring to protect child-rapers from prosecution. These are the "men of God" who sit on their high chairs and dictate behavior to their brain-dead flocks.

The question you should be asking about the new pope isn't what's he going to do with the church, it's what did he do in Argentina? Oh, that's right, he only sold out a couple of priests who resisted the military dictatorship. From a Nazi to a Fascist; my, my, how the Church has progressed. Jesus would be sooo proud.


in response to Polycarp:

No I didn't... The question was: Exactly when did the 'Church' ever claim that Saint Francis (or anyone else besides Jesus for that matter) was divine?. The question was never answered.

P.S And how can I see what you yourself claims does not exist? And why would I (or anyone else for that matter) be surprised to see it!

P.P.S. You know, you atheists really need to be a little bit more careful with your choice of words. You're beginning to sound like...well, atheists!

Geez. He said "They couldn't put Francis on the level of Jesus, but he got as close as a mortal can. Francis never wanted that, nor did Jesus. Both were hijacked by the church for the church's benefit." What part of that didn't you understand?

He put more time into giving an intelligent answer than you do in all your inane, juvenile comments. Grow some self respect. Sometimes I think you're really an atheist masquerading as a believer, because you seem to go out of your way to make believers look pathetic. If that's the case, apologies, and keep up the good work!


in response to bartman#265011:

The author of this letter has zero knowledge of God or the bible, so I cannot take his questions regarding God or faith seriously.
Unless Mr. Obrien takes the time and effort to educate himself about the "real" message of the bible and not the totally misguided liberal interpretation I lend no credence whatsoever to his protestations.
Look, it's actually quite simple. God created man. Man rebelled against God. God gave man up to his own devices only to see man go his own way. All of the catastrophes enumerated in his letter happened as a result of sin.

"Look, it's actually quite simple."

There you go. A simple explanation for simple-minded believers. The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.

Written on The Catholic church has chosen a new pope: Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio | Photo galleries:

The new CEO has his work cut out for him. While Catholicism is growing in the global south, Islam is outpacing it overall. By mid-century, Muslims are set to number 1/3 of the world's population.

Religions are essentially political. Christianity and Islam are tools of nationalism wherever they dominate. Thus no accommodation beyond a cease fire is ever possible between them. South America is safe for Catholics, but Islam has made deep inroads in Africa, where the Catholic population is also increasing.

The best hope for peace lies in the dismantling of all religious cults. Nationalist fervor will endure, but stripped of their delusional belief that some supernatural entity empowers them, the warring factions might decide to sit down and negotiate with one another.

No matter how they dress it up, Catholicism or any other tint of Christianity will always be seen as Western incursion in any land accessible to Islam. If China is smart, it will sit out the battle and let both sides beat each other senseless, then walk in and take over. It would be a shame if the only way for religion to finally wear out its welcome was if the two major players destroyed each other, allowing atheist China to become the only global power. But history is funny that way. The rest of this century will be very interesting to see, if not pleasant to live through.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

in response to Stuartvoter:

Asking if someone has some experience with the subject over which they claim to be expert is not "bad question or bad tactic" despite your DECLARATION to the contrary. If you can not understand why having experience is pertinent to a debate why should you enter into it? I'm betting you have no experience either and it is an inferiority complex talking.

Thanks, however, for the good luck wishes. You should know that there are many people "howling at the moon" and the gun fetishers have virtually no chance of success long term because of all of the evidence to the contrary. Thinking people will prevail in the long term. Notice the last statement in the foreign press piece below, "Then the United States, finally, can come up to the same level as other civilized countries." Are you really so out of it to see that the rest of the world see us as a bunch of crazies?

Here is a nice piece from From De Standaard (Belgium)
"De Standaard"
"Voor de meest buitenlandse waarnemers ligt de oplossing van het wapenprobleem in de VS voor de hand. Eerst moet er opnieuw een verbod komen op het bezit van militaire aanvalswapens, die helemaal niet thuishoren in de handen van privépersonen. Een goede federale reglementering, met inbegrip van controles van het verleden van kandidaat-wapenbezitters, de registratie van vuurwapens en beperkingen op het aantal en de aard van de wapens die iemand mag bezitten, zou de Verenigde Staten eindelijk op hetzelfde niveau brengen als andere beschaafde landen. Een kordaat optreden tegen de wetgeving van Amerikaanse staten die het dragen van verborgen wapens in het openbaar toelaten, zou daar ook toe bijdragen."

[For most foreign observers, the solution of the gun problem in the U.S. is obvious. First, there must be another ban on the possession of military assault weapons, which do not belong in the hands of private individuals. Good federal regulations, including background checks of current gun owners, registration of firearms and restrictions on the number and type of weapons that anyone can possess; Then the United States, finally, can come up to the same level as other civilized countries. Vigorous action against the laws of American states that permit the wearing of concealed weapons in public would also help.]

Did the author of that "nice piece" ever live in the U.S.?

Calling us "gun fethishers".... yeah, that will gain cooperation down the line.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

in response to Polycarp:

I guess it's not worth arguing about, Eco. Obviously, one of us is wrong; and either way, I suppose we'll both find out, sooner or later. I wish you well, my friend.

P.S. So I take it you're in your late thirties...

I won't find out, I'll be dead!

Yes, I'm 29 going on 70.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

in response to Stuartvoter:

Swamp_Ape666 suffers from that quintessentially American disease of thinking because he "has an opinion" that said "opinion is valid."

Swamp_Ape666, How many societies have you experienced? Have you ever lived in a place with real gun control? What was it that you found wrong with the place you lived that had said gun control? Please name the place and relate your experiences that led you to form your "opinion"

If you have not lived in or experienced these societies, please explain to us why your "opinion" on something in which you are not qualified to hold an opinion is valid? Because from my viewpoint your "opinion" on "gun control" is about as "expert" as a Soviet citizen's opinion of American society?

Bad question, bad tactic. What do you mean by "found wrong" about another country? Aside from the fact that its citizens are unable to protect themselves from armed criminals? We don't live in another country. We live in this one, with 300 million firearms in private hands. Good luck with your agenda. You might as well howl at the moon.


in response to noholdingback:

Allen West for President....DOWN WITH OB-LOSER!!!!!!

Haven't you watched FuNCky "news" since election night? Did you turn it off before Roverboy had his Ohio Meltdown? Have you missed all of Ann Romney's "We were entitled!" weeping?

Obama WON, even right here in Florida.

Just thought you should know. You can go back to watching "Happy Days" reruns now.

Written on Letter: Apparently no problem offending Catholics with pope cartoon:

in response to unnerved:

It's really funny. Many millenia ago, back in 2nd grade, the teacher (in my case a nun)would whisper to the first student, the student to the next, on and on. By the time it got to the last student, it had nothing to do with what the teacher told the first kid. That is exactly what every one of these comment columns do. I believe the main point of the original commentary was that, if this derogatory cartoon was about a Muslim or other religion, Jihad would break out all over the world, but it's ok for it to be about catholics. Just ask Obama.

Muhammad didn't wimp out and take a cushy retirement when the going got rough. Muhammad started one of the largest religions on the planet. The Pope couldn't even manage a going concern.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

in response to SlyFox:

There is a theory of debate practice. I would not expect you would have such knowledge so I will just go ahead and enlighten you. It seems that those with a superior intellect lower themselve when they debate a lesser intellect...

There's no doubt how low your intellect is. You think Obama's going to sign an executive order banning elections? You talk about theory of debate practice and refer to liberalism as a terminal disease? And your spelling stinks. Nice try at trying to act enlightened. Your head is firmly planted in the muck at the bottom of the gene pool.


Burn that money, West. You made such good use of it in the last election. Failed officer, failed teacher, failed politician, soon-to-be failed PAC-man. The hits just keep on coming.


in response to Dunkum:

While you all debate, my wife's first cousin is in Rome voting for the next Pope. He is Cardinal Thomas Collins of Toronto. He has a very slight chance of becoming the next Pope, very slight. Wouldn't it be interesting?

Tom Collins? I'll drink to that! You'd sure turn heads at the local Irish pub when you said, "Now, as my wife's cousin the Pope said the other day..." It could be worse. You could be related to an Iranian ayatollah. "I'm wearing this fake mustache because my wife's cousin the ayatollah put a fatwah on me," would empty out the bar in a hurry!

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

I read several books by Allan Watts, Christian (!) Humphrys, D.T. Suzuki and others in the 70s. Obviously I was interested in what they had to say. They had their paths, you have yours, and I have mine. I see no reason to 'take it farther' and speculate on the supernatural or waste time considering the "wisdom of insecurity." My life's fine just as it is.

When it comes to "spiritual" or philosophical matters I don't need accommodation with anyone. Statements made by self-described "Christians" have turned me from a tolerant atheist into a militant one. I see what their faith has done to damage their ability to reason, and their blatant attempts to corrupt society with their falsehoods.

You're as likely to convert them to something Zen-like as I am to get them to renounce their faith. My only reason for commenting here is to counter their irrational claims, which I know would infringe on my civil rights if they had their way.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

in response to Polycarp:

How can you (or anyone else for that matter) respect humanity... without respecting who, or what, made humanity?

P.S. Or at least acknowledging that it exists.

I don't understand why Christians have to feel they were created in order to feel valuable. I'm unfamiliar with Catholic teachings, but I guess that was a major part of it. Somehow I grew up with self respect, yet had no belief in a creator. It's all in how you're raised. The long-term effects of early childhood experience are nowhere more obvious than in the differences between you and me. Having seen a photo of you I think we're about the same age. Had we been brought up in each other's households, we'd each be arguing from the opposite position. There's no "creator" element involved here at all.


in response to Polycarp:

As opposed to 'secular' indoctrination...

P.S. I 'spose.

Yes, there is secular indoctrination. Public schools, at least when I attended them, definitely had a role in indoctrinating us. Public schools not only taught useful stuff, like how to do our taxes, but also fostered nationalism and justified the national political-economic system. Authoritarianism in the name of control isn't limited to religion.

Religion once was useful as a tool for social organization. A state religion doubly bound citizens to "higher authority."

Teaching people to question religious authority isn't enough. We should independently question all authority. Unfortunately for this country's future, we seem to be driving ourselves into two opposing camps with no intention of giving an inch. One of those camps has co-opted Christianity, making the other appear atheistic. This despite the fact that many atheists are politically conservative. Notably, Ayn Rand, who inspired Paul Ryan. Christianity gained some notoriety through the co-opting, but it also opened itself up to being treated as only a water carrier for a political ideology.

Seeking to gain even more influence, many religious leaders let themselves be led into disputed secular territory. This adds credibility to my contention that religion is about control, not morality. As the nation drifts to the left, religion is increasingly perceived as guilty by association. Sometimes the only way to win a fight is to stay out of it.


in response to 25percenter:

Beating up on the Catholic Church is easy. I would love to start seeing cartoons of the "Profit Mohammed" in the paper. Let us see if you are able to exercise your 1st Amendment right to free speech by criticizing the Quran. You will be the subject of death threats.

No, the mainstream, liberal media is to afraid to go against Islam in any way shape or form.

If Muslims were writing these letters we'd be just as hard on them. If the majority of Americans were Muslims and the Muslim "pope" resigned under the cloud of scandal facing Benny, the press would go after him. If you set yourself up as infallible and the cabal you lead is glaringly corrupt, you'd better expect criticism. Especially if your cabal has millions of adherents in this country.

Christianity doesn't have to resort to death threats anymore. That's all in the past. If Islam had succeeded in Europe you'd be bending your knees to the "Profit" (sic) Mohammed.

Your attempt to justify an American newspaper giving Christianity or Catholicism a break not accorded to secular institutions is evidence of your inability to reason. Very possibly that's the consequence of religious indoctrination.

Written on Letter: Ignorance underlines statements denigrating other faiths:

Believers are selectively ignorant about science, too. The Christian "faith" is not about morals. Morals come into the discussion only as an argument for more religious incursion into civil affairs. If only we allowed prayer in school, "God" would protect children from shooters. Statements like that are breathtaking in their insensitivity, and in their condemnation of anything resembling a merciful creator. Over and over, believers undermine what they seek to advance.

The bottom line for Christianity as practiced today is the reward of heaven for belief in the unprovable, coupled with the threat of hell for disbelief. Religion has nothing left to offer but fear. It's no better than any other tyrannical regime in that sense, only the threat is post mortem. Secular tyrants act on their threats, religious tyrants are mostly prevented from doing so, in this country anyway. Once Constantine killed almost anyone in his power who refused to be "converted," Christianity's success in Europe was assured. These conversions came at the point of the sword, not through divine inspiration. (Unless you want to argue that Constantine was divinely inspired to kill refuseniks. That places him right up there on the podium with Stalin and Mao, doesn't it?)

The motivations of Christians who post here are clear, because they state them. And they all come back to the hoped-for eternal life of bliss. I've never seen a letter or comment from a self-professed Christian that said anything resembling any non-supernatural words attributed to Jesus. Jesus was anything but selfish, but the people who invoke his name around here are nothing else. Christianity fragmented because it was perverted early in its existence. It stopped being about "how can we be Christ-like" and became all about "how can we more easily gain power by making converts to our brand of self-interested dogma?"

There are millions of believers left in the world. Preying on selfish tendencies pays better than teaching we're only mortal, and ought to live decently in the short time we have. Religion is divisive and dishonest. The supernatural being irrational, there is no rational way for humans to develop a universal faith in the supernatural. The best hope for humanity is to dispense with all superstitions and respect one another for our common humanity.


in response to Polycarp:

But how can you be so sure that God has already 'warned them'... if He doesn't even exist? Your words, Swamp, not mine.

P.S. Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.
- John Milton (Paradis Lost)

"John Milton called in [his polemic, titled] _Aeropagitica_* for 'the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties' (applied however, only to the conflicting Protestant sects, and not to atheists, Jews, Moslems or even Catholics).



Free speech -- but only for Protestants!

Written on TurboCombustor Technology hopes to hire 400; Gov. Scott attends ribbon cutting:

Fingers crossed. TCT has been around a long time, but their website says they are owned in part by the Carlyle Group, which just reported a 41% drop in earnings.

Looks like a good company, so best of luck to them!


in response to Polycarp:

Jesus is not a concept... He is God.

P.S. And I still don't see what all this has to do with feeding the poor.

According to the _Economist_, the CathChurch in the U.S. spent $170 BILLION in 2010, of which only 2.7% went to charitable activities. While a sizable sum, it pales in comparison with the program spending of even poorly rated secular non-profits.

"The church is the largest single charitable organisation in the country. Catholic Charities USA, its main charity, and its subsidiaries employ over 65,000 paid staff and serve over 10m people. These organisations distributed $4.7 billion to the poor in 2010, of which 62% came from local, state and federal government agencies."


in response to Polycarp:

I believe Saint Peter would disagree... and so would Jesus.

- Matthew 16:18

Ho-hum. More dead guys. According to legend, Peter had the chance to flee but after hallucinating that he saw Jesus, he went back to Rome, to be crucified upside-down.

Characteristics common to death cults:

A charismatic leader
A common set of beliefs
Partly collective isolation from society
A concept of a hostile society
A concept of armageddon
Striving for a better life


in response to Polycarp:

- John 15:18

When all else fails -- and as far as Joe's concerned, it has -- wrap yourself in the death shroud of martyrdom. Hey, it's cool to pretend people hate you for your beliefs. It's also juvenile and pretentious. No one hates Jesus. The Catholic Church has turned Jesus's death into a commodity and abdicated its moral responsibilities to preserve itself. That the church has endured is no justification for what it's done to cover its criminal acts.


(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Written on Letter: There they go again, liberals mocking free-thinking Americans' beliefs:

Robert and Margaret Decker, free thinkers? More like the George Burns and Gracie Allen of political commentary. Say 'goodnight,' Margie.


The Catholic Church is an offense to your intelligence and reason. Under Rottweiler's watch the church willfully covered up child rape and protected the offenders. The fleeing pope and the institution he represents deserves all the ridicule it gets.

Written on Letter: Bible may be difficult to interpret, but not Christ's actions:

in response to arsenal57#524248:

More of the same drivel from the 4 sound like a broken record.

How's your Nobel Prize-winning paper on the origin of the universe coming along?


"We can only understand God’s word in its historical, cultural, and spiritual contexts, but with hearts willing to seek God and surrender to his will."

Well, Ms Olivos, you may wish to be a slave to a fairytale, but nothing you've said makes me want to join you. Your apparent belief that you're a sinner is your personality defect. Deal with it as you like. The Bible is a collection of old myths and legends written by men who knew nothing about the world around them, so they made it up. Now it's used to control people who actually believe a ghost will let them burn in Hell if they don't believe in ghosts. Say what? Really, Ms Olivos, it's 2013. Isn't it time you grew up and stopped believing in ghosts?

Written on Letter: The status of America's Christian tradition should be preserved:

in response to truthiztruth7:

Please state the objective evidence you have for the assertion that The historical record regarding Jesus is a myth or legend.
The beginnings of Christinaity hardly qualify as victorious. Christians were hunted and tortured. The powers that be did almost everything they could to eradicate the faith, and those who held it. the foundational history of Christianity ocurred and was recorded during this period.
They were very careful writers, which is one reason why their record of history can be trusted as accurate.
The Judeo Christian worldview answers all of the critical questions of life more consistently and better than any other philosophical position.
What do you mean b y "LITERALLY"? To what words are you specifically referring?

The Clear command of Jesus and the Apostles was to proclaim the message of the gospel to every corner of the globe. Guiding others to CHrist in word and deed is a specific and primary responsibility for believers. If you wish, I can point you to explicit passages.
What is your definition of shoving tradition in someon'es face? Could you describe what you believe that looks like

If you say Jesus not only performed miracles but rose up into the skies, then it's up to you to prove it. And the Bible is not good enough. No matter how many times you lie, the 'gospels' were written by men who weren't there. There are no contemporary accounts. Caesar's dead, but according to you, Jesus is still hanging around. Prove it. We have had this discussion numerous times. You continue to act the child, then you whine when you're treated like one.

If Jesus did miracles then and he's still around as you claim, and you have such a swell personal relationship with him, let's see a miracle. Maybe he can turn Lake Okeechobee into wine? Face it: The guy croaked 2000 years ago and hasn't been seen since. If you have real evidence beyond your hallucinations, let's see it! If you can't provide it, don't presume to come all condescending with "Please state the objective evidence you have..." You've got no objective evidence, and when you say you do you are lying. Don't think you can get away with playing it back on intelligent, rational people. You're not dealing with your flock of fearful sheep here.


in response to truthiztruth7:

PLease state what you mean by the mythology and legend of Jesus. To what specifically are you referring?
A great deal of history is exact.
Please explain how the gospel message of the new testament would be an example of the victors getting the spoils and writing history.

Don't be a child. We can see the Eiffel Tower and the moon. There's archeological evidence for the Gallic Wars and no historian doubts Julius Caesar wrote a history of his involvement.

What have you got for Jesus? The Bible and a disputed paragraph in Josephus. What have got for the miracles? Myths and legends written decades later by people who weren't there.

Someone who raised the dead didn't come to Roman notice? Really? You believe that stuff? You expect us to believe that stuff? You expect to be taken seriously?

Logically, if you really believe heaven exists....


March 8, 2013
5:14 p.m.

"Not claiming anything."

March 7, 2013
3:17 p.m.

"Nope. I am presenting fact. My perception recognized what is truth through examination and experience.
"I am not presenting or speaking for a religion. I present a relationship with God based on the death and resurrection of Jesus."

March 8, 2013
12:33 p.m.

"The christian worldview presents specific truths about things."


in response to truthiztruth7:


Of course you're attacked personally. Your four-point proposition is a Frankenstein of irrationality. I think it shows you have no argument and are grasping at straws. There is no reason or logic to your question, therefore no way to reasonably discuss it.

Personal attacks are corrective if you pay attention to them. Come back with something rational and then reasonable people may care to discuss it with you.

Religion being intentionally irrational, that's as likely to happen as the Second Coming, but your religion exists only in your mind, which you're free to change if you wish to be taken seriously.


in response to IconicT1:

I think you using PS shows us how old you really must be! HAHA You are so funny! Never get banned.... please!!!

He was banned, last year. Forget who he used to be. He and tizt are proof that religion is bad for your mental health. They should put this sticker on Bibles:

Surgeon General's Warning

Contents Are Hazardous To Your Mental Health

Religion Causes Delusions And Hallucinations, And Impairs Ability To Reason

Exposure To Second-Hand Religion Is Dangerous


in response to SLCINO:

I'm going to approach this as a serious question, though you often seem to be a troll. As a child, my authorities were my parents. Through good fortune I was raised to think for myself. I've accepted the authority of others when required, but I've never assumed they had all the answers or were telling the truth, simply because they bore some title or honorific. I was the kid who pissed off the teachers by asking questions, and standing up for other students I thought were being put down for doing the same. Several teachers condescendingly told me I should become a lawyer. I saw through that. Authority resents being questioned or disagreed with! So, while I respect the offices of authority as far as necessary, I reserve the right to question -- or mock, if appropriate -- anyone claiming to be an authority.

When it comes to making decisions that don't affect the public order, I learned to do my homework. Largely because my teachers often couldn't answer my questions! I "religiously" drive the speed limit, come to a full stop at stop signs, and pay my taxes on time. But when it comes to matters of public policy, and religion, as you know, I refuse to accept as fact anything anyone says unless I can verify it.

A major problem with religion is its irrationality. (Believers are _taught_ to see that as a feature, because the "authorities" have no other explanation, and can't possibly have one. The irrational, by definition, is incapable of explanation.) To "believe" means accepting a set of implausible and self-contradictory statements. Religious belief requires accepting what you were taught by some self-justifying authority, even when your rational mind wants to reject it. It means trusting without question someone you must perceive as superior to you.

Tizt says we should read the Bible. I have, carefully, more than once. It's a self-validating text with slight literary merit, not an authoritative reference. Saying, "The OT says this, and then the NT says that, therefore the NT validates the OT prophecy, therefore the Bible is true," is unacceptable. You only can believe that if you trust without thinking the people who told it to you. That someone is a self-described teacher does not make them smarter, better informed, or even honest.

So, in the context of this discussion, I have no perceived authority. I apply the same rigor to fact-checking myself that I demand from others. I know the Bible as well as tizt, and I know I know a lot more about other subjects than he does. So when he tries to come across as an authority on anything, I feel quite justified in pointing out he's anything but. I've never seen any reason to suffer fools.

Jesus lived at a time and in a place where the existence of a supernatural power was accepted. A priest class arose within that community, coincident with Roman rule. Authority was divided between the spiritual-political authority of the Pharisees and the absolute civil authority of the Roman Empire. Working together, they maintained law and order.

For this discussion, let's accept the non-supernatural elements of the Gospels as gospel. Jesus had no issues with Roman civil authority; only with the Pharisees. Not with their politics or their cozy relationship with the Romans. With their claims of spiritual authority, which placed them between the people and the deity. The metaphors of faith were lost to practice, because the authority to perform practices is what sets authority above and apart from those it controls.

An important point Jesus taught has been lost down the centuries: You don't need spiritual authority. So what came in his wake? The rise of spiritual authority the Pharisees never dreamt of!

Setting aside the supernatural, probably superimposed by later, authority-seeking authors, Jesus taught good works. Within the context of his times he tied this into faith in the deity, which loomed large in that culture at that time. The Gnostic Gospels, in which the afterlife plays a minor or non-existent role, never made it into the Christian canon. The existence of a real Heaven, and a real Hell, wonderfully conjured by John of Patmos in the Book of Revelation (which almost didn't make it into the canon, due to its hallucinatory imagery), were required to rebrand a small-town Jew into a symbol acceptable to Gentiles across the Roman Empire.

Once Christianity was dogmatized, the radical, anti-authoritarian Jesus was transformed into an innocent lamb. Fact: Jesus was crucified because he threatened the AUTHORITY of the Pharisees. The bit about dying for our sins was tacked on by the marketing department.

Early Christians were persecuted because they threatened Rome's authority. The persecution had nothing directly to do with what they believed, only that their beliefs were in conflict with Roman law. Like most radical movements, once Christians gained the upper hand they became that which they once abhorred. Once in power, all radical movements become conservative and unbending. Stalin killed Trotsky for the same reason the Pharisees killed Jesus, the Romans killed Christians and the Christians killed "heretics." Christian authorities still grasp for more power.

Those who claim to speak authoritatively about their faith mostly know nothing about its history, and some of them (not mentioning any screen names) flat out lie about the history when confronted with it. There's some good stuff in the Bible, if you look past the nutty supernatural passages, but the work has been co-opted by later wannabe authorities to perpetuate a hierarchical dynasty that likely would make Jesus weep in anguish.

Written on Letter: Assenting to policies designed to strangle American dream:

You start out talking against what you see as a "socialistic-trending" government, but your examples are of unrestrained global capitalism. With a jab at unions who are, of course, the reason American car manufacturers kept cranking out gas-guzzlers while Japan flooded the market with fuel-efficient smaller cars. The Warton-Harvard-Darmouth grads who run corporations are never to blame. They just outsource, downsize and buy another yacht.

Socialism never springs up unbidden. It always arrives in response to social problems, and those problems are always the result of capitalist greed.

An economy in which one family, most of whose members simply collect dividends, owns as much wealth as 40% of the country, screams for social upheaval. Be grateful for the crumbs the non-socialist Obama is tossing to the less-fortunate victims of the latest capitalist debacle. Those crumbs may be all that keep the knife from your throat.

Written on Letter: Assisted suicide is sad example of human beings playing God:

in response to Polycarp:

I wa asking, specifically, where it says: "God sacrificed himself to himself to save us all from himself."

P.S. I thought even you would understand that.

For a guy who quotes the Bible so often, you sure don't know it.


John 10:30 - “I and My Father are one.”

You must be instructed, you're incapable of looking up anything for yourself.


in response to Polycarp:

Please provide Bible chapter and verse...

All of:

1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Song of Solomon

1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John


in response to Swamp_Ape666:

With the visions they proclaim to have had I suspect they ate too much moldy bread.

I'll drink to that. To me, the best thing about life is that it's cosmically pointless. The universe began, and in some far distant future, the stars will burn out and the universe we know will be dead. We're born, we live, we die. What we do between birth and death isn't ordered or controlled by some galactic force, it's entirely up to us. We can take the easy path and throw our lives away in dreams of pre-destination, or assume our mortal existence is only boot camp to prepare us for eternity in an alternate universe. Or we can accept our short existence and make the most of it.

Believing in an afterlife sets up your mind to loathe mortal existence. If Heaven is all they claim it to be, who could love mortality? It's like being in Baghdad and waiting for the train to Paris. It's not a safe bet, believing in Heaven on the chance that it really exists. It's a waste of precious time. When the end comes, and if medical science can't stop the pain, what's to be gained by prolonging it? Everyone suffers, the patient and the family and friends. For what? To carry on a Stone Age campfire ghost story?


in response to Polycarp:

And the amazing thing is... He even died for sinners and fools like me and Economist1943.

P.S. Is our God awesome... or what!

New Testament, Abridged Version: "God sacrificed himself to himself to save us all from himself."

The people who wrote the bible spent too much time changing wine into urine.


A quaint letter, written by someone whose religion is named after a guy who committed suicide-by-Roman. Of course, he had a get-out-of-the-tomb free card [laughter]. He promised to come back, too, and gather up all his faithful slaves. Sure, that's all perfectly believable. If you're psychotic or drunk. We really want to take advice from people who still believe in fairytales.


in response to arsenal57#524248:

How is that BEING THREATENED? You don't even believe in God. So what's so threatening about a Christians statements about your just rewards? Talk about delusional. What the heck are you so afraid of?!!!!! Some Christians rants. Really? The cut and paste king strikes again. Do you really believe I feel threatened when you deride,ridicule and otherwise call Christians delusional? OHHHH,I'm scared!! Man are you insecure. If you really BELIEVED your drivel, you'd have nothing to fear. Pathetic.

You're not very bright, are you? When delusional people think you deserve punishment from "God," it's a short step to thinking they're empowered to dish it out. People murdered abortion doctors and blew up clinics in the name of the sky fairy. For centuries you "Christians" have shown what you're capable of. Your "God" scares the crap out of you and you just pass it along. I'm not going to sit by and watch a bunch of mentally defective zealots try to turn my country into their version of Iran.

But okay. When we're the majority we'll pass laws preventing Christians from holding public office, serving on juries or testifying at trials. We won't vandalize your billboards, we'll outlaw them. Saves time. Having just signed off on the precedent, you won't mind, right?

Say, how's your Nobel Prize-winning paper, about how Superfairy made the universe out of nothing, coming along?


"You have heard, and are responsible for, the truth."

There you go again! Backed into a corner and totally without a case, you throw out the implied threat of HELL and run for cover. Without the threat of Hell, religion has nothing with which to win converts. As science advances, the supernatural is relegated to being a plot device in horror fiction. When the comic book is read or the movie ends, rational people return to the light of reality.

Religions were once effective ways of organizing and controlling populations. Somewhere along the line their leaders began believing their own fairytales, and the myths and metaphors overwhelmed the foundational objectives. It's been going on for so long, and religions have so much invested in the fables, they're unable to adapt. And that's why we see religious belief declining everywhere, except in underdeveloped areas untouched by modernity.

Religion preys on instincts imprinted in our DNA millenia ago, when we first walked across the African savannahs, stalked by wild beasts that hunted in the night. That religious leaders bank on these primitive fears of the unseen is no credit to their character. Anyone who still suffers from or encourages these fears is no credit to humanity.


in response to truthiztruth7:

Those laws concerning the sale of liquor close to churches also apply to their proximity to schools. Many places require that liguor stores and bars be a certain distance away from one another. They have a public safety purpose
I have no problem stating that these laws were put in place with a view to protecting churches. Churches provide a positive societal impact that should be upheld and protected, just like schools. But the local zoning restrictions do not infringe on your right to purchase and consume alcohol. And they are not laws made by congress. Again, churches are not permitted in many commercial areas where it would be beneficial for their people to be. Is this preferential treatment against them? Your argument would hold real validity if it could be proved that the local government forced a liquor store to leave in order to place a church nereby. if you believe the laws are unconstitutional, take the fight.

What states BAN the sale of alcohol on Sunday?

WHy did they boot you?

"Blue laws [continue in] Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, and Virginia, where Sunday closing laws have survived legal challenges."


"Many states and local governments have established a variety of laws restricting the sale of certain goods on Sundays. An example of a law of this kind, which collectively have become known as 'blue laws,' would be a law declaring that it shall be illegal to sell alcohol on Sundays. These laws may also include mandatory store closings on Sunday.

"Because Sunday is 'the Christian day of rest,' many people who are inconvenienced by Sunday closing laws will intuitively feel that these laws violate the separation of church and state, a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, many of these blue laws were originally drafted explicitly to accommodate Sunday worship services and a Christian sense of morality. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that even though blue laws originally had a religious purpose, they now exist to promote the secular purpose of securing a common day of rest. Thus, they are permissible regulations for a secular government to make and are safe from legal challenges on Establishment Clause grounds."

Just for kicks, I checked the hours of operation of WalMart stores in Little Rock, Arkansas, a 'blue' state. Guess what? They're all open on Sundays, some for 24 hours.

FORT WORT STAR-TELEGRAM --> March 2, 2013 <--




I suppose it's dangerous to sell cars on someone's sabbath? What a joke.


"There is objective data to examine regarding Jesus. His own words, the words of others around Him, His deeds, and the testimmony of the Bible point to who He is. Objectivity would require complete examination, rather than mocking and derision."

Objectivity would require an independent source written at the time the alleged events occurred. You have in the past -insisted- the Gospels are based on first-person observation, yet you can't explain why it took decades for those observations to find their way to print, and then only by means of people who weren't there. You outright deny historical evidence, insisting only your subjective interpretations are correct. You couldn't convict someone of spitting on the sidewalk with the 'evidence' you allege for a supernatural Jesus.

Sorry, but your lack of objectivity has been clear all along. As you like to insist on texts, your very own texts written in these forums, condemn you as a subjective advocate, not an objective observer.

Given the utter absence of objective evidence (I remind you that your delusional and/or charlatanistic insistence is not evidence), and given the absurdity of the supernatural, all that's left to do is mock the allegations and those who make them.

Mocking is essential when it comes to the so-called 'sacred.' Not only will I not accept your statements, I do not take them or you seriously enough to respond to them with respect. You mock yourself with every insistence on your ridiculous assertions, which are, to put it politely, irrational. I'm only backing you up!


in response to truthiztruth7:

I have not heard of a fatwah being issued when someone mocked Jesus.
Islam and Christianity are monotheistic. That is about where the similarity between them ends, once they are examined objectivly. It is far from being the same God.
Religions are many. Christianity does not present a religion. It presents a relationship with God. Hate, bigotry, and hypocrisy are not principles found in the teachings of Jesus. They are not practiced by those who truly follow HIm

"once they are examined objectivly. It is far from being the same God."

Note the pseudo-intellectual use of "objectively."

"Objectively speaking," in other words, looking at it unemotionally as an _object_, we see right away that there is no objectivity about religion.

This is especially true in the case of a commenter who has in the past insisted (though he says he never insists) that he is special because he was created by _his_ "God." Going on from there, it's impossible for this person to make any claim for objectivity!

But let's play his game for a moment, and see what we can perceive about the real "God." The ancient Jews believed in one "God." Jesus claimed to be the son of this "God." So we're safe in assuming the Christian and Hebrew "God" are one and the same. Ah, but if this "God" created everything and everyone, we're all it's spawn, so what sets Jesus apart?

Many years after his death, a bunch of mortals got together and held a vote. They voted that Jesus was more than a mortal man, he was DIVINE. Why? Jews accept Jesus as a prophet. If Jesus wasn't divine then Christianity was only a Jewish sect. To build their power base, Christians had to break away from Judaism and rebrand themselves. Upsizing Jesus to 'Supernatural' was the only way. Breaking free of Judaism made the cult palatable to Gentiles, too. "Divine" meant miracles, many plagiarized from earlier religions, conveniently salted in the Gospels.

Christianity mostly migrated west through the Roman Empire. When Constantine made Christianity the law, you converted or died. That's why Christianity was _the_ faith in early Europe. Murdering the competition is a guaranteed marketing strategy! Mohammed knew his people needed an organizing tool to resist encroachment from the west, and like Constantine, he turned to religion. While he accepted the Judeo-Christian "God" as his creator, he didn't see Jesus as divine, as Jesus was a mortal. In the same vein, Muslims never supersized their prophet, though he is greatly revered.

Constantine's slaughter of 'infidels' was still much on people's minds when Mohammed wrote the Koran. Mohammed only incorporated standard Christian practice into his book. Christians don't do that any more? Not if you don't count collateral damage from Hellfire (suggestive name!) missiles fired on mostly Islamic people. Etc.

So anyone can say their "God" is different and their "God" is better, but it's all the same "God" whether they like it or not.

Of course, there's no objective evidence for this "God," despite all the subjective sputterings. Only people who need to believe, believe. We all believe in the sun, not all in the Sun God. What unites Jews, Christians and Muslims is their common delusion. Anyone who says his faith's "God" is the "one true God" is either more deluded than the rank and file believer, or only a better charlatan.


Someone recently said "You will not be engaged in any discussion on any subject. It is a waste of time"

He NEVER engages in a discussion! Traditional christians get on their dead horses and spew lies and fairytales while pretending they're something special. Traditional christians are intellectually challenged at best, charlatans at worst. And someone we know is the worst kind of worst. He threatened EnviroLefty2 with Hell, didn't he? Oh, he's so smart, he knows what's going to happen in the future, because he read it in a trashy book of boring myths written on clay tablets.

I appreciate him for making that threat, because it shows how absolutely mental religious believers are. Would anyone in his or her right mind believe the words of someone who said there was a heaven or a hell, as impossible as that sounds, when there is absolutely no evidence? Except the words of some forgotten sheep herder who was probably smoking loco weed?

Now, consider this. According to someone, "God" created the Heavens and the Earth. Periodically, something from the Heavens comes down and kills a bunch of people. Periodically, the Earth swallows someone whole while the poor bugger is sleeping, or wipes out entire cities in seconds. If I'd built this system I sure wouldn't brag about it! This "God" would be in prison for malfeasance if it really existed!

Do you think this "God" would have done any better in Heaven? Heaven would look like Detroit, without the car factories: Riddled with stinking cesspools polluted with sewage, gaping holes in the ground and weeds growing everywhere. From what we know of ye Heavens and ye Earth, could Hell be any worse? At least Satan would keep the heat and lights on!

"God" is a fraud perpetrated on semi-conscious humans by power-seeking priests and their frightened minions, who lack the courage to say "This is crap and I'm having nothing to do with it." Some people we know seem to cherish the idea that EL2 will get his from the Godfather when he dies, that the old bastud is up there right now, rubbing his hands with glee, thinking about what's going to happen to him when he dies. Someone we know has invoked that threat before, so we know he's afraid of the boogeyman and he needs EL2 (and me!) to burn to prove he's right.

Someone we know lacks character. These ego demonstrations, where he claims he's always right despite the scientific evidence proving he's a blitering nutcase, are the expressions of an underdeveloped personality. Not mentioning any names of course, because the First Amendment-cheering delusionals are the first to "Suggest removal."

I'm sure EL2 and I share disdain for this semi-person and his delusions, and certainly bear no fear of the hereafter, or impotent ghosts. BOO! indeed! The best outcome would be for him to not engage anyone and just go pray somewhere. That's a tradition I could believe in!

Now go ahead, nameless one: Threaten me with the wrath of your fairy ghost. Wooooo!