First off, thanks to Blair Scott for blogging while I was on vacation. Now on to the cheery subject of death.
This wasn’t a vacation for me, really, it was a “visit” — one of those yearly mandatory vacations to Florida to see your aging parents and other family members. The last time we went down was during the election, and since then things have gotten worse.
Dad has cancer and is 83. His body has withered from age and war injuries, but his mind is still sharp. My mother in law is is perfectly healthy, but her brain is going fast due to Alzheimer’s and she is beginning to lose her grip on reality. Their respective spouses are overwhelmed an terribly sad.
We returned in time for me to appear on CNN to talk (coincidentally) about life after death, which was soon canceled due to the deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, and Ed McMahon.
So as you can see, death has been on my mind quite a bit lately, and I really wish it would go away. It’s times like this when I envy the theists who think they are going to live forever. Wouldn’t it be great if I had secure knowledge that after the eventual passing of my family members, that they’d somehow “be ok” forever? You can certainly see the advantage there.
I’m not one of those people that “accepts death as a part of life”, which it clearly is. Rather, I hate death. I wish it were gone. I can’t stand that some people hold back medical science like Stem Cell research which could prolong life in the name of an afterlife! There is no invisible place in the sky for our souls (don’t exist) to go. Death is death. That’s why it’s a tragedy.
Krys:
Read it for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/lw4yjy
Oh, but I forgot. Since that was written by a Christian, then it’s automatically disqualified as having any merit—because we all know only liberals have any credibility in the realm of cultural commentary these days…
No JCC, it’s automatically DQed for having the name Limbaugh on the cover- no ordinary Christian. I read a bit of it. I only wish the majority were picked on as much as he claims. Boo-fucking-hoo.
JCC
You obviously didn’t read it yourself. If you had then you could have answered KA’s question “WHO IS ORCHESTRATING THESE VAST CONSPIRACIES?”. So either answer the question or admit you don’t have an answer.
I agree w/ShowMe, who says:
I don’t have an automatic bias against someone’s info based on their religion, as long as it syncs up w/the facts. Not a big fan on the ‘auto-DQ’ concept.
For instance, I have a huge problem w/Edgar Cayce, who was not only a Christian™, but something of a nutter. On the flip side, Isaac Newton was a brilliant man, but I thoroughly disagree w/his take on religion, but his knowledge of physics was brilliant (though he was proven wrong on a number of things via Einstein).
So, JCC, define ‘persecution against xtians’ for me.
A. Are people closing down churches? No.
B. Is anyone protesting in front of churches? No.
C. Is anyone getting arrested for their belief system (outside of outrageously defying laws that apply to everyone)? No.
D. Are people getting shanghaied from their homes because of their religion? No.
E. Are there mass examples of church desecration? (I.E., at least several times on a per capita basis.)
So until some of these events begin to occur in this country, I’m going to have to say no, Christians are not being persecuted.
Of course, since martyrdom is part & parcel of the epistemology, it seems that laying claim to it will be fashionable for quite some time.
Krys:
Can you point out where Limbaugh makes such a diversion?
But just two sentences prior, you said:
So, which is it?
Read Limbaugh’s book. He does an excellent job of thoroughly documenting many instances which, had the victim(s) been anything other than Christian, the outcry of persecution from the secular world would be deafening.
Uh, could it be said that atheists are taking the first step at doing so by trying to revoke their tax-exempt status? YES
Huh? That’s simply ridiculous: http://tinyurl.com/74z92w and http://tinyurl.com/mabtdp and http://tinyurl.com/55s9gc and I could post a lot more…
Your self-contradicting proviso there speaks for itself.
…not yet…
You gotta be kidding!! I’m not even going to dignify that with links to examples. How many times a year to we hear news reports of exactly that kind of thing??? Again, your admitted proviso speaks for itself.
That cinches it (again); your ideological bias has completely blinded you to reality.
I wonder; if I replaced church with homosexuals in your little litany above if you’d honestly be able to provide the same answers…
JCC
You posted a Discovery Institute link that was complete and total nonsense. When that was pointed out to you did you acknowledge that it was nonsense? No. Instead you just resume you petty attack on KA. An adult would simply admit to being wrong and acknowledge that he is wrong and thank others for the learning experience. But not you. What could possibly motivate such behavior? Must be your quest for godliness.
Haven’t read more than a few pages, so couldn’t say.
Said I wasn’t a big fan, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply, in context.
I gave you 5 instances that would be unequivocal persecution.
Not the same as closing them down. Their tax-exempt status should be revoked, James Madison was against it @ 1st, but compromised, saying they should stay out of politics if they wanted to have it.
So, I’ll go w/Madison’s interpretation, how’s that for compromise?
Okay, let’s expand on that (sorry) – are they protesting that the church exists? No. Anyways, I’ll be the adult here – I rescind item b.
You’ll have to demonstrate that, since I don’t know how my proviso was ’self-contradicting’. You break a law, you get arrested. Doesn’t mean a damn thing if the law conflicts w/your religion.
I’ll believe it when I see it, hasn’t happened yet.
No, I didn’t deny that churches weren’t being desecrated, I was talking about ongoing desecration – i.e., churches a few blocks from each other being vandalized on a regular basis, in alarming numbers. I’m not talking about sporadic vandalization: I’m talking about ongoing regularity.
Jeez, you just skip the provisos – that’s no surprise.
That’s just stupid. You can’t desecrate a homosexual, close 1 down, & I guess being shanghaied would be contingent on which theocratic state of the union they’re in.
So apples = oranges…again.
Like how you evaded the ’satanic conspiracies’ point BTW.
Wow, so I’ve been reading Limbaugh’s book – what a crock of shit.
It’s pretty much what I’d expected – ‘OMG they removed prayer from school!’, mis-citations of ACLU court cases, all that disproven crap about ‘abstinence only’ (yeah, teaching sex education in schools is REALLY all about persecution, puh-LEASE!).
That book’s a load of crap, & a waste of time.
Oh, so it’s limited to just those 5 instances?
I believe my exact words were: could it be said that atheists are taking the first step at doing so…
There, fixed that for you.
Unless, of course, you’re a FOUh-B like little Timmy Geithner…
… or your political persuasion… there, fixed that for you, too.
My apologies. I should’ve said an organization composed of individuals who define themselves by their homosexual behaviors.
I haven’t evaded anything. I’ve never used those two words together on this blog, or anywhere else.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Ditto for your reaction.
Huh? “Mis-citations,” or could it simply be a different perspective than yours?
Oh dear, here we go again… Ok, one more time (it’s really not hard to understand at all): just as one cannot test-drive commitment, abstinence works every time it’s tried.
Uh, yeah it is when I, as a parent, object on moral grounds to a secular, amoral, atheistic, overtly anti-Christian school board that thinks it has the right to ram down my kid’s throat “diversity and tolerance,” and tries to convince them that it’s ok to explore all types of destructive behaviors then tries to paint me as a troglodyte—you’re damned right it’s persecution.
I can see how it would be to someone whose ideology has paralyzed his sense of objectivity and twisted his concept of “tolerance” into a forced acceptance of what the left deems “necessary and good”…
And you have the gall to think I’m intolerant and bigoted.
What’s a FOUh-B?
Friend Of Uh-bama.
Unless you can come up w/any other instances (proviso is: there being any other instance where xtians are actually being treated differently, not having their ’special privileges’ being revoked.)
Paranoid much?
Guess we’re in agreement on that little ditty.
Apology accepted.
Not in conjunction, no. You admit you believe in the devil. You also carry on about conspiracies. So you’re essentially saying that?
No, because I did a lot of exhaustive research back in the pre-atheist days on this topic.
There, fixed that for ya.
Wow, that’s the most pathetic run-on paranoid nonsensical sentence you’ve spewed yet.
& how dare they paint you as a troglodyte? I have no doubt you change your loincloth at least twice a day.
Seriously – you can’t believe all that crap, can you? I mean, have you listened to yourself lately?
It’s just a collection of all the stale talking points the reichwingnuts babble about @ every opportune moment.
You get equal treatment, along w/everyone else. Don’t like it? Move.
I’ve never had abnormal outgrowths of plant tissue, thanks much.
& you are both of those, sorry.
Uh, ok. How ‘bout:
• Kayla Broadus, a kindergartner, who was told she couldn’t voluntarily pray with friends at a Saratoga Springs, N.Y public school?—that’s not being treated differently from other students?
• Students harassed for bringing Bibles to school at Lynn Lucas Middle School (near Houston). A teacher threw the Bibles in the trash and called them “garbage”?—that’s not being treated differently from other students who are “free” to bring books of their choosing to school?
• Columbine school officials removing the overtly Christian tiles that the school invited the students to make as a memorial—that’s not being treated differently? That’s not a violation of their “right” to free speech?
• The chancellor of the Department of Education prohibited the display of Nativity scenes in public schools, while expressly allowing the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent to be displayed—that’s not being treated differently?
• The California Legislature mandating a three-week immersion course in Islam for all seventh-graders in which students were required to adopt Muslim names… Do you think for a minute the Legislature would do that for Christianity?
Need I go on? I certainly can.
Oh, that’s a convenient conclusion that you conflated from your “objective” personal worldview.
Ok, you got me. I’ve been yankin’ your chain all these years. It’s all been one big sham—after all, no sane person could actually think for a minute that what I just wrote could possibly have any basis in fact or reality…
Ok, ya nailed me again. Not an original thought in my head—no sireee—I’m just the right’s useful idiot I am.
Yeah, and Limbaugh just dreamed up all those incidents of clear discrimination—he’s as deluded as me…
Intolerant of liberals and their pernicious attempt to silence their critics?—guitly as charged. Bigoted against the abject stupidity, ignorance, and hypocrisy of liberals who claim the “moral” high ground of being tolerant while demonstrating a complete lack of it for anyone who disagrees with them?—guilty again.
An over-reaction, which was promptly rectified.
Another over-reaction, which was promptly rectified.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/1_27/pages/columbine.html
“Other tiles that were removed contained imagery such as the anarchy symbol, a human head dripping with blood, angels, a Star of David and gang graffiti.”
Sounds fairly even-handed.
That’s a few years old. What was the final verdict on that?
The only thing I can find on this is
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Islamic+charter+school+may+have+violated+California+regulations….-a083794876
So, tempest in a tea pot.
Shouldn’t do that for anyone. 2 of the 4 examples you cited were exaggerations of sorts.
No, that was a straight question, which you evade answering.
Whew, that’s a relief.
I was talking about the book, not about you. But of course, you agree w/the book, so by the transitive property, I’m insulting you. (Rolls eyes)
Can’t get to the rest of that book, so I’ll just have to assume those incidents have been embellished to make it look like the poor wittwe chwistians are bein’ beat up @ recess time.
Got some news for ya – none of those items are exclusive to liberals. Both sides are equally guilty. & why? Because both sides are equally human.
So spare me your comic book histrionics of Liberals = Evil, Conservatives = Good.
Absolutist trash like that is destructive on multiple levels.
Let’s see. Xians out number atheists by a factor of about 5 to 1 and atheists are poorly organized while xians are highly organized. Yet JCC thinks that a significant muting of xianity expressly by liberals – many of whom are xians – is occurring. Sorry JCC, the only way atheists can “win” as often as we do in such an environment is because we have reality on our side. Maintaining the mythology of theism is just too costly for today’s resource-strapped world. Your mythology’s short historical existence is coming to its end. Get used to it.
What’s this? An admission that it actually happened?
Yeah, once the news of it finally got out.
Careful, you just might end up acknowledging a pattern…
And again, once the libs who hire such fascists are exposed to the light of day, they immediately go into CYA mode.
Thanks for making my point; the lib school officials reflexively equate Christianity with genuine evil.
… in their general discrimination against Christians.
Maybe it’s because this has been happening for decades?
Only to you and the mainstream, drive-by, state-run, Uh-bama-mania media who consistently ignore such incidents—that is, until the “alternate” media pick it up and force them to acknowledge it.
But the fact is they do—and you can’t deny it.
Exaggeration on whose part?—the libs doing the persecuting, or you libs trying to downplay the First Amendment implications of such events?
Again, I’m not evading anything. I’ve never claimed the documented persecution of Christians in this country is being done by Satan—those are your words, not mine.
Typical; when the facts contradict the worldview, malign the messenger. You’re an icon of objectivity.
Oh right, just like how the drive-by media “evenly” covered Palin and her family vs. Uh-bama and his during the campaign—and just like how that worm Letterman doesn’t show partiality to the targets of his “jokes.”
Yeah, I know, only a “Sith thinks in terms of absolutes.” And you never do that—particularly when it comes to Christians and Conservatives…
Aye caramba! I’m not even going to fisk your list of nonsenses.
I’d be willing to bet that persecution of atheists is statistically higher than your little list of ‘poor pitiful christians!’ It’s ridiculous. You consistently paint the other side as being thoroughly evil & corrupt, & your side as a force for good in this world. It’s farcical. Risible. Adjectives fail me.
90 % of the time that I look into examples of xtians being persecuted, I find that it’s been embellished. Note your embellishment about the Columbine tiles. You commit the fallacy of equivocation.
Now, as to this:
So, you believe in the devil. Somewhere in Luke, it says he’s the king of this world, no? If so, then by transitive property, satan is the source of all our problems, including your laughable ’secular conspiracy’. Am I wrong? If so, please show your work.
Must be afraid of what you’ll discover.
Yeah, and Couric, Gibson, Williams, Olberman and Matthews are deliberately turning a blind, left eye to it too. Dream on.
Maybe it’s because they are consistently evil and corrupt. How many atheists have been tolerant and respectful of me and phreedm here?
Yep, those eeeevil Christians who’ve done nothing virtuous in the world compared to those angelic (ooops, sorry) atheists with all their charities, philanthropic ventures and missionaries—there’s just no comparing the two when it comes to how much good each has done for humanity.
What’s farcical is your benighted, intentionally distorted, delusional and anachronistic perception of Christians and Christianity.
Along with your miserable religion.
And who are the ones asserting the embellishments?—the atheist libs, that’s who.
I didn’t embellish a thing. I accurately pointed out that the Christian tiles were considered as evil as those that genuinely were.
No, I objectively interpret the facts. I’m not the one who sticks my head in the sand and squeals, “you’re just overreacting!”
No, I believe in God. Since Christ acknowledged a being called Satan, then I do as well.
It’s in 2 Corinthians 4:4: The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers…
That’s a conclusion that you’ve reached, not me.
Yes, you are. First, God has no equal and no opposite. Second, Satan is a created being and as best as I can determine is a spiritual being—meaning he has no physical means of coercion. He can only tempt, he cannot push. Third, free will exists, and despite whatever enticements Satan can offer, in the end, the culpability of whatever evil humans do ultimately rests with them, not Satan. We’re most assuredly not pawns being manipulated in a titanic, cosmic, struggle between the good of God and the evil of the devil. I can’t imagine how you managed to project that fallacious assumption on me, but it simply isn’t correct.
No, not hardly. Getting tiresome, frankly.
Oh trust me. Some states award custody based on religion.
Well, to be blunt, neither of you inspire respect. So you’re going to project your own insecurity issues out onto the wide spectrum of non-believers, based on your treatment @ a blog where you’ve been condescending, snarky, rude, etc.?
Double-standards is the word that comes to mind.
Trust me, once we’re not so much the minority, those numbers’ll change..
Ah sorry, no.
Still not a religion. Repeating that will not make it so.
Ah sorry, no.
Oh, the Star of David is evil? The anarchy symbol is evil? Come on.
Thanks for that giggle.
Ah, so we finally drill down to your rationale for being here. We are all blinded minds, & how can a blind mind perceive the color of truth?
Okay.
Oh, please! So virtue depends on how many people possess it? That’s hysterical. I can hear the battle cry now, “covert to atheism ’cause when we reach critical mass, then we’ll start doing the right things—like building homeless shelters, hospitals, and food banks!”
by intentionally removing the blindfold that that mind was enticed to put on by the voice of deceit.
Great! That’s finally settled.
“Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.” – Bill Gates
Say JCC, doesn’t he have a foundation or something? He tends to help people I think, fascinating that that works out somehow without the power of your God.
I also find it humorous that you bash liberals, Obama, and socialism, yet you somehow how the nerve to call out atheists for not building enough homeless shelters, hospitals, or food banks.
Yeah, it’s called the Bill & Melinda (a practicing Roman Catholic) Gates Foundation. Interesting how that foundation didn’t come into being until after she entered the picture.
Oh really? See my previous sentence. What’s fascinating is that their foundation “does not finance abortion programs.” http://tinyurl.com/nj8a2w
Typical liberal—tries to equate secular, publicly funded, monstrously bloated and inefficiently run bureaucratic, government mandates with private, efficiently run, religious programs funded mostly by individual, voluntary donations.
And Melinda (a Catholic- who you all have no problem throwing under the bus when it suits you) would be this famous without her husbands money no doubt. My point is that there are countless people that give their own money and time for the good of others, yet somehow don’t waste their time with Jesus.
And we’ve gone over the efficiency of Churches before. I’ve been on Catholic service trips and done countless service hours with you “private, efficiently run religious programs.” Unless you put value in spreading the word of Jesus they are horrifically inefficient.
Trust me I’m no proponent of socialism, but the Christian system of keeping the poor down and then “helping” them by giving them Jesus is worse.
Huh? When have I “thrown Catholics under the bus?”
“[T]he Christian system of keeping the poor down?” Could ya elaborate a little more on that?
No, nor is it contingent on religion. People tend to do good deeds based on their character, not their supernatural belief systems.
Is that a deliberate misinterpretation?
So the voice of deceit = satan? See, I knew it. You think the devil is indirectly responsible.
…and what is the objective standard for what constitutes “good” character?
It didn’t seem to be.
Not exclusively, no.
And I knew you’d come back with something like that. First, key word there: indirectly. Second, ever heard the term, “self-deceived?” Third, with the likes of Couric, Gibson, Williams, Huffington, the NYT, etc. working in his stead, Satan could take an indefinite sabbatical…
You know what I mean, so stop trying to play semantic word games.
Sure looked like it.
Actually not @ all, since there’s no such critter.
Getting you to admit anything is like pulling teeth.
Ay-yuh, in fact, communicating w/someone who is right now – you.
Why do you hate America? By saying things like that, you’re green-lighting terrorism, you know?
Translation: I don’t have the slightest idea…
Yeah, you’re right… I’ve never eaten crow here…
Cute.
That’s a dishonest dodge on your part.
jcc
Yes, we’re all agents of free will, but let’s not downplay the role that inspiration plays in “doing good.” Without a God who is good there would be no objective standard of what “good” is.
Then what explains the goodness on the part of the non-religious? Or even the non-human?
Your “good god” provides no objective standard for good, as is evidenced by the disagreement among believers. When you add to it the disagreement from non-believers, the subjectivity is compounded. Where/what is the objective standard?
Quote of the Day
and there isn’t.
karen:
Sorry, I overlooked this other question of yours:
I do, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make to Krys. The Christian (and Jewish) tiles were discriminated against solely on the grounds that they represented a religious point of view. The messages on them, had they not been religiously inspired, and despite the fact that they were anything but evil, were rejected out of intolerance for anything deemed “religious in nature.” They were completely unlike the ones advocating anarchy or hate, yet they were treated the same as those that did.
It’s a reflection of the good Creator that made them. You can deny you were made in God’s image all you want, but at the end of the day, you have absolutely no way of explaining the intrinsic, metaphysical and spiritual quality of love that all conscious creatures possess.
That’s simply not true. Believers don’t disagree on the existence of love and compassion.
No, it reinforces the evidence that all creatures have the God-given capacity to recognize the goodness of God.
You know my answer; what’s yours?
jcc – You call the god of the bible good? You must not have read the bible..(even though I know you’ve said that you have in the past) however I find it hard to believe that you can still say the silly things like “Yes, we are all agents of free will” and “Without a god who is good there would be no objective standard of what “good” is.”
“Good” means to survive, and that which gives an individual, or for social animals the group, an advantage to survive to reproduce is a standard for good.. “God,” I wish you’d actually go learn something outside of your little box
I understood perfectly what you were getting at. My reaction was in response to this from you: “Columbine school officials removing the overtly Christian tiles that the school invited the students to make as a memorial—that’s not being treated differently? That’s not a violation of their “right” to free speech?” You are only concerned about the free speech of Christians and other religions (Judaism) that you regard as non-threatening to Christianity. You have no care for the free speech of anarchists or the person who drew the bloody skull-whatever message may have been intended, or the gang graffiti artists. What the school probably did -and I admit to not having researched it- was remove anything that might have been controversial. Since schools are supposed to be secular, the religious tiles would have been controversial, and if left, the school would have had to allow other religious symbology of which you would not approve.
>blockquote>Then what explains the goodness on the part of the non-religious? Or even the non-human?
It’s a reflection of the good Creator that made them. You can deny you were made in God’s image all you want, but at the end of the day, you have absolutely no way of explaining the intrinsic, metaphysical and spiritual quality of love that all conscious creatures possess.
Right…but the evil done is NO reflection of this creator! You can’t have it both ways. Explain the “intrinsic, metaphysical and spiritual quality of love that all conscious creatures possess” as it applies to dolphin rape or a lion killing its young. You’d be eager to chalk up a dolphin rescue to your god, but not the gang rapes in which they sometimes engage. Yet these things make sense in a naturalistic world.
Your “good god” provides no objective standard for good, as is evidenced by the disagreement among believers.
That’s simply not true. Believers don’t disagree on the existence of love and compassion.
Both of which are subjective and do not provide a standard for good.
Hardly. ALL creatures do not even recognize the existence of gods. Pity that those who do, are blind to the flaws of the ones they believe in.
There is none.
Ack! Screwed the blockquotes again. Sorry.
Why would they automatically be controversial? They contained no hate speech, yet they were treated as if they did.
That’s a sweeping generalization on your part. What makes you think I’d object to the Star of David, or the Crescent of Islam?—that’s the freedom of speech I was referring to; if you’re free to exercise it, anybody is.
Correct. If God is all good then, by definition, He cannot be the author of evil.
I’m not trying to. It’s the free will part of the equation.
Ok: free will. karen, even the animals aren’t automatons of their DNA. You have cats, you should know that.
Animal altruism makes sense in a naturalistic world? Please explain how natural selection selected altruism for the weak and defenseless?
Love and compassion are subjective? How is putting the good of the beloved above one’s own subjective? How is showing mercy and kindness to someone who genuinely needs it subjective?
And how did you ascertain this knowledge?
Now that’s subjective!
So, let’s see… my argument offers a plausible, practical explanation; your’s offers a simplistic, “just so” explanation. Hmmmm now which one sounds more reasonable?
No worries, I understood what you meant.
jcc
I’ll have to answer later. Taking the grandkids to the beach.
JCC is giving religion more (or any) than its due by saying:
Yeah…right.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/meet_a_few_atheists.htm
More blatant mendacities. Oh, will it ever end?!?!?!?