Posted in a Craigslist forum:

Tax the anti-abortion churches .. < nonukesgal > 2022-05-06 11:21

Why should I have to pay road taxes, property taxes, etc. etc. when churches are not paying their fair share..Subsidizing religion is nothing but welfare for the god fearing!

Does Ms. nonukes understand that road maintenance taxes are collected as part of taxes on gasoline?

This is funny, especially since the person identifiying herself as nonukesgal has boasted in the past about driving an electric car. Perhaps she should consider paying her "fair share" of road taxes before harping on churches.

Churches pay their own utility bills, maintenance fees, and even "police and fire protection fees" in lieu of property taxes.

So what does Ms. nonukes think she's helping to subsidize? Does she understand the tax system at all?

New Oxymoron: "Non-Believing Christian"

 I just saw a blog featuring commentary by a "non-believeing Christian". I guess this is a person who is in fact an Atheist but follows the teachings of Jesus?

There's a big problem with this. First of all, a "Christian" as defined in the Bible (where the term was first described) is a person who mimics the life of Christ.

"See?" the Atheist would say. "There's no conflict here." But wait: if you're a Christian you're supposed to be a follower of the Master.

What did the Master teach us? That greatest commandment of all is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

So Jesus taught us that the number one priority is to love God. Kind of hard to do if you don't believe in God.

Jesus also taught us that He in fact was not only God's Son, but in fact he was God in the flesh.

To be a self professed "non-believing Christian" you need to be intellectually dishonest, a cherry-picker who believes in those teachings that don't offend those tender Atheist sensibilities.

I have a simple answer. If you're just looking for some feel-good philosophy to pattern your life after, may I suggest you study Bhudda or Confucius? If you want to be a true follower of Jesus, you need to be willing to accept ALL the teachings of Jesus, not just what makes you feel good. Jesus didn't come here to make us feel better. He came here to fulfill the perfect will of the Father, and that wasn't always pretty. But neither is the sin we need forgiveness for.

Think about it.

'Nuff said.

Atheists Against Public Prayer: Same Old Song and Dance

 Once again, an internet Atheist is rehashing the shopworn argument against public prayer. This time it's a guy on the Atheist Revolution blog known as Vjack, quoting the same verses from Matthew:

https://www.atheistrev.com/2007/07/public-prayer.html

"The book many Christians seek to elevate above all other books might not be clear about much, but it seems fairly clear in discouraging public prayer. Matthew 6:5 - 7 says:

5. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Pretty clear, isn't it? Public prayer is compared to hypocrisy and is discouraged while private prayer is valued."

No Vjack, evidently it isn't clear... to you. In that very same Bible, the Apostle Paul encourages us:

16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.

1 Thessalonians 5: 16-18

So how are we supposed to pray without ceasing? Are we never supposed to leave our prayer closet? I'm sure that would make a lot of Village Atheists happy, but it just isn't realistic.

The very same Bible that Vjack quoted is full of examples of people praying in public. Even Jesus prayed in public. So what is Jesus telling the people about prayer? To hide every time you want to pray?

Look at the wording of the verses in Matthew. Jesus is specifically citing the prayer of people who make a show of their faith to impress others. Of course private prayer is encouraged. Jesus took time alone to fast and talk with The Father.

This Atheist is trying to convince us to be ashamed of our faith and to hide it from public display at all costs, based on his MISunderstanding of Scripture.

Next time an Atheist tries to educate you about your faith, just read the Bible. You'll discover that Atheists DON'T read the Bible, but simply google and cherry-pick verses in their weak arguments. It doesn't take a Bible Scholar to easily shred an Atheist's criticism of what Atheists clearly don't understand.

'Nuff said. 

American Atheists Doesn't Care About Loss Of A Paycheck

Once again, American Atheists, a haven for intellectual dishonesty, is spinning another false narrative narrative about religious organizations. Their issue is about small business loans:

http://www.feedspot.com/?dadi=1#feed/fof_fo_1688244__f_4977406/article/6262666582?dd=4311523148070748

The focus and purpose of the AA blog entry is to bash President Trump AND religious organizations.

“Due to the Trump Administration’s unwillingness to provide full disclosure, we have had to work with limited data. Yet the picture is clear: this is an unprecedented giveaway to religious organizations,” said Alison Gill, Vice President of Legal and Policy at American Atheists.

“In two months, the Trump Administration has given churches and religious schools more money than double the CDC’s annual budget of  "6.5 Billion” said Nick Fish, president of American Atheists. “If that doesn’t make it crystal clear what this administration’s priorities are, nothing will.

Here's what American Atheists doesn't bother to recognize: these are SMALL BUSINESS loans. There are specific qualifications for receiving these loans. These religious organizations run schools and day care centers. These places employ PEOPLE, and are thus regulated by the  government where it concerns pay and taxation. When it comes to providing services, they are businesses and run like businesses.

Remember the big issue made of religious organizations being held to the same non-discriminatory  hiring practices concerning the LQBTQ community as secular businesses? If those policies stand, that also means the GOVERNMENT regulates the business side of a religious organization, so they should qualify as a business.

Small businesses are doing whatever they can to survive. Church based businesses to not want to terminate employees. Religious organizations still pay utility bills and are levied police and fire protection "fees". The money for this has been cut off due to COVID 19 lockdowns. These loans are a necessity for EVERY small business that is struggling, including a church day care center or school.

The sad fact is, public schools are closed all over the U.S. and the employees of those public schools still receive a paycheck for effectively doing NOTHING. Hoe many billions is this costing the taxpayers? Far more more than a few SBA loans to private schools.

Unfortunately, American Atheists' attitude is, "if you work for a private school, tough luck Charlie."

'Nuff said. 

A Silly Twitter Post From Richard Dawkins

From the Twitter feed of Atheism's leading spokesman, Richard Dawkins:

Richard Dawkins@RichardDawkins·Apr 4

Immune because “I’m covered in the blood of Jesus”

A church is an enclosed space where people right next to each other sing their lungs out into the air. A church is virus heaven: a focal point where people get infected, then go out & infect others

Perhaps the same could be said for Dr. Dawkins' lectures. After all, we're talking about 30 to 50 people OR MORE crammed into an enclosed space, elbow-to-elbow. Should we prohibit all college lecures during the yearly cold and flu season for the sake of public safety?

Nawwww... Dr. Dawkins is too important to let a flu bug interfere with his livelihood.

Fact-Based Initiative: Oxymoronic Atheism

I find the name Fact Based Initiative amusing for an Atheist's blog, since Atheism isn't based on established fact. But here's the site master giving us his opinions. I'll interject in bold italics as I see fit.

STAN'S TAKE

ATHEISTS AREN’T CLOSE-MINDED. CHRISTIANS, THAT’S YOU.

AUGUST 11, 2015 .

1 COMMENT

Dear Christians,

Let me share with you some perspective on what a closed-mind is.

Close-mindedness is not considering that you might be wrong.

That describes Atheism quite nicely, otherwise all Atheists would call themselves Agnostics. Maybe that's why "godless" is such a popular term. It's an attempt at intellectual honesty.

A closed-mind is a mind that knows someone who is and always has been very intelligent, who says he devoted great time to study a subject, but then rejects his findings and results because they don’t agree with you.

Or, maybe the Atheist fails to provide a convincing argument based on its merit.

I know you’re a believer and I was too. I respect you for having good intentions in your belief. You want to be a good person – so did I! What I didn’t realize until recently, though, is that you can’t be a truly good person by promoting a bigoted, mind-warping, nature denying and instinct condemning religion that is ENTIRELY man-made. It has ZERO influence from an all-knowing creator. Here is how I know:

So believing in and trying to be the good person Jesus wants me to be is impossible? My, how open-minded of Mr. Stan.

The Bible has so many contradictions, in numbers and figures alone, that it, at best, would have only PORTIONS of divine influence in it. Why would an all-knowing, all-powerful god put his wishes in the middle of incorrect information? Especially since there are over 4,000 other man-created religions just like this…

I just love those big numbers. Atheists are always claiming thousands of religions exist. The fact is, nobody really knows how many religions exist. Furthermore, a large number doesn't mean all of them are wrong. Obviously, with the number of people who believe in the supernatural, SOMETHING has propagated that belief outside of simple folklore. 

The Bible is scientifically impossible. Creation did not occur. Genesis didn’t happen. Not a chance. That means there is no sin. That means all the bull about “gay people are sinners” is just that – total BULL. Yet, Christians still eat pork, get tattoos and work on the Sabbath. Hypocritical.

Genesis isn't a scientific account, it's a supernatural one.

Jesus did works on the Sabbath and explained why the New Covenant no longer had a Sabbath requirement. Peter and Paul realized that the laws against the eating of unclean animals was relaxed at the time of Christianity's infancy. And I didn't realize that the laws for Levite Priests and ancient Hebrews applied to all Christians. Is Stan suggesting God should be hypocritical and deny conversion to the faith over some body art?

This is about making the world better. Heaven and hell aren’t real. I can’t tell you an afterlife doesn’t exist but I can tell you the Bible hasn’t been right about a single thing yet.

Historical discoveries disagree with that. The Bible has been a reliable source of information on the ancient world.

An open mind in communication with a closed-mind that reasonably rejects the closed-mind’s ideas may seem to be itself closed off but in reality, we’re like two kids at the fair and you jumped on the first ride you saw, telling me it was the best there. I’m the kid that rode all of the rides and know that the one you’re on isn’t the only one there. Nothing but love.

What a dumb analogy. Trying all 31 flavors of Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream doesn't make you a better person then the guy who decided he prefers Baseball Nut or Cherry Royal. Mr. Stan here is calling the closed mind the one that rejects HIS ideas, while being in denial over the closure of his own mind.

This is a fine example of why I say "Atheists Say The Nuttiest Things."

You can find more of Stan's amusing ramblings here:

http://factbasedinitiative.net/

Church Outreach Programs: Where Are The Atheists?

I was helping out an event my church sponsored this weekend. The church received donations and filled 100 book bags with school supplies. The supplies were for kids in Elementary schools. Anybody who needed one was given a bag. On top of that, there were inflatable joy jumpers, plus free snow cones, nachos, popcorn and bottled water for all.

It was a great event, and parents thanked us again and again because nowadays "free public school" has become an expensive affair for people on lower incomes. It's not like the good old days, when the school provided all needs. All that school funding must to go to more important things like adminstrators' pensions. But I digress.

The one thing missing from this event were the Atheists. Where were they? If they're so compassionate and concerned about people, why don't they ever show up and help out? We wouldn't turn them away. We love everyone in a non-judgmental fashion.

I guess atheists are too busy posting anti-Christian intolerance all over the internet to be bothered with making a difference in the lives of real people.

More's the pity. 'Nuff said.

Careless Pseudo Scholarship Spreads On the Web

A user in a religion forum posted this:

The stpry (sic) of the woman taken in audultery is not < MilitantJain > 2015-07-30 08:27

found in John until the 10th century. Google it.

Have Christians lied throughout history to promote their faith? 

No. We haven't.

I took the opportunity to "google it" as the poster suggested and found the answer on good old WIKIPEDIA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_history

The story of the Adultress (known as a pericope) is found in its entirety in the Codex Fuldensis, dated positively to AD 546. That already makes the claim by the poster off by 4 centuries. The Codex Bezae also contains the pericope, and it's dated a bit earlier than Fuldensis.

There are possible references to it in the earliest Greek manuscripts. Also, one of the Greek Church Fathers, Didymus, mentioned the pericope as being found in copies of the Gospel dating to the early 4th Century.

Because of the care taken by copyists and the number of existing manuscripts that still survive, it stands as a testimony that Christians have tried to preserve the Bible and present it as completely as possible.

Atheists need to check their own sources first, and examine them with the same critical eye that they use against believers. It's a fault that few of them seem to be able to overcome.

'Nuff said.

Some Interesting Arguments On The Existence Of God

I got this via email a while back from a believer named Perry Marshall. From a pure logical standpoint, I'm not sure Mr. Marshall has proven God exists (as his argument does leave open the possibility that extraterrestrial aliens could be involved), but he brings up a lot of points that Atheists dogmatically refuse to discuss, let alone refute.

I'll excerpt the email and post the key points. Perry Marshall wrote:

"In June 2005 I delivered my lecture "If you can read this I can prove God exists" and posted it on my website."

"A few months after I posted my talk, a gentleman named Rob sent me an email that said, "I see right through your sophistry and pseudoscience..." and an intense discussion began."

Marshall's argument is this:

1. The pattern in DNA is a code (by definition)

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed (by observation)

Therefore we can explore five possible conclusions:

a) Humans designed DNA
b) Aliens designed DNA
c) DNA occurred randomly and spontaneously
d) There must be some undiscovered law of physics that creates information
e) DNA was Designed by a Superintelligence, i.e. God.

Marshall then elaborates:

(a) requires time travel or infinite generations of humans.
(b)could well be true but only pushes the question back in time. 
(c) may be a remote possibility, but it's not a scientific explanation in that it doesn't refer to a systematic, repeatable process. It's nothing more than an appeal to luck.
(d) could be true but no one can form a testable hypothesis until someone observes a naturally occurring code. So the only systematic explanation that remains is:
(e) a theological one.

Therefore:

3. To the extent that scientific reasoning can prove anything, DNA is proof of a designer.

While Marshall's conclusion is debatable, it does present certain irrefutable points.

Technically, DNA is not jut a code, but it contains a combination of coding genes and proteins. Recently, scientists have discovered new coding sequences within DNA that only increase the complexity of how it works.While Marshall may not be able to prove that it's impossible to generate DNA code naturally, the newest findings suggest that the mathematical odds against DNA occurring naturally increase as newer complexities are discovered, or in a more raw sense, as we learn more about DNA.

The more we learn, the harder Naturalism becomes to justify. At least, to those who attempt to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, Atheism's proponents continue to pull these shenanigans, as Marshall pointed out:

"If you spend any time on Infidels, you'll see - it's not like those guys are real big on manners. The anger and hostility is so thick you can cut it with a knife. The Infidels website is 6,000 pages of rage and vitriol."

Perry Marshall's commentaries can be found at:

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/
 

Revelations From A "Rationalist"

I was reading a hit piece against Bill O'Reilly and Christianity on the Salon.com blog. It was the typical smear piece bashing O'Reilly, with a bit of Ann Coulter thrown in, and which took a moment to link a tired old study from 2012  to paint all Fox News viewers as ignorant.

But there closing paragraphs from the author, Jeffrey Tayler, are worth noting as they exemplify the snark and condescension of the Atheist Left:

"The one thing both O’Reilly and Coulter do get right is that there is a war going on, but it’s not between hapless Christians and “vicious” atheists. It is between rationalists who seek to live in ways they reason to be best, and the faithful cleaving to fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped, or at best preserved as exhibits for future students majoring in anthropology, with minors in mental derangement."

So now we have Atheist relabeling themselves as "rationalists", suggesting that believers are irrationalists.

Ironically, the philosophical definition of a "rationalist" is one who believes that truth is a priori as well as empirically understood. Rationalists often argue in favor of the existence of God.

Sadly this self-proclaimed "rationalist" suggests "pulping" religious books, after his criticism of Christians for similar acts in the past:

"Few need reminding that the Vatican formalized the suppression of free speech with its infamous Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), which included the works of the Enlightenment’s key luminaries and many other intellectual giants, and which was abolished only in 1966."

The difference here is that the Vatican finally recanted its position. If there were to be a public burning of Bibles, I get the feeling Mr. Rationalist would show up, roast marshmallows, and pass out s'mores.

He finished with this:

"O’Reilly and Coulter, we who care about doing all we can to make this life better for humanity will continue to speak up against the unreason you propagate.

The gloves are now off."

Mr. Tayler, if you care about making your world a better place for humanity, might I suggest you get off your bottom, go to a 3rd World country, and help dig a well so that the locals can have clean, infection-free water. There you will be joined by individuals who were motivated by "fatuous fables and Paleolithic preachments inscribed in ancient books that should be pulped". I'm sure those missionaries will be more than happy to talk with a "rationalist" like you about the "mental derangement" that convinced them to give up a normal life and sacrifice themselves to a worthy cause.

The gloves are off? Big deal. Jesus showed us how to deal with people that slap your face.

Slap away.
.

Was Jesus Really A Liberal?

I read comments from Left Wing Liberals all the time, claiming that Jesus was a "liberal" (which is funny,

coming from people that deny Jesus' existence and who call believers fools). I'm assuming this is based on Jesus' notoriety as a compassionate person who helped the poor and sick, which is what modern liberals claim they're are all about.

However, there is one big difference between Jesus and the present-day Left-Winger: Jesus actually lived what He taught and he physically served the needy as an example to others. Your average Liberal thinks he or she are doing their part by voting for "Progressive" representatives who will support taxpayer funded public welfare programs for which everyone is compelled to "chip in".

I've searched the Bible and I have yet so see a command from Jesus to "go forth and create massive entitlement programs and use 50% of all the funding to cover the administrative costs." Yet, it is goal of Progressives to see private charity become obsolete and the Government hold the monopoly on

compassion.

In times past, people tithed to their churches, and the churches distributed to the needy. The church was accountable to its members.

The modern Liberal expects everybody to tithe a piece of their paycheck to an agency which demands more money every year and is accountable to virtually no one. This what they call "compassion", and if you are critical of Government welfare then you "hate the poor".

Jesus never intended for Man to circumvent God in either the motivation or the mechanism for caring for the poor and sick.

Jesus was nothing close to what a modern liberal is today.

"Nuff said.

Atheists STILL don't get it!

I have proposed many times online that Atheism is in fact a faith-based, non-religious belief system.

And, all too often, an Atheist will try to correct me by pointing out that Atheism is a lack of belief.

What the Atheist doesn't get is this:

How does one know for sure there is no God? If you have no way of proving there are no gods, or  that the very existence of gods isn't even possible, than all you have is a belief that gods don't exist.

To simply claim Atheism is a mere "lack of belief" isn't intellectually honest. If I chose not to believe in gravity, would that eliminate gravity's existence?

"But there is evidence for gravity", the Atheist would say, "and none for gods."

How does the Atheist know there is no evidence? What about the undiscovered?

The fact is, evidence and truth are 2 different things. Evidence can only lead to the truth, which is there whether or not evidence points to it.

LACK of belief in the existence of gods exist is simply a consensus by some that there are no gods. A consensus is simply accepted upon faith, based on what some have observed or not observed. A consensus is arrived at when absolute proof can't be determined, such as with the controversy over man-made climate change.

It's simple logic, but Atheists don't like admitting that they could be wrong. Instead, they play the Condescension Card and treat me like an amiable dolt without thinking of the implications of what I'm saying.

That's what happens when you approach their comfort zones and kick over a beehive.

"Nuff said.

Atheists and Bragging Online

In internet forums, it is common for the local Atheist to claim, "We Atheists don't need a god to tell us to good things, we just do good things on our own."

I might respond with something like: "Okay, what good deed have you done?"

Most of the time, the response is " I do good things" or else nothing, followed by the sound of chirping crickets (Ok, I'm being a smarty pants).

Atheists, it's time to come through. If you have hours on end to hunt down blogs like mine, and leave snarky comments behind, then you have 5 minutes to log into a website like UNICEF site and make a 5 dollar donation through Paypal.

Or, go to a park or beach during a planned cleanup, give the community an hour of your precious time and pick up trash.

Or donate some school supplies at your nearest Office Depot store.

Or mow your senior citizen neighbor's lawn.

Get the picture?

But don't sit there on your ample booty, log into my blog, dump a half page retort loaded with links you spent hours hunting down all over the web, and then tell me how much better you are than I am.

Talk is cheap. If you're better than I, prove it through positive action.

How To Suck At Atheism

WARNING: the link I have supplied contains crass references and foul language, which isn't surprising when it's come from an anti-Christian source. This one got my attention because it features most of the popular anti-Christian memes that Village Atheists toss around the internet, ad infinitum.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

My answer is:

 How To Suck At Atheism

1. Assume all believers are judgmental.

2. Assume Christianity has held back scientific advancement, in spite of visionaries like Isaac Newton, Galileo, and even Georges Lemaitre.

3. Assume teaching your child the family's faith tradition is tantamount to forcing dogma on them.

4. Adopt a cartoonish unrealistic worldview of Christians.

5. Assume religious believers fear sex.

6. Pretend that anybody who mentions God is "forcing their religion down your throat".

7. Lump all religions in one basket and ignore the great differences between them.

8. Convince yourself that you're nothing more than a purposeless "bag of meat", a completely insignificant accident, despite your internal wiring that tells you otherwise.

9. Focus 99% of your hatred on Christianity but use the terms "religion" or "theism" to make it look like you're being more fair.

10. Spend hours on the internet trying to badger people into believing the same crapola you've been indoctrinated with.

Fascism Is Alive And Well With Atheist Crowd

Once more, that wonderful atheist activist non-profit organization, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, is  taking its Wisconsin liberal political views and shoving them down other peoples' throats.

This time, they got mad at Ball State University letting assistant Physics professor Eric Hedin discuss the limits of science and the proposition of Intelligent Design as an argument.

http://news.yahoo.com/more-7-000-petition-ball-state-university-protect-184300206.html

Remember, this is a university, and it was an honors course... completely voluntary attendance.

You know how this works. Some atheist either attended the seminar or else heard about it from another atheist, and then complained to the FFRF to put a stop to this terrible injustice.

It is not a course on Intelligent Design, but even mentioning this taboo subject is so offensive to thin-skinned atheists, that they must immediately hunt down an attorney to make sure this horrendous crime against humanity is stopped dead.

Atheists like to call themselves "freethinkers", yet they seem to take great joy in limiting the expression of politically incorrect ideas in the public arena. How can a person arrive at a decision on something if "freethinkers" effectively censor ideas that they find offensive?

Evidently freedom of thought is just a thin disguise over fascism, as propagated by liberals who will not tolerate opposing points of view.

So you atheists think Intelligent Design is intellectual doo-doo? Fine. Let the subject be discussed. If you liberals are all for an open forum of ideas, then LET THE IDEAS BE PRESENTED and let the hearers make their own judgement as to the merit of those ideas.

THAT is what a free exchange is all about.

Grow up, atheists.

Just For Laughs: The New American Atheist Monument

Here we go again... American Atheists lost their bid to get a 10 Commandments monument removed from a Florida courthouse, but they were allowed to put up their own tribute to Atheism, which looks like this:

According to David Silverman, the current President of American Atheists, his objection to the 10 Commandments monument was:

“There is no secular purpose for the monument whatsoever and it makes atheists feel like second-class citizens."

The origin of the moral codes behind our system of laws has no secular purpose? And what about the mentioning of God makes an Atheist feel like a second class citizen? There is nothing specific in that 10 Commandments monument that attacks the non-religious.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about the American Atheists bench.

Ironically, this 3/4 ton granite masterpiece (which looks like the full-sized rendition of a model made from Lego play bricks), is more of a monument to the nerny-nerny boo-boo attitude of a bunch of sore losers.

It is festooned with old, overused, cherry-picked anti-religious quotes from Founding Fathers like John Adams (who in reality was a deeply faithful man of prayer). It also prominently features this gem from Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of American Atheists:

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed should be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."

Let's look at this quote more closely.

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church."

Ms. O'Hair chose to ignore the fact that The Church was among the first to build hospitals.

"An Atheist believes that a deed should be done instead of a prayer said."

Ms. O'Hair didn't bother to mention how many great deeds were preceded by prayers. 

"An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death."

And Christians aren't? Does American Atheists to this day realize what a silly assumption this is?

"He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated."

So did Jesus. The difference is, Christians actually get out and do the work. Ironically, the Salvation Army has no atheistic counterpart.

I still cannot understand why American Atheists idolizes Madalyn O'Hair. She was an intolerant, hot-tempered pottymouth who was fleecing American Atheists for all the money she could get her hands on. She was hardly the saint and martyr that she is portrayed to be, as was revealed by her son, William, who she kicked to the curb after he became a Christian pastor.

But free speech is free speech, and if American Atheists wants to waste their money in this fashion, so be it.

I just wonder how many kids could have been fed by the cost of this one bench.

'Nuff said.

  

Hilarious Anti-Christian Tract from Atheists:

Courtesy of a comical website called "Luciferian Liberation Front":

http://www.luciferianliberationfront.org/wwjd.html

Let's examine the claims of the tract:

1. Jesus is a bigot. Bible verses cited: Matthew 10: 5-6, Matthew 15:24

This is what happens when ignorant people cherry-pick the Bible with help from Google. They ignore the cultural and historical contexts from which the Bible was written.

Matthew 10: 5-6 Jesus instructed his disciples to go out among their own people first. Jesus' disciples were JEWS. How were new Galilean converts to the faith expected to go out and witness to people who didn't speak Aramaic? Did Jesus specifically "diss" the non-Jews? No.

Matthew 15:24 This is truly hilarious. The tract fails to mention that Jesus did help the woman in the passage because of her great faith. Racism claim debunked.

2. Jesus calls non-Jews names. Verses cited: Mathew 7:6, Matthew 15:26, Mark 7:26-27

Mathew 7:6 Jesus is telling His disciples not to give God's gifts to people that refuse to listen, or else they will turn on them and abuse their good will. This is in fact what happened many times to His Apostles as they spread the message of the Gospel. They were repeatedly attacked, arrested, tortured, and eventually martyred by non-believers. Jesus wasn't being a bigot, He was being prophetic.

Matthew 15:26 Jesus used the term "dogs" metaphorically as he was testing the faith of a gentile woman who had otherwise ignored God all her life. Remember, he healed the woman's daughter.

Mark 7:26-27 It's simply the same incident from Matthew, Chapter 15 as repeated in Mark's Gospel.

3. Jesus encourages people to steal and be bums. Verses cited: Matthew 6: 25-34, Matthew 12:1-2, Mark 2:23, Luke 6: 1-2

Matthew 6: 25-34: Really BAD inference here. Jesus didn't tell people to become listless bums, He was teaching them that they needed to focus their lives on God vs. worldly things. I guess the people who wrote this silly tract think Jesus was an anarchist.

Matthew 12:1-2: The tract writers display their true ignorance of Bible history here. The Israelites were instructed by God to leave a portion of their fields unharvested as a donation to the needy. Ironically,  the following verse cited criticism from the Pharisees because the Disciples were working on the Sabbath, not that they were stealing.

Mark 2:23: Same as Matthew 12:1-2

Luke 6: 1-2 Same as Matthew 12:1-2

4. Jesus encourages selfishness. Verses cited: Mark 14:3-7

The tract authors took the passage completely out of context. Jesus reminded the woman's critics that any one of them could open his wallet any time and lay out the amount of that perfume if they were concerned about the poor. Jesus is the Son of God, God in the Flesh, and he was accepting a gift of worship from a believer who understood that better than any one of her critics.

5. Jesus came to destroy the family unit and cause hatred and division. Verses cited: Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:35-36, Luke 12:51-53

Luke 14:26: Jesus, the Son of God, says He is Number One, and you have to understand that if you are going to be a disciple. It is the antithesis of narcissism. Atheists hate this verse with a passion.

Matthew 10:35-36: Easily one of the most misunderstood verses in the Bible. Jesus wasn't going to water down right and wrong in favor of a feel-good khumbaya ministry, and He was prophesying that this would cause great divisions among people, even in their own homes. Jesus said it the way it was, and His detractors hate these words.

Luke 12:51-53: Same as Matthew 10:35-36

6. Jesus preached disrespect to one's parents. Verses cited: John 2:4, 19:26

In both cases, the tract authors are unaware of the cultural context of the use of the word "woman". without a qualifier it is either a noun, or in certain cases, a term of endearment. There is nothing in the context to indicate that Jesus was being a sexist. This claim is based on ignorance.

7. Jesus preached disrespect to fathers. Verse cited: Matthew 23:9

Once again taken completely out of context. Jesus is lecturing his disciples on the use of "father" as an honorary title to elevate themselves above other men.

8. Jesus is a hatemongering bigot who won't help anybody upon his Second Coming: Verses cited: Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 21:22-23, Isaiah 13: 9-16

Matthew 10:34-36: Redundantly redundant. See the above response to Matthew 10:35-36

Luke 21:22-23: Yes, in the end times, when people have repeatedly thumbed their noses at God after being warned of the consequences, ultimately people will get the punishment God warned them against. God is a Judge. Scofflaws will be judged for their actions. Without enforcement, laws are meaningless. I guess the tract writers don't relate to this.

Isaiah 13:9-16: Atheists really hate the Old Testament. What Isaiah prophesied was that God will let the disobedient suffer the consequences for ignoring God's laws. He will withdraw His protection from the people, which they didn't care about anyway, and then let their enemies do as they wish.

Remember, God has a long history of bending over backwards to save the innocent. Judgement only comes after God's patience with the people is exhausted.

9. Jesus gave hidden messages to keep unbelievers from being saved. Verses cited:  Mark 4:11-12

Jesus said that believers would understand His parables. If you wanted to understand the meanings of His teachings, you just needed to believe in Him. This is simple enough for a child to understand.

10. Jesus preached dishonesty. Verses cited: Luke 16:1-9

This is a PARABLE. It's metaphoric and its meaning transcends the worldly terminology. The fact that the tract authors misunderstood it as being a metaphor for salvation lends credence to what Jesus said about non-believers in Mark 4:11-12 above.

11. Jesus taught to nag your friends instead of trusting them. Verses cited: Luke 11:5-10

Another misunderstood PARABLE on being persistent in prayer. Once again, refer to the commentary on Mark 4:11-12

12. Jesus advocated slavery. Verses cited: Matthew 18:25-35

ANOTHER misunderstood parable... this one is about paying forward the forgiveness you receive from God. Yet these tract authors claim to know the 'truth" about the Bible.

13: Jesus was a judgmental narcissist. Verses cited: Luke 11:50-51, Matthew 11:22-24, Luke 10:13-15

Luke 11:50-51: Jesus was ranting against the religious elitists who misused their authority for personal power, claimed to know the Scriptures, and yet were blind to the prophecies they contained.

Matthew 11:22-24: Jesus was prophesying against the people that saw Him, witnessed His miracles, experienced His Grace, yet still denied Him, even though he was the fulfillment of the Scriptures. The judgement came from God the Father.

Luke 10:13-15 Redundant. See the above commentary.

14: Jesus promoted gluttony and drunkenness. Verses cited: Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:34

Matthew 11:19: Completely out of context. Jesus was remarking on what others were accusing Him of, because He had the gall to actually fellowship with the people He was trying to save.

Luke 7:34: Redundant. See the above comment.

15. Jesus advocates mistreating animals. Verses cited: Matthew 5:18-20, Matthew 8: 31-32


Matthew 5:18-20: The tract authors are drawing an inference while ignoring the point Jesus was trying to make. He was faulting the religious elites for stressing religious rules over true worship.

Matthew 8: 31-32: Jesus lets demons possess pigs and the pigs drown themselves. I don't see this as a common practice in present day Christianity. This dumb argument may only impress PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals).

15. Jesus mistreated plants, too! Verses cited: Matthew 21:18-20, Mark 11:12-14

Gee, do plants have feelings, too? Is cursing a fig tree worse than taking all its fruit, chopping it down and burning the wood? How much more nit-picking can these tract authors do?

16. Jesus wants most people to go to Hell. Verses cited: John 1:1-3

The straw-grabbing is getting more ridiculous. The tract accuses God of being a tyrant who created Hell and demanded an innocent man be tortured to death. The verses from John are used to claim God made Hell and therefore He's evil. Once again, the tract authors have only proven their ignorance of the Bible in citing this shopworn argument. If God hates everyone, why sacrifice Himself in their place?

17. Jesus said we should blind ourselves or cut off our hands for looking lustfully at other women or men who aren't our spouses. Verses cited: Matthew 5:28-30, Matthew 18:8-9, Mark 9:47

Give me a break. Any Sunday schooler knows that Jesus was speaking in exaggerated terms to point out the real origin of sin, which comes from the mind and heart. I don't see any Christians walking around with an eye patch, a hook for a hand, or a peg leg. Those kinds of people are generally known for robbing ships in the Caribbean Sea.

The tract page was concluded with this statement:

"When confronted with difficult decisions in their lives, many people ask themselves, “What Would Jesus Do?” Fortunately (I think these poor guys meant UN-fortunately. Proofread much?), they think of Jesus as a gentle, loving and morally upright character. While in reality, the Bible paints a different picture about the nature of Jesus and the things he supposedly did. In truth, no one needs the poor example of morality that Jesus provided us. The time has come to stop blindly believing what others say about the Bible and Jesus and look at the truth for yourself."

What an ironic conclusion. The tract writers accuse others of "blindly believing what others say about the Bible", yet they expect the rest of us to blindly believe what THEY say about the Bible. What a pity.

Even sadder is the artwork for the tract, which basically plagiarized 'Beavis and Butt-Head' in its design of the images used for the Christian and for the Lord. B&B are well-known for being insulting, ignorant, puerile and potty-mouthed. They stand out as symbolic of the comments that so many atheists have posted in this blog over the years.

More's the pity.

How To Make An Atheist Really Mad

Tell him/her to logically defend his/her comments.

For example, when an Atheist calls a believers fools and informs you that "there is no evidence for God", tell the atheist to show proof that there is no evidence.

If an Atheist makes a statement like the one I just posted, the  Atheist  should be ready to present data supporting the argument.

A truly ignorant person will holler back you: "You can't prove a negative!" Ask that person how they know for sure that no evidence exists.

What I find to be a common thread among anti-theistic antagonists is that they think they have all the answers and they're not compelled to support them with facts.

Or, in some cases, they'll just throw links to websites like evilbible or jesusneverexisted.

I have found that most Atheists on the internet want to lecture. They seldom want to discuss. When you press them to logically support their opinions, and you point out their illogic, they get nasty and eventually go ballistic.

Remember, these guys are supposed to be the adults in the room.

 Remind them to act like adults.

A Common Thread Among Village Atheists

Village Atheists want to post anything they like about Christians and their faith on a website or a blog, whether or not they even bothered to find out if there's any truth to what they post.

So, when somebody like me comes along and challenges what they say, the get mad.

Sometimes they get REALLY mad.

I've flushed many comments to this blog over the years because somebody named "anonymous" threw a fit and hurled f-bombs at me.

Remember, Atheists are supposed to be the "mature adult in the room".

Village Atheists: if you don't like being called out on your web activities, then I suggest you shut up.

An Atheist Tries To Think

Here's what you get when you let people spout off in a free unmoderated website:

Religion is all made up

Most people know down deep that this is true,  (ad populum fallacy) which is why they only revere people who heard God’s voice in ancient times, while admitting that modern-day people who hear God are insane.

This is truly a boring generality. Why do atheists like this illogically post opinions as facts?

Without God, there would be no holy wars; no genital mutilations; no prosperity gospel; no anti-science bias in education; no tax-exempt churches; no denial of global warming; no blaming sin for hurricanes and school shootings; and no soccer stadiums filled with 10,000 men who have come to watch another man decapitate a woman.

There are some facts this atheist, as well as other atheists, gleefully ignore:

1. Wars are mainly territorial conflicts. The most costly wars in history didn't happen over religion.

2. The "proseprity gospel" is a product of man, not God.

3. Where is the "anti-science bias" in education? All public educational institutions feature science classes.

4. Not all global warming skeptics are religious believers.

5. School shootings ARE a sin.

6. If God is responsible for public decapitations, it should be more than just a localized phenomenon.

 Liberal believers aren’t as bad as other believers because their God only exists as a mile-high stack of harmless metaphors. Unfortunately, their rejection of evidence and reason in “matters of faith” still puts them on the side of ignorance and superstition.

This is pure arrogance, and silly besides. Placing "liberal" believers above fundamentalists simply because they treat God as mere brain candy is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this atheist's claim that religious believers are superstitious and ignorant. Some very brilliant minds believe in God. This poor atheist needs to get out from behind his (I assume it's a "he", anyway) PC and get some fresh air. 

When the religious right persecutes atheists for trying to keep America from becoming a theocracy, religious liberals support the persecuters by remaining silent. Fortunately, 20% of Americans no longer have any religious affiliation, and their number is growing rapidly. Most of these people still believe in what they call something, but at least they’re not trying to make their beliefs into laws.

Oh, puleeze, show us where the poor atheists are being "persecuted". As far as I've seen, it's the atheists who raise a stink and run to the ACLU or the Freedom From Religion Foundation at the slightest mention of God in a public school or on the wall of a courtroom. The whole claim of a "theocracy" is overblown paranoia on the part of atheists, who demand a tolerance they are seldom willing to show.

By the way, it's 15% of the people surveyed who have no religious affiliation, and the number hasn't grown much in the last few years. Village Atheists love to spout phrases like "growing raidly" without bothing to show any statistics to back up their bantering.

More's the pity.