If you're pro life, you're now a "Religious Extremist"

The recent decision by the United States Supreme Court to make abortion a States' Rights issue has Atheists all over the Internet up in arms. Groups like American Atheists and Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) label anybody who's pro-life a "religious extremist", as if you have to believe in God in order to be pro-life.

Sorry guys, but I was pro-life long before I started going to church or even became a Republican. I became a parent, and as I held my beautiful daughter I realized that I coud never support the killing of an innocent viable human being.

Most atheists are political liberals, and that means most of them do not believe that human life has its own intrinsic value. It's left up to the individual to decide if they're carrying a baby or a fetus. A baby has value. A fetus is worthless to the point of being treated as something less than human. The fetus has simply been dehumanized by the law, treated as a non-person until the baby is given a name. A non-person can't be murdered, and this loophole in the law makes it open season on otherwise viable humans.

In the Atheist world view, God has been eliminated and the human being has become God's replacement, holding power over life and death based on a person's whims.

Destroying the egg of a bald eagle carries the fine of 5000.00 plus jail time:

https://www.dividedstates.com/abortion-eagle%e2%80%99s-egg-vs-human-fetus/

An egg is not an eagle. It has the potential to hatch as an eagle. Yet the egg is assigned more value than a potential live person.

There is something seriously wrong with a society that places less value on a human than on a bird, and labels pro-humans "extremists". 

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?

Extremism Is in The Eye Of The Beholder

An Atheist in a blog posted this:

And despite the cries of our opponents, most atheists really aren't very good at extremism. The religious are very good at extremism.

To the Atheist everything a Christian believes is extreme, and acting on that belief is considered extremism.

Atheist extremism is hardly mentioned, however, because it usually results in the creation of governments like the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic of China.

If you want to see a good example of Atheist extremism, watch the current wave of ANTIFA riots in major US cities. Atheism is a core belief of Communists as they believe religion is a stumbling block to achieving their idea of Utopia.

So tell me, who is more dangerous: a group of nuns who won't offer to pay for birth control for their employees, or a mob of masked thugs destroying public and private property?

The fact is, Atheism metastaizes into radical movements like Antifa.

Think about it. 

Now Let's Tear Down the Jesus Statues!

This may be one of the silliest arguments of all time. The fact that "caucasian" inlcudes a wide group of people is virtually ignored by the average protester. Here's a gem by Shaun King, a spokesman for the Anti White Jesus Movement. I don't know if Mr. King is an atheist, but lots of Atheists are reposting his tweets. In attacking traditional renderings of Jesus:

“They are a form of white supremacy,” King tweeted about the monuments. 
“Always have been,” King tweeted. “In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide, and blend in, guess where they went? EGYPT! Not Denmark. Tear them down.”

Uh, sorry Mr. King, but is it possible that Jesus' parents took Him to Eqypt because it was 1000's of miles closer to Palestine? Not to mention that Denmark probably didn't exist as a civilized country? But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of a compelling narrative, right?

Egyptians were not all dark brown. Just look at the renderings of the ancient Egyptian nobles that have been preserved through time.

Folks, we don't know exactly what Jesus looked like, but we do know that not all Middle Easterners are brown. It seems that purpose of the argument is to attack white supremacy, but it's being done by forcing Jesus into another stereotype instead.

If I was to say all Asians look alike I'd be called a racist. Yet it's not racist to make the same claim in trying to describe Jesus' appearance.

So who are the racists here?

Think about it.

The Latest Tomfoolery From FFRF

Here we go again. It's that wonderful group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, those staunch "defenders" of the Constitution, creating an attack ad against the churches during the COVID 19 pandemic.

https://www.freethoughttoday.com/vol-37-no-04-may-2020/feeling-helpless-or-angry-heres-how-to-fight-back

Blasphemy... an Atheist hobby

The article is as follows:

Feeling helpless or angry? Here’s how to fight back.

Many of you have contacted FFRF, angry and worried that governors or other officials across the country are exempting churches and religious worship from the “safer at home” orders necessary to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

Why only churches? There are more health risks at your local Walmart or CostCo store. 

If you’re stuck at home, perhaps feeling a little helpless, isolated and angry that these churches are risking your life and the lives of your loved ones, we want to help you fight back.

If you're an atheist, you don't attend church. You avoid Christians as much as possible. So how is a church endagering your life?

In response to the overwhelming and heartening volume of requests for advice on how best to hold our elected officials accountable during this turbulent time, FFRF has created a set of resources for your use. FFRF’s website now has a page specifically dedicated to secular activism in the time of coronavirus. You can access it here: ffrf.org/legal/covid-resources.

So now the Atheists have something to do with their time while they sit at home. They can write more angry letters which will accomplish next to nothing, since MOST churches are following the stay at home orders!

FFRF has already sent a letter to every governor explaining why church exemptions are unconstitutional and lethal. We’ve also asked each FFRF member to call and email your own governor. That action alert has basic talking points. We’ve sent other letters of complaint, too. We’ve written op-eds. We will continue to challenge these inappropriate religious exemptions. And we know you want to fight them, too.

Actually, restricting one's right to worship is what is unconstitutional. The main reason organizations like FFRF get away with it is because they can judge shop for judicial activists who are willing to bend the Constitution to suit a liberal world view.

Please continue to report (ffrf.org/legal/report) any state/church violations happening in your community. While the Religious Right continues to exploit this global public health crisis as an opportunity to peddle their beliefs, we in the secular community must use all the resources at our disposal to ensure that reason-based solutions drive our public policy responses and solutions to this pandemic.

Nobody is exploiting anything. Nonetheless, the FFRF is behaving like an atheist Gestapo, reporting anybody that offends their sensitive feelings. No atheists are dying because a handful of people at tiny neighborhood church decided to congregate. Nonetheless, FFRF is giving marching orders to the unhappy few to restrict the freedom of the majority.

Thank you for your activism. We hope you are staying home and staying safe.

While the FFRF members hide at home, I'd like to mention that local churches are actively helping in whatever way they can during the pandemic. Churches are helping the needy get food, delivering medicine, providing home teaching aids and materials, and allowing their facilities to be used as temporary COVID testing centers. I have no knowledge of anybody at FFRF or American Atheists doing the same. In fact it's time, especially now, for atheists to put up or shut up, especially when they go the trouble of accenting their gripe with a demeaning picture of Jesus.

More Silliness From Richard Dawkins

"I am agaianst religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

REALLY? Dr. Dawkins, have you never heard of Galileo, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or Georges Lemaitre?

I am a habitual watcher of documentaries, especially those about nature and the Universe. I love learning about my world.

What astonishes me is how a brilliant person like Richard Dawkins can make such incredibly stupid assumptions.

That is what happens when bigotry trumps reason. I pity this poor man.

More Pretzel Logic From Atheists Alliance

From a Post by AA President Bill Flavell (Flavell's comments are italicized): 

I bet every atheist has heard Christians claiming that they used to be an atheist. When I hear that, I always ask them why they were an atheist and invariably discover that they were not really atheists at all—they were lazy Christians. Instead of praying/going to church they preferred drinking/sex/drugs/gambling or other self-indulgent pursuits.

So are we to assume no Christians began life as atheists? Ever? 

Then I ask why they changed their minds and they always give me an emotional reason—they had an experience of some kind and discovered Jesus. What I never hear is “I found the ontological/cosmological/teleological argument…” [or whatever].

The Bible focuses on historical testimony, not teleological arguments. Christian belief is an act of faith. Not every Christian has a Philosophy degree and can quote Thomas Aquinas or Saint Augustine.

Well, in my opinion, if you were an atheist for no logical reason, you were a bad atheist and if you are now a Christian for no logical reason, you are a bad Christian.

So Atheists that grew up in non religious households are now bad atheists? All because they did what their parents did?

If logic takes you to atheism, you will almost certainly remain an atheist because no matter how much your life changes, logic will stubbornly stay the same. The beauty of logic is that it does not depend upon how you happen to feel today.

I guess this poor guy never heard of Anthony Flew? After more than 50 years of study, Mr. Flew, the most outspoken Atheist of his time, was led to a belief in Deism by LOGIC.

The idea that logic always leads you to Atheism is simply a silly assumption that Atheists the world over have coddled themselves with for centuries. If you want to see what logic can do, watch the debates between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. Dr. Lennox uses logic to tear down every premise by dawkins, and he does it in a calm and collected  manner.

This is the reason Dawkins won't debate any more Theists. They're just too logical.

40,000 sects or more Atheist Hyperbole?

Atheists are fond of claiming that Christianity is confusing and hosts up to 40,000 sects or denominations. They follow up with this question: Which sect is right and how can we trust any of them?

Atheists are no less prone than anyone else to accept something they read over the internet as truth without checking out the validity of the claim. Here is a link that explains the source of the "40,000 Sects" and how that survey inflates the actual of number of denominations:

https://thebensmartblog.com/2014/02/12/40000-denominations-worldwide-christianity-divided/

Here is a link to an actual breakdown of true denominations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Although there are still quite a few denominations, most of them withing the groups are almost indetical in their beliefs and doctrine. Village Atheism wants you to think they're all entirely different and settling on one is an exercise in futility.

The real exercise in futility is trying to speak common sense to a Village Atheist.

More Biblical Struggling By A Village Atheist

Village Atheists are known for cherry picking, as the following example shows:

Bible says Moses was lying. Ever consider that? < Arkangel_Michael > 2020-02-16 02:57

Moses claimed spirit of God wrote in stone tablets, spoke to him via a burning bush.
2 Corinthians 3:3 says spirit of God doesn't write ink or stone tablets.. only flesh tablets.

WRONG: The Atheist is making an assumption. Nowhere does the verse claim that God doesn't write on stone tablets. The verse is simply a comparison in support of the New Covenant in Christ.

1 John 4:12 says no man has ever heard or seen god at any time.

Misused and misinterpreted verse. The verse also doesn't mention hearing. Moses never beheld God's face. In fact, Moses covered his head when he went into the Holy of Holies, because no one can look at God's face and live.

Did Moses give you some bread?

John 6:32 says the bread that Moses gave you was NOT from heaven.

WRONG. The verse is being used out of context. Verse 32 is in reference verse 31, which refers to manna as a gift from the Father. 

Matthew 16:12 says doctrine is bread... Moses did give you some doctrine

Matthew 16:12 doesn't refer to manna.

Is you understood the Hebrew word "Satan" means "Adversary" or "Accuser" in English..


John 5:45 "there is one that accuses you to father, Moses"

Quoted out of context, especially since the Atheist didn't post the entire verse. It doesn't refer to Satan.

Jude 1:9 "Michael dared not accuse Satan"

By accusing Satan, I would be a Satan.. DUH

This is pure pretzel logic. The verse in Jude refers to judgement, aka REBUKE, not accusation.

I know you're confused because red pajamas
not my problem you preferred to get your info from Bug's Bunny instead of the source/book

Maybe Bugs Bunny is Arkangel Michael's bible teacher. That would explain his silly argument.

Word Salad From American Atheists: What Is Atheism?

From the American Atheists website:

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

So, according to American Atheists, what is Atheism?

"To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

It seems like a distinction without a difference. If you were to ask any Atheist if they believe in the supernatural, he or she will express their DISBELIEF.

"Lack of belief" implies ignorance. Are American Atheists claiming they are ignorant? That would lean more towards Agnosticism, which claims God is unknown or can't be known. This can't be the case with American Atheists, who flat out deny the existence of gods.

If a Christian  witnesses about Jesus to an Atheist, and the Atheist doesn't find the testimony compelling, that Atheist has made a concious decision not to believe, period.

 The blog post starts out with this premise:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes."

Later, the writer of the post claims:

"Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know."

NOW Atheism is about belief. Hmmmm....

American Atheists is one of the largest Atheism advocacy organizations in the US, yet their site is chock full of pseudo scholarship and intellectual dishonesty. 

"Being an atheist doesn’t mean you’re sure about every theological question, have answers to the way the world was created, or how evolution works. It just means that the assertion that gods exist has left you unconvinced."

Once again, that is disbelief, not a lack of it. That is a concious decision.

"Wishing that there was an afterlife, or a creator god, or a specific god doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist. Being an atheist is about what you believe and don’t believe, not about what you wish to be true or would find comforting."

Once again, it's not a belief system but its about what you believe? 

It's time somebody at American Atheists read a book or two on Philosophy or Logic.

Village Atheist claims "no morals"

An atheist posted this in a Craigslist forum:

Religion = Autistic delusion < granpa > 2020-02-11 06:35

There is no such thing as moral or immoral behavior (and therefore no such thing as sin). There is only civilized and uncivilized behavior.

Civilized behavior is behavior that respects civilized laws, rules, and expectations. Civilized laws are laws that do not give any one person or any one group of people any special rights above what all others have. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is. (Equal rights. Equal protection. Equal pay for equal work. Equal punishment for equal crimes.)

Wrong.  A society's laws are also reflective of its morals. On top of that, "civilized behavior" is purely subjective. For example some cultures believe it's more civilized to eat with forks and spoons vs eating with your hands. Look at the various degress of murder a person can be found guilty of. Those aren't practical applications but moral ones.

 
Religion is how autistic people (strictly speaking hyper-empirical people) see civilization. They see all authority figures as priests.

Nope, I don't see Donald Trump or my local cops as priests. Nice try.

Fascists paradoxically promote violence and war as actions that create positive transformation in society.

So are Liberal Democratic activists also Fascists? Look at how they harrass innocent bystanders all in the name of social change.

It is well known that Fascists occupy the far right of the political spectrum. But, as bizarre as it seems, Fascist bigots see themselves as liberals. They see themselves as innocent victims fighting against an oppressive establishment of pedophile priests that are trying to take away their freedom.

https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=304176055

This poor guy's post is all over the map. What started as an argument against moral behavior turned into a political rant against conservative Republicans. And none of it makes his point.

Next time, try staying on topic, buddy.

Atheists just refuse to "get it"

Posted in the Craigslist Religion Forum:

Reading the Bible vs Studying the Bible..... < slots-and-guitars > 2020-02-09 11:38

Why aren't people allowed to simply read the Bible like any other book? It seems that is the purpose it was written for.

Who says people aren't allowed to read the Bible as literature? What stops one from doing so?

Well, here are two reasons :
1. Religious leaders want to control people by telling the followers what the Bible "Really" means. They claim to have special "Spiritual Knowledge" and special "Relationship with God (s)".

This guy is descibing a cult. I would never attend a church that doesn't encouarge me to study the Scriptures on my own, as the Bereans did, checking up on the preacher's theology. Only groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses demand that their interpretation is infallible and unquestionable.

2. I you simply read the Bible like any other book, you see that it is full of mythology, superstition, outdated science, fables, legends, lies, poetry, and overall is not well written, informative or entertaining.

This is just the kind of bigoted comment I've come to expect from Village Atheists, and yet they claim to be the open minded ones. Brights don't even read the Bible. They depend on other Atheists on the internet for their understanding of its contents. 

Read the Bible like you would Darwin's Origin of Species, And Bible based religions like Catholicism, Islam, JWs, Judaism would lose all their power and authority.

https://forums.craigslist.org/?ID=304140449

In comparing The Bible to Darwin is this guy suggesting that Origin of the Species is filled with lies, outdated science, and fables? That it's not even well written or informative?

The best advice I can give Village Atheists is to try thinking before they make fools of themselves online.

'Nuff said 

It Sure Would Help Atheists To READ The Bible First....

....BEFORE making fools of themselves on the internet. Exhibit A:

This delightful bit of snark comes from a website called Godless Engineering. I guess this was supposed to make some kind of point about science vs. the Bible.

Unfortunately, the creator of this little graphic not only ignored the context, but the actual wording of this story from the Genesis.

If you look at the entire passage beginning at verse 25, you get the whole story. In a nutshell, Jacob made a deal with his brother Laban to take his spotty, speckly, and black colored sheep and goats and leave behind the white, "perfect" sheep and goats, which were more valuable. These were a payment to Jacob for tending and increasing Laban's flocks, which helped Laban become wealthy.

But Laban tried to shaft his brother by taking all the "imperfect" animals and sending them off with his sons.

Jacob said nothing. He took Laban's animals and cared for them. The story goes that Jacob cut hardwood sticks and peeled the bark off of them. He then set the sticks in front of the animals at the watering holes and the animals bred as they drank. The animals produced stripey, spotty and black offspring, which Jacob kept as his part of the deal. The sheep that bred next to the sticks were more robust. Laban's herds were then bred without the sticks being planted, and they were fewer and weaker as a result.

That's quite a bit different than the cute little picture above, which claims that Jacob carved stripes and spots into a tree and that explains color change in animals.

First of all, it was already established that stripes and spots existed in the sheep and goats. There is also nothing in the story that suggests this was any kind of adaptation which spontaneously emerged from white animals.

This is just another silly straw-man attempt to ridicule the Bible by cherry-picking a couple of verses. The attempt is made even funnier by the misquote from Genesis, leading me to wonder if the author bothered to read it at all. It also shows that most atheists, despite their claims, probably never read the Bible either, so this glaring error wouldn't be obvious to the ignorant. 

How can one be expected to understand Genesis when they can't even spell it right? Just look at the bottom right corner of the graphic.

'Nuff said.

Jesus-Never-Existed Dot Com: Still Out There...

...and still a steaming pile of pseudo intellectual dung.

The Webmasters of this site are still roping the ignorant into believing the site's spurious outdated claims.

This is not surprising, considering the comical condescending commentary that drips from every article on this site. The site founder, Kenneth Humphries, clearly has a hatred for Judeo-Christianity and he seems bent on belittling these faiths every chance he gets.

Even sadder still: it appears that while archaeological discoveries going on TO THIS DAY are shedding new light on the history contained within the Bible, the people behind jesusneverexisted still continue to make claims that have been debunked by scholars who actually know what they're talking about. On top of that, not all these scholars are believers in God.

For example:

The Humpreys site still claims that there were no enslaved Canaanite peoples in Egypt, despite the evidence from a massive archaeological dig in the area of Egypt that the Bible referred to as Goshen, or the Land of Rameses. These digs have been going on for 30 years. Update, guys, update!

Here's a sample of the content right from the header page of jesusneverexisted.

Jesus threatens torture to his unforgiving slaves


"The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves … The lord released a slave and forgave his debt.

But that same slave threw his fellow slave into prison. In anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt.

So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."

– Matthew 18.23-35

So, from a simple story, we're supposed to assume Jesus endorses torture. Let's recap:

A king freed a BOND-SLAVE and released him from a huge debt.

We're supposed to ignore that fact the slave shafted one of his fellows for a fraction of what he was forgiven. So the King gave this ungrateful jerk what he was asking for. Outrageous.

On top that, it's a PARABLE. Google "parable", guys.

I could go on for hours.

The only thing sadder is that I still get links to this site dropped in my comments box as if I've never seen it and somehow it will torch my faith.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight........

Every Dumb Village Atheist Argument in 1 Vlog Post

Check this kid out. It brings a new meaning to LULZ:

This pretty much sums up every dumb, cartoonish argument Village Atheism has to offer against Christianity.

Are Atheists really this dumb?

I'd love to see this guy try to have a serious argument about why this has any bearing on the existence of God.

That would be hilarious.

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.

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.

Atheist Intellectual Dishonesty 101

Here's another popular picture Village Atheists are posting all over the internet:

Now let's talk about what the author of this cute little pic failed to mention:

1. There are no original manuscripts for most of the works of ancient Western antiquity, including the Greek Philosophers and the Roman Historians.

2. Some of the oldest New Testament manuscripts are dated to the 2nd Century. A recently discovered fragment of the Gospel of Mark has been dated to the 1st Century (right after the Crucifixion).

3. 75% of the King James Edition of the Bible is actually based on the work of William Tyndale, who was one of the most gifted scholars that ever lived. 

3. The reason the King James Translation didn't use the most ancient texts and papyri is because most of them hadn't been discovered, yet. Modern comparisons of the King James version to these older manuscripts show that the Authorized Version is still one of the best English Bibles. The existing codexes that Tyndale, and later the King James team relied on, were good copies of the earlier texts.

4. There are more like 5700 ancient texts (not 8000), and the reason they're not all alike are due to differences in spelling some words, copyist errors in punctuation, or the omission of some words (because copyists usually duplicated texts that were in poor condition).

Dr. Craig Blomberg, Bible Scholar at the Denver Seminary, sums up the majority of the differences:

"The vast majority of these variants involve variant spellings of words that do not affect meaning whatsoever (and the largest percentage of spelling variants involve words with a movable nu at their end—i.e., they can be spelled with or without the Greek letter for the n sound).  Huge numbers of variants also involve the accidental omission of a letter or duplication of a letter or omission of a word or inversion of word order of two or three words or improvement of syntax, style, grammar or diction, where it is easy to determine what the original reading was."


Dr. Blomberg's blog post on this subject can be found here:

http://www.denverseminary.edu/craig-blombergs-blog-new-testament-musings/400000-textual-variants-in-the-new-testament-alone/

In fact, the large number of surviving texts means there are plenty to compare each other to, which makes it easier to weed out mistakes and determine what the originals most likely contained.

This is a far cry from being "contradictory". In fact, when you omit these known differences, the actual number of questionable variants between texts is surprisingly small, and no Orthodox Christian doctrinal issue is in question. Any good Study Bible makes note of these variants in the footnotes sections.

This little criticism from the Village Atheist crowd proves once more that ignorance is contagious, especially on the internet, where few Atheists contend the veracity of what other Atheists post online.

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.

Another Gem Among Stupid Atheist Quotes

History teaches us that no other cause has brought more death than the word of god.

-Giulian Buzila

I guess Mr. Buzila never heard of the Communist Revolutions of the 20th Century, that killed an estimated hundred million people.

However, that isn't too surprising if you were to do an internet search on "Guilian Buzila".

I was expecting to find a college professor or a writer of some reknown in left-wing wine sipping circles. Instead, the only Giulian Buzila I could dig up was a chef somewhere in Los Angeles.

So are Atheist blogs and websites now quoting the observations of a chef as if he were an expert on religion and history?

I doubt it highly.

I'm willing to bet that it's completely bogus, a quote made up by some guy on the internet and credited to the most unusual name he could dig up.

More's the pity.

This quote is on dozens of atheist websites and blogs. Somebody is even festooning hoodies and T-shirts with this. Atheists are supposed to be the smart ones, the "brights". Does it ever occur to them to fact-check what they post on their websites?

The Atheist response will most likely be, "Big deal, the quote is still true".

REALLY? The word of God killed more people then Lenin, Stalin, and Mao? Are we expected to believe that when it would have meant the elimination of the entire population of Europe?

Once again, intellectual dishonesty rules Village Atheism, and a silly, made-up quote stands as evidence.