The problem is Jesus
By Tom Quiner
When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Iraq, the president said:
“The future must not belong to those who slander Jesus the Christ.”
When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Syria, the president said:
“The sweetest sound I know is the call to Christian prayer.”
When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Nigeria, the president said:
“As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Christianity.”
When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Egypt, the president said:
“Christianity has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
When Muslims slaughtered Christians in Syria, the president said:
“We will convey our deep appreciation for the Christian faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
Astute readers, of course, know that these quotes have been doctored.
The president did NOT say the things above.
Substitute Islam for Christianity for the accurate quote. The president bends over backwards to defend Islam in the face of unrelenting Islamic aggression targeting Christians.
Some 100,000 Christians die in the name of Christ each year, most at the hands of Islamic zealots.
Interestingly, we hear of no similar outpouring of Christian support from the president or his liberal supporters as Islamic killers continue their world-wide war against civilization generally, and Christianity specifically.
Interestingly, traditional Christian beliefs support the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and traditional gender identities as does Islam. And yet Christian bakers, fast food restaurants, and CEOs who support these beliefs in the public square are attacked and destroyed by the president’s liberal pressure groups.
These are the same pressure groups who warn us not to be too judgmental against Muslims.
So what is the difference?
Jesus.
The culture wars are nothing new. They are simply the ongoing attacks against Christ which began 2000 years ago. Today’s liberals are merely useful tools for Satan.
For a better world, encourage Christians to follow the teachings of Jesus, and discourage Muslims from following the teachings of Muhammad.
Good advice.
I was with you until the last lines. This isn’t a liberal/conservative thing, this is a plague that infects our entire culture. Be honest and genuinely look at the total behavior of every POTUS we’ve ever had–you’ll not find a Christian among them, at least not while they were in office. And consider that while the public policies are carried under different rhetorics, the results are consistent: life is undervalued, the rich and corrupt are rewarded, and God is dead.
The “us and them” you’re searching for isn’t ‘lib/con’ or ‘left/right’ or ‘rich/poor’ or ‘black/white’ or any of the rest of it. The split is between the “found” and the “lost.” Instead of shouting at them to go away, shouldn’t we be trying to bring them home?
Your last sentence is a separate subject. My point is that it is liberals who are the consistent apologists for the religion of Mohammad, and the consistent critics of the religion of Jesus.
And my point is that I don’t see how drawing those kinds of lines is going to help. But maybe I’m missing something? Or maybe you’re just letting off some steam.
Misericordia vobis et pax et caritas adimpleatur.
For a better world let us keep religion out of it completely.
Don’t be naive, SKL, religion permeates the political Left, whether you call it secular humanism, moral relativism, neo paganism, or evangelical atheism. Misguided religious beliefs drive the Left.
Don’t religious beliefs help us determine what is good and bad, better and worse? If you don’t have religion, what standard do you use for these determinations?
Exactly, Steve. It’s why I write this blog. Religion and politics are linked. It explains why so many Catholics were Democrats for so long. They believed that Dems stood up for the little guy. It explains why so many Catholics are having second thoughts about the Democratic Party these days due to their embrace of human abortion. Religion influences our politics. Democrats are now telling us that we need to keep our faith at home, and keep it out of the public square. They want to establish their own state religion, which I call neo-paganism, in the public square. We are living through a clash of religions like we haven’t seen in a long time.
Hey Tom, I’m with you on this one.
Sad thing is the liberals who blindly support our president and his media enables haven’t given much thought to what, exactly, they are supporting.
Tools of Satan is an accurate way to describe them.
James
What I say is very politically incorrect, but what’s new?
The truth is always politically incorrect. This stuff needs to be said though.
Have a gteat day, God bless.
James
Most of the religious politicians in Australia are on the right side of politics and most of the atheists are on the left. You are attaching politics to create something far more complicated and dangerous than it already is.
Nothing complicated about it. Our religious beliefs animate our politics. They are linked.
Quiner, unlike Australia, unfortunately your political system and majority religious society tolerates politicians who bleat about their religious convictions and the policies they are pushing to support their faith. Remember it used to be communists driving the left and the world did not succumb to communist politics.
The good news is atheist numbers are increasing in the USA. It will not sort out all the political problems but you may get a government voted in through good policy rather than on their religious beliefs.
I understand and agree with most of what you say regarding the responsibilities of parents who should know better when it comes to looking after their children. As you will be aware the law of averages says that you will get a minority who don’t conform to our own standards and mostly this is due to reasons such as mental sickness, bad childhood and personal experiences or through poor personal decisions to take drugs and alcohol etc.
The human you will agree is far more complicated than other animals and we have a broad range of situations that humans have to deal with in this modern society and as with anything we all handle them differently and it goes without saying many parents have made poor and selfish decisions.
When you say “what standard does a parent use” I am not exactly sure what you mean. I understand from a long time ago when I was a child to today now that I am a parent and I understand that there is no absolute measurable standard as to what shape, quality or quantity this care takes. I think certain aspects may be influenced by financial and social situations but I find as a parent it comes as a natural responsibility to protect my family no matter what the situation is.
As they say there are no instructions in parenting and none of us get it completely right all of the time but at least most parents must get most of it right most of the time. This has to be because love, care, guiding and mentoring our children must be what comes naturally to most parents.
As a parent you tell your child something is good to eat. This generally means that based on nutritional information, a particular food will be beneficial to their health.
If you are going to talk to your child about doing right instead of wrong, how do you explain the difference between right and wrong, and what is your basis for making that distinction?
Steve Kirby, religious beliefs are not required to help us determine good or bad, better or worse. We are guided by our parents and it comes as a natural progression for humans to understand what standards are acceptable for your own and societies benefit just as any animal does.
Our parents are guided by some kind of “natural progression”? This “natural progression” claim is pretty vague. Can you explain this concept more and provide specific historical evidence to support this idea of a “natural progression” in determining acceptable standards?
I use the words “natural progression” but what I mean is parents are naturally paternal and pass on their knowledge to their offspring. This is where we first discover good and bad and better or worse and we progress in this learning as we become adults. This is usually the pattern for all the primates and many other animals so I do not understand why you say religious belief helps us determine these things.
SKL, saying that primates and other animals are naturally paternal and pass on their knowledge to their offspring is accurate to a certain extent, because these things are simply basic to the survival of the species; it is instinct The matter might appear to be complicated by the fact that among some animals the mother has to protect the newborn/young from being eaten by their father (who apparently didn’t get the memo about being paternal and passing along knowledge). But this is also essential to the survival of the species, and instinctual on the part of the mother.
Let’s consider human society. Where is the “naturally paternal” feeling and the desire to pass on knowledge in 1) the mother who aborts her baby; 2) the parent who physically abandons their child; 3) the parent who physically/sexually abuses their child; or 4) the parent who leaves it pretty much up to the schools to educate their child?
There are plenty of other examples of parents verbally abusing their children and/or simply setting horrible examples of conduct. So how can you make the blanket statement that “parents are naturally paternal and pass on their knowledge to their offspring”?
And back to the basic question: what standard does the parent use to determine what is good/bad, better/worse?
The difference?
That’s easy to answer.
A common enemy (judeo-christian civilization) and cowardice (Christians don’t cut your head off).
As for atheism, what I find funny is that when we tell atheists that atheistic regimes like Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China killed millions of people, they answer that atheism is no ideology but merely a lack of belief in God.
Fine, if atheism is merely a lack of belief in God and NOTHING ELSE then atheists cannot claim that atheism is somehow politically or morally better and neither can they claim that atheists pick politicians based on good policies.
Good points. I would suggest that atheists are some of the most faith-based people I have ever met. It takes a great deal of faith to believe that such an ordered universe happened by chance; that it somehow just popped into existence from nothing. I do not have that much faith myself.
Faith?? Atheists don’t use faith only facts. Religious people use faith based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. It is amazing how many people do not know the difference.
Atheists are not all the same. Some believe life on earth was started by aliens but the only common belief they all have is that no God exists and if you call that an ideology that is your opinion. Some atheists may claim they are politically or morally better, however this is nothing compared to the claims by the hundreds of religious faiths who claim they are the true religion and worship the true God and support the true biblical policies and this is without mentioning the groups of weirdos and cults.
Please explain why atheists cannot claim they pick politicians based on good policies? Most policies have absolutely nothing to do with religion. Politics in an atheists mind is not guided by a deity or policies from an ancient belief. Atheists will vote for politicians with good policies that they believe are the right ones based on their own opinions.
Granted, many voters religious or atheist are narrow minded and only vote on one or two issues that affect them personally and disregard the effect on the community or country as a whole but that is their right in a free democratic country and it is why we fought 2 world wars and a number of smaller ones since.
It seems that you missed my point completely.
As I said, atheists say that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God and nothing else.
You cannot infer patterns of behaviour from the mere lack of belief in something.
To give you an example.
George does not believe in the flying spagetti monster ;).
Let’s call him an aspagettimonsterist.
Just because he does not believe in the existence of the spagetti monster does not mean that he votes for politicians on the basis of their good policies.
To make that inference, aspagettimonsterism has to be MORE than a lack of belief.
You said: “The good news is atheist numbers are increasing in the USA. It will not sort out all the political problems but you may get a government voted in through good policy rather than on their religious beliefs.”
You cannot maintain that claim unless atheism is MORE than lack of belief in God.
The problem with atheists (I’m not talking about you specifically) is, that they conviniently use the argument that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God when they are confronted with the fact that the two regimes that killed more human beings than all religious wars combined (atheistic, communist China and Russia) while they are maintaining that atheism is beneficial to humanity.
But to be beneficial the behaviour of atheists must be beneficial.
That can only be the case if atheism is more than lack of belief in God.
This is a glaring inconsistency. These two positions are mutually exclusive.
Clearly, there are profound implications if someone doesn’t believe in God.
These implications follow logically and if an atheist is to be consistent he has to come to these conclusions.
1. There is no absolute moral authority.
Consequences: All morality is relative and evolves constantly.
Since all morality is relative this boils down to: might makes right.
An additonal consequence is that justice goes out the window.
2. All humans and all other creatures are just a bunch of atoms, that just came into being through blind natural forces and just happened to evolve over time.
Conseqences: Human life and all other lives have no intrinsic value.
These implications have consequences.
Furthermore, I agree with quiner that atheism requires faith.
The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe came into being literally out of nothing and time, space and matter began to exist some 13.7 billion years ago.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that the universe created itself out of nothing without any cause or any reason.
It might surprise you that even atheists have to have faith wether they like it or not.
Science operates on assumtions that cannot be proven. Science has to operate on faith
Here are just a few assumptions.
The most fundamental assumption is that the universe is intelligible and that we can trust our cognitive faculties.
The next big assumption is that the laws of nature don’t change but they stay the same.
Without that assumption no science would be possible. If you were to compute earth’s orbit around the sun for the next twelve months you have to trust that the law of gravity doesn’t change over time.
The same goes for calculations that go back in time like the age of the universe, dating methods like radio carbon dating etc.
These assumptions, by their very nature, can never be proven and have to be taken by faith.
Good conversation on this subject. Thanks for weighing in with such great insights.
Why would someone who does not believe in the spaghetti monster not vote for what they believe is good policy and how can atheism be more than a lack in belief of God? This I find is where believers invent the beliefs of atheists.
You are obviously unable to grasp the concept of free thinking. Let me spell it out to you. Scientific evidence of our existence I believe is overwhelming but I do not worship any scientist or scientific concept, therefore I have the choice to vote for whatever policies I like and for whomever I like, and I can if I wish contradict any scientific understanding with any policy I vote for because I don’t have a deity looking over my shoulder scrutinising my every move. Unlike yourself, whereas you are going to vote the way your religious convictions dictate. It is very simple.
Like I said before many policies delivered by whatever party is in power have nothing directly to do with religion. I guess if you try really hard you can find some negative way of connecting them, but that is a defeatist attitude and hardly a positive way to live your life.
As far as I understand it most people vote for the majority of the policies that improve their income, childcare, health and education among others. Policies such as abortion and gay marriage are big issues for religion but for atheists it is a personal issue and as they are free thinkers will vote how they see fit.
The China and Russian wars you mention are rattled out by theists every time often to change the subject. I don’t recall entering into this complex issue with you and I get the weird idea that you are suggesting atheists were responsible for these wars that were based solely on destroying religion. Of course that claim is absolutely baseless and to imply that this is the “more than lack of belief in God” has to be more than delusional.
I don’t know where you are going with this aspect. It suggests to me that you think all atheists will one day rise up and wipe out religion. Personally I don’t believe we need to lift a finger if your competitors in the Middle East get to the West.
“Morality authority” rests with each of us as adult individuals, it is our own responsibility, it is an obvious fact and you should realise this.
Again you are so wrapped up in yourself you do not understand atheists and free thinking. It is apparent you do not understand what faith is either so I will leave it there.
The rest of your assumptions and weird claims against the science that you know nothing about are explained on hundreds and thousands of websites that are far more interesting and factual than my explanations would be.
Your answer tells me that you still don’t understand my point.
Instead you went into a diatribe full of logical fallacies and strawman arguments.
I don’t bother adressing them all. I’ll address only the most egregious ones.
You said.
“Why would someone who does not believe in the spaghetti monster not vote for what they believe is good policy and how can atheism be more than a lack in belief of God?”
Nope, that’s not what I said.
I said: “George does not believe in the flying spagetti monster ;).
Let’s call him an aspagettimonsterist.
Just because he does not believe in the existence of the spagetti monster does not mean that he votes for politicians on the basis of their good policies.
To make that inference, aspagettimonsterism has to be MORE than a lack of belief.”
You see the difference?
You said:
“This I find is where believers invent the beliefs of atheists.”
That, coming from someone who invents arguments his opponents never made, is really funny.
You said:
“You are obviously unable to grasp the concept of free thinking. Let me spell it out to you. Scientific evidence of our existence I believe is overwhelming but I do not worship any scientist or scientific concept, therefore I have the choice to vote for whatever policies I like and for whomever I like, and I can if I wish contradict any scientific understanding with any policy I vote for because I don’t have a deity looking over my shoulder scrutinising my every move.”
The concept of free thinking is very easy to grasp. The short version of it is: “Don’t believe something is true just because someone told you so. Find it out yourself.”
In case you haven’ noticed, my argumend had absolutely nothing to do with that concept.
It also comes as complete news to me that I mentioned anywhere the effects of science on voting patterns.
You said:
“Unlike yourself, whereas you are going to vote the way your religious convictions dictate. It is very simple.”
You don’t know me and yet you claim to know how I would vote? Wow, since you claim to know me so well, would you also tell what my favorite dish is?
You said:
“The China and Russian wars you mention are rattled out by theists every time often to change the subject.”
Nope, I didn’t mention the “China and Russian wars”. Check your history and check what I actually said.
You said:
“I don’t know where you are going with this aspect.”
Yep, that is the absolute truth for a change.
You said:
““Morality authority” rests with each of us as adult individuals, it is our own responsibility, it is an obvious fact and you should realise this.”
Nope, I never talked about “Morality authority”.
I talked about an absolute moral authority.
Again you are misquoting me. Again you miss the point.
You said:
“Again you are so wrapped up in yourself you do not understand atheists and free thinking. It is apparent you do not understand what faith is either so I will leave it there.”
Considering the fact that I was many years of my life an atheist and what I thought would be a freethinker, that one is extremely funny.
Yet another logical fallacy. Could there possibly be other reasons for my arguments and views other than lack of understanding? could that be even remotely possible?
And please don’t tell me that I never was a real atheist to begin with because that would put you on the same level with Muslims who accuse all apostates from the faith of never having been real Muslims in the first place.
You said:
“The rest of your assumptions and weird claims against the science that you know nothing about are explained on hundreds and thousands of websites that are far more interesting and factual than my explanations would be.”
Again, you are misrepresenting me.
My claims are neither weird nor am I AGAINST science. In fact, I love science.
I showed the limits of science and that even scientist have to live by faith. They have to trust that some fundamental assumptions which can never be proven, are true.
I don’t claim to be a scientist but 2 years of studing chemistry at university gives me at least a fundamental understanding of science. An understanding that you obviously lack.
It seems, that it is you who knows nothing about science.
In any case, you don’t have to believe ME. Just ask any scientist and he will tell you that science has to operate on these fundamental assumptions.
I’d rather have a cool, rational debate instead of one that is sliding down to the level of absolute nonsense but that is not possible because you are not even able (or willing) to have a debate without constantly misrepresenting my arguments and attacking straw men.
Whether you are doing this because you are unable to understand my arguments makes little difference for me.
Furthermore, it seems to me, that your thinking is not freethinking (in the literal sense of the word) at all but rather very limited to the dogma of your world view.
In other words: debating you is a waste of time.
And since my time is too precious to me I say: Have a nice day and a happy live.