There's a fellow who has been posting as an atheist on various sites, and making unusual claims — unusual because I have never heard an atheist say anything like this.
If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it? So what if you don't like it, what if I do?
If I want to do something, and my conscience is cool with it, then I can do it. If it's feed a homeless person, so be it. If it's kill my neighbor, so be it. I am not bound to any morals.
Wha…? That's not what an atheist would say; it sounds more like an ignorant Christian caricature of an atheist. And what do you know, it was. Even better, the fellow who is doing this is Pastor Chris Fox of Kendalls Baptist Church in New London, NC. He has been confronted with his dishonesty, and he sees nothing wrong with it, even. Way to represent Christian morality, pastor!
Since this is acceptable Christian behavior, I guess that means I can visit various Christian sites, pretend to be born-again, and chatter about how that means I have acquired a taste for human flesh and want to gun down random people so they can go to heaven faster. Oh, wait, darn…I'm an atheist! I'm bound by human, social patterns of acceptable behavior, and don't have an imaginary friend in the sky to give me a pardon for lying. Oops. I guess I'll have to change my plans for the afternoon.
- Log in to post comments
And who is the Prince of Lies, again? This guy needs to spend some time figuring out which imaginary supernatural being he's serving and figure out how best to do that. You can't serve two masters, even if neither of them exists.
Nietzsche reacted against late Xianity in part because it had become nihilistic.
If the "meaning" left simply involves boosting Xianity, rather than having some other goal, it can only be a trap for its victims.
The fly in the ointment is that it is not really clear why preset-day atheists generally adhere to late Xian morality, rather than to, say, some early pagan or animistic morality. There are social reasons to do so, naturally, but not much else.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Hmm.. he and the rest of his staff went to private backwoods Christian schools in the mountains of NC and SC (well, Wingate isn't half bad, but Mars Hill? c'mon man), and now they're preaching Baptist nonsense in the Peidmont... shocker. He, along with all 100 people in his little town between Charlotte and Greensboro, will never see what's wrong with what he did, because atheists aren't people in this state; The ad campaign between Dole and Hagan demonstrated that well.
Cue comparisons to poll crashing in 3...2...1...
And what's the betting that he used his own fake posts in his sermons to show how atheists have "no morals" etc.
Lying for Jesus - it's amazing where that can lead you once you start.
arrghh.. forgot to close my bold.
Jeez, it makes me sad sometimes that I am from NC. Assholes like this minister give us southerners a bad name.
I for one find it rather scary how savage and evil religious people would be but for their faith.
Most of us atheists are moral, decent people by default, whereas the average xtian appears to be a lying, cheating child molesting beast only held in check by fear of divine retribution.
In order to discuss his comment intelligently, we need to understand the following terms:
so be it
So what
what if I do?
conscience
cool with it
I can do it.
bound
morals
Until those get unpacked, it's just 3 year old Timmy playing in daddy's band with his plastic stringless guitar.
I've lost track on how many times I've said that the religious can use their beliefs to justify any behavior, from small lies, to disgusting acts against humanity - and do it with a smile, and think they're doing good. Total hypocrisy.
"These people's God has shown them by a million acts that he respects none of the Bible's statutes. He breaks every one of them himself, adultery and all." ["Mark Twain and the Three R's, by Maxwell Geismar, p.124]
Spiro Keat, give me a break. You don't believe that.
After careful reflection, I've decided to adopt true, biblical morality.
Starting today, I will be cruising for whores, fortune-tellers, witches and wizards...and killing them.
I will also be cruising for gay men...and killing them. Lesbians get a pass.
I will also kill my children. One struck me the other day, another cursed me, and the last refuses to do what I tell him to. Therefore, I will kill them.
I will be selling our daughter into slavery/marriage. Any takers?
This Sunday, I will be driven to all the area merchants by my wife...and killing them for working on Sunday, then kill my wife, for driving me around.
I will also be burning down the local Walmart and Targets as they sell clothing that contains both wool and other fibers.
Hmmm, my week seems pretty full. How's yours?
Isn't one of those Commandment thingies all about not bearing false witness? I'm an atheist through and through and have never been to church, but even I know that.
So typical. A high degree of religiousness seems to
be correlated to a high degree of hypocrisy. Does that mean
that naturally hypocrite people (if such things exist) tend
to become religious, or that religious people tend to become
hypocrites? Sigh.
>>>The fly in the ointment is that it is not really clear why preset-day atheists generally adhere to late Xian morality, rather than to, say, some early pagan or animistic morality. There are social reasons to do so, naturally, but not much else.
Glen, this is a truly important question. Its easy to pick on Xianity, and certainly this fellow in Mars Hill deserves scorn, but I stand by my belief that Atheists could do much worse than imitate moderate, modern Xian social patterns, without the literalism and science-limiting superstitions of course.
I'm glad the guy was found out, but he'll just use this to raise more money. It's the old - see I was tempted ploy.
While there are atheists who do go around parodying Christians the good Pastor misses the point of parody; the caricature has to be based on some reality of the target. All the good pastor Fox did was reinforce the parodiers' criticism that Christians are really just clueless hypocrites who live in self created world of delusion and thrive on infliction pain on others.
What is so exquisitely delightful about this story by his make believe world’s rules he *has* to be the with bother hands on the table or that makes him one of us “hell bound, unsaved”. Way to go.
According to his bio, Pastor Chris's passions include "equipping the church to be disciples and do 'disciple things.'"
Is pretending to be someone you're not a "disciple thing"?
I wonder if it's because they are told over and over that they are miserable sinners with no hope of controlling themselves without external influence? If they do bad, that's only be expected from the "fallen", but if they do good, it's only by Grace™. In a weird way, there's nothing unusual (to them) about harboring all kinds of terrible thoughts - if they didn't, it would in a way be evidence against their faith?
I can see some people responding that way to that message, at least, though I don't think every fundie's like that. (At least, I sure hope not...)
And such a wonderful book it is.
Well, why should he see anything wrong with it? Unlike the atheist, who can do anything he pleases as long as his conscience is cool with it, this guy can do anything even if his own conscience is NOT cool with it. After all, he's not personally responsible for what he does, as long as it's done for the cause of almighty Jesus. If he does it in the name of Christian morality, that doesn't mean that it was right to begin with; it means that it now is right.
I remember seeing a book 20-30 years ago in the early days of gay liberation by a Christian, entitled "Is the Homosexual my Neighbor?" Maybe some Christian who has managed to retain some contact with his own human conscience ought to write a book, "Is the Atheist my Neighbor?"
I remember hearing part of a radio phone-in show a couple of years ago (it's on the net somewhere) where the subject was religion and morals etc., and the guy on the phone was ranting about faith in gawd being the only thing stopping meek pious and generally wonderful people like himself from going around raping and murdering.
So the DJ asked him directly; "Are you saying that if it weren't for your faith you go on a killing spree?"
The guy spluttered a bit, and amazingly, at the last second said yes, he would.
But the best part was the next caller who came on and immediately said "Gee, I'm glad I ain't that guy's neighbour!"
@ 2 & 9:
The definition of "morals" would be the most interesting on your list there, niner.
And I certainly don't adhere to xian morals. I think morality is socially defined. Religions just like to try and make us think they made the rules, but the rules are made by mutual agreement and are constantly evolving. For a real-life example of the micro-evolution of morality: Go call a black person a negro. Or better yet, "boy..."
I wonder if an individual human life of approximately 80 years is enough for these people to understand that they are driving a nail through their own wrists every time something like this is done and -more importantly- is revealed to others than the actual perpetrators? It's the same thing with Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church: they are the best gay pride promoters as they make all homophobes appear utmostly foolish and ridiculous.
I'll agree with Rob in Memphis.
I'm pretty sure their invisible sky fairie gave them some rules about not bearing false witness.
Christian morality?
Guy might want to read the 10 commandments again. There used to be one about not lying. Oh, that's right, the fundies tossed a bunch of them. The ones about not lying and not killing. Those 10 commandments have become the 8 commandments for them.
We had a family from N. Carolina move into the area. I thought, damn, there goes the neighborhood. It turns out that they are well educated, have only a slight upper class southern accent, and don't seem the least bit religious. My best guess is that they are refugees. LOL
cm @11:
I doubt know, but there have been several christians here who have said that they would indeed be axe murderers and more were it not for there fear of hell. Not a represntative sample, I know, but still...
Even if he was truly amoral, killing his neighbor has consequences that will most likely prevent him from doing it. Humans are instinctively moral, of course, but there are other reasons not to kill.
Seems to me, because it works reasonably well. Aping Churchill, it's 'the worst form of morals in the world, except for all the others'.
Even then, I'd say that atheists (in the west, anyway) tend to follow what you might call 'Enlightenment morals' which drew heavily from earlier Christian morality, but which have heavily influenced 'late Xian' morality, too. Two groups communicating with a common source can appear to be communicating with each other...
Glen #2, Matt #15
You have it the wrong way round: christianity has had (mostly) to conform to Enlightenment morality and ethics.
RB
You just know that there are lots more born again praise-the-Lord Christians who want to do the same thing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we began to see this happening more frequently, in fact. Lying for jesus is acceptable, after all . . . it’s for jesus!
Has anyone thought about contacting the Kendalls Baptist Church and let them know about this? Roast pastor is d-e-l-i-c-i-o-u-s.
MS. LOVETT: Have a little priest
TODD: Is it really good?
MS. LOVETT: Sir, it's too good, at least/Then again they don't commit sins of the flesh/So it's pretty fresh
TODD: Awful lot of fat
MS. LOVETT: Only where it sat
TODD: Haven't you got poet or something like that?
MS. LOVETT: The trouble with poet/Is how do you know it’s deceased?/Try the priest!
--Sondheim, natch.
i'm most amused by the speed and easy that the "parody" was identified
apparently Poe's Law only goes one way. who knew?
Trolling for Jesus, lying for Jesus, etc. have ceased to shock me. I am a bit suprised as to the depths that people will sink to. My very Catholic aunt is a perfect example. It would be great if they could see the inanity and stupidity of actions like this. It will convince some of their hardcore believers that we are all evil but mostly be responsible for alienating non-believers and moderates among them. All they will accomplish is smaller, more extreme religious groups while their overall numbers dwindle.
But then again, there is some research out there that has some interesting information:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm
Apparently they've evolved to not notice their own mistakes, yet take notice of others' supposed errors. It appears that they may have evolved the "Holier Than Thou" attitude.
We've seen it time and again, so it shouldn't be a surprise anymore. Many Christians -- possibly even a majority -- don't really feel bound by the Ten Commandments when dealing with non-Christians. They don't feel obligated to play by the club's rule when confronting folks from outside the club. That's why the Christians on the Dover school board felt empowered to lie (even under oath!) while trying to get creationism into the high science classroom. That's why Pastor Fox thinks it's okay to spread falsehoods while posing as an atheist. It's for the greater glory of God!
That's why anti-evolutionists like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham (only one of whom is in prison as of this writing) feel justified in repeating thoroughly discredited arguments, pretending they still have validity (second law of thermodynamics, anyone?), because the ends justify the means.
There is no segment of humanity more dedicated to situational ethics than fervent right-wing Christians. IOKIYAC!
Didn't Luther say something about a little lie to save a soul was ok? I seem to remember that somewhere, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
It is a good start. You also need to kill anyone who eats shellfish, sows two different seeds in the same field, or is not a believer in your cult.
Oddly enough some xians really believe mass murders of nearly everyone is a good thing. Rushdooney, the father of xian Dominionism and Pat Robertson's mentor, had a long list of people who should be killed. It is calculated that his spiritual reign would result in the murder of 297 million of the 300 million people alive in the USA.
The only wannabe murders who can beat that are the Rapture Monkeys. They want god to show up and kill all 6.7 billion people. A few deeply spiritual xians are hoping we discover UFO aliens. Then god can kill those too.
Fortunately our society has mechanisms in place to keep them in check. They are called laws, cops, courts, prisons, and the armed forces. Hard to be a True Xian(tm) these days in our degenerate society.
Xians and morality. They are doing it wrong!
Well it demonstrated that a portion of people think that way. Unfortunately those people are very vocal and well represented, but I can guarandamntee you that it isn't an across the board characteristic of that state or area (I grew up in Winston-Salem which is essentially right there). But there are plenty of people who aren't caught up in that line of idiocy. And many of them live right there in the piedmont. It's not about the geography, it's about the mentality.
And My grandfather went to Mars Hill for a while before UNC and NC State! He ended up with a PhD and as a professor of Entomology. Don't be too harsh on it. ;)
"If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it?"
Um, doesn't this just sum up the traditional fundamentalist Christian concept of marriage, with the husband as the head of the household and the submissive, obedient wife?
I just love it when wackadoodles, in the course of trying to make atheists look bad, end up making our point for us.
Of course, by "moderate, modern Xian social patterns" you mean post-Enlightenment, secular social patterns, which have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity per se, and are also practised by people of all other faiths and those of none. Not being an axe-murderer is not a "Xian social pattern".
The really scary thing is that I'll bet most (or at least a very sizeable minority) of Pastor Fox's congregants think he's just brilliant for doing this. Spread the Word of Jesus Christ! Praise the Lord!
It's not a Christian morality. It's a modern Western morality. True, it originated with Christians- necessarily, as at the time of its evolution essentially everyone in the West was either Christian, or a second class citizen at best. It is not, however, based on Christianity. The lack of genuinely Christian flavor to this code is demonstrated in how thoroughly so many Christian religious beliefs offend this code when actually examined. See Ryogam Channels Pastor Chris for an example of that.
"If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it? So what if you don't like it, what if I do?"
Hey, he can try that on THIS woman....and spend the next month picking his teeth up out of the street.
LOL! Fox has quite the problem with his own lack of morality. He could not even teach himself that lying is unacceptable behavior. Quite the failed Pastor.
I think he should reconsider the marketing strategy of behaving like an asshole. God's asshole is not a very attractive job description.
I emailed the 'good pastor' moments ago to display my disgust at such disingenuous tactics and literally seconds later received the following reply:
Methinks the good pastor is getting inundated with emails similarly decrying his misrepresentation as being an atheist.
@Rev.> Sorry, I am aware that Mars Hill is a private baptist school to which I won't send my players unless they REALLY want to go... I live in Raleigh, used to live in Wilmington, and even in those areas I've run into a large percentage that would agree with this idiocy. I'm not painting the entire state with this brush, just those already wearing a coat of paint...
Lying is a well practiced art form, especially for a certain breed of Christians. I encounter "Christian", both Catholic and fundamentalist, protesters at a Planned Parenthood clinic weekly. The lie through their teeth and are proud of it. Of course, they don't consider it lying. They're "witnessing for Jesus." Disgusting slimeballs as far as I'm concerned.
So what if he is an atheist? He's obviously a sociopath; he'd be twisted regardless of his belief.
Here's the good pastor's email. The church website shows he has two beautiful little girls--I hope they turn out OK in spite of him.
pastorchrisfox@windstream.net
Zeno #36:
Of course it's only a small step from that to dismissing non-members as sub-human, and we know where that leads.
Shifting gears to another religion for a moment, this reminds me of the Glasgow Airport terrorist attack in 2007. The terrorists were Muslim doctors who has presumably taken the Hippocratic Oath. Of course, since they were fanatical Muslims, their faith trumped everything, even their oath. So they saw no wrong in attempting to murder innocent "infidels" who according to their religion, were no better than animals.
Religion poisons everything - no doubt about it. I for one will never trust a Muslim doctor again.
Elwood
What the hell??? Words cannot express my, what's the word? I'm not shocked, because religionuts are liars, I'm not mad, because it's just stupid... I don't even know what I think. Maybe "hmmmm, more of the same..."
A Christian who doesn't follow the 9th commandment, what a novel concept.
I've heard he isn't even a real fox.
I think that's so, and it evolved both to accommodate universalism (in the Roman Empire), and due to a changing world that had to understand other cultures and systems.
If Nietzsche says that Xian notions of equality (expanded from the earlier views, naturally) is not for him, though, it would be hard to say that it should be. Except that society won't work very well if many agree with him--which may be a good enough answer, along with yours (& basically, cm's).
That's why I called it late Xianity, for it was both late, and still quite Xian in belief and in mores.
But yes, it's true that one could call it "late Xian morality" or simply "our civilization's morality," recognizing that the latter has never conformed to Xian ideals.
Nevertheless, someone like Nietzsche faults Xian morality especially on its ideas of equality, which, however much observed in the breach, have had a great deal to do with civilization's ideal morality from Roman Xian times onward. That was relatively new when Xianity started, as the idea that "all men are created equal" would have seemed absurd prior to, say, around the time of Socrates. And it probably owes more to Greek ideas than to Jewish ideas.
Like I said, there are social reasons, and they probably are overwhelmingly powerful, in fact. I guess my primary point is that it's a bit hard to tell anyone that they should adhere to social mores based on social needs. Nevertheless, they probably won't anyway if they don't feel a part of society and have a social conscience (whether or not they're religious), so it may be as good a reason to give as any.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Glen:
I'm not convinced that they do. That is, I'm not convinced it's reasonable to refer to the Venn-diagram intersection of moral principles atheists adhere to and moral principles Christians adhere to can fairly be called "Christian morality."
If you take Christian moral teaching and separate out the stuff specifically related to god-worship, along with the arbitrary limits on personal behavior (i.e., what you eat and who you fuck, for the most part) based on God's willwhim, what you're left with is a fairly universal, humanistic set of moral principles that Christianity can hardly claim as original or unique: Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't murder. Recognize the moral equality of other people to yourself. It's not that these are Christian ideals that atheists subscribe to; it's that these are nearly universal human ideals that both Christians and atheists subscribe to, owing to their common humanity.
If by "late Xian morality, rather than [..], say, some early pagan or animistic morality," you're referring to sexual mores and mating customs, I would argue that these are customs rather than morals. I don't know that our pattern of heterosexual, monogamous, ostensibly permanent pairing is uniquely Christian, nor do I know that it's fair to say atheists generally adhere to it (that is, I don't know of any statistics comparing rates of alternative sexuality or family models among atheists to those in the general population, or to Christians), but even stipulating both points, I'd say it's more a matter of conforming to the majority culture, rather than "adhering to Christian morality."
He must be getting inundated with e-mails. He's created a form letter response which I got back within 3 minutes. Too little too late.
I said "Despicable, pathetic and a sorry state that Christianity has fallen to."
His reply
"Let me share that when I recently came across the UF website, I browsed through the posts and wanted to share ideas and give opinions. I am in no way a fundie or anti-atheist/non-believing. But, I got wrapped up in some of the topics and posts and wanted to share, and I allowed it to step over the line. I did not opine to antagonize or "win souls" - in fact, I am quite moderate in my beliefs. I didn't personally attack anyone. I don't characterize all atheists as immoral or amoral. In fact, there are believers who do immoral things. I was indeed hypocritical. My intentions were not to be deceiving. I wanted to ask questions that would allow others to think and bring out their thoughts. I am deeply sorry for my actions. As I have pondered and prayed over the past few days, it was not the right way. It may be my naivete, but I wanted to speak from my experience with people of all walks of life and actual thoughts and conversations I have had. I never intended the thoughts to characterize all atheists/non-believers. In conversations with my atheist/non-believing friends, we share openly and candidly and give permission to speak bluntly about things, often using hypotheticals and hyberbole. I see that some of the posts have characterized me as a fundie and extreme, an idiot, and worse, but I am anything but. I don't know what your beliefs are, but please don't let this alone form an opinion about my character or heart. I am truly sorry and am learning from this.
Kindest regards,
Chris
chris fox emailed me back:
Rick,
Let me share that when I recently came across the UF website, I browsed through the posts and wanted to share ideas and give opinions. I am in no way a fundie or anti-atheist/non-believing. But, I got wrapped up in some of the topics and posts and wanted to share, and I allowed it to step over the line. I did not opine to antagonize or "win souls" - in fact, I am quite moderate in my beliefs. I didn't personally attack anyone. I don't characterize all atheists as immoral or amoral. In fact, there are believers who do immoral things. I was indeed hypocritical. My intentions were not to be deceiving. I wanted to ask questions that would allow others to think and bring out their thoughts. I am deeply sorry for my actions. As I have pondered and prayed over the past few days, it was not the right way. It may be my naivete, but I wanted to speak from my experience with people of all walks of life and actual thoughts and conversations I have had. I never intended the thoughts to characterize all atheists/non-believers. In conversations with my atheist/non-believing friends, we share openly and candidly and give permission to speak bluntly about things, often using hypotheticals and hyberbole. I see that some of the posts have characterized me as a fundie and extreme, an idiot, and worse, but I am anything but. I don't know what your beliefs are, but please don't let this alone form an opinion about my character or heart. I am truly sorry and am learning from this.
Kindest regards,
Chris
Clarification:
"Christian morality" is an oxymoron. Morality entails human decency and a conscience, which Christian have drummed out of them at an early age, to be replaced with a fear-driven conditioned response to arbitrary rules.
As they mature, they break the rules without consequence (since their avenging tyrant turns out to be an internalized fiction.) With no consequences, they tell themselves that they must have been right all along, and that the tyrant must love them and approve of their evil acts.
So right and wrong are all mixed together in a repulsive, chaotic mess in the depths of their damaged minds.
cm # 11
"Spiro Keat, give me a break. You don't believe that."
I'd rather not believe it but a lot of evidence points in that direction.
Fatwa envy seems to be prevalent, as does the wish to see harm come to "deviants" like gays and atheists.
Scratch the surface of most smiling, love thy neighbour as thy self xians and you'll find a bubbling cauldron of hate against non believers.
Yeah, this is exactly what prevents me going to local churches and muttering throughout the whole service "It's just a myth! It's just superstition!" to answer the creationists that mutter "it's just a theory" whenever they are "forced" to sit through a lecture on evolution.
Never mind the boilerplate email response, I just hope he explains to his congregation exactly what he did, and the reaction he got. But I doubt he will.
Wow... I got the same email reply... thought he was responding only to me!!!
Another follow-up reply:
I'm not sure if you read all/most of my posts, but I really didn't intend to deceive or characterize atheism. There are people from all walks of life who have their morals. I respect and stand for rights of all American citizens and don't like anyone to be treated second class. Again, I apologize and would love to have conversation and friendly discussion.
Chris
Riiiight...
#47- Raleigh-ite here as well... good on ya!
If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it?
I didn't see the original comment (and good on Daniel for outing the bastard!), but ISTM that the sanitization-by-asterisk is a giveaway that something is fishy. Very few atheists (and probably few non-wingnut Christians) would be so prissy as to be unable to spell out "bitch", in that context. Certainly anyone who really did want to "make a woman his bitch" would not shrink from it.
But there you have the fundy mindset: it's OK to lie, and to thereby slander a whole group of people -- but using one of our milder taboo words, in a context where the word is appropriate, is a big no-no. Ironic, that his petty scruples betray him.
@26 "slight upper class southern accent"
I've got one of them low-rent Texas drawls. You'd probably laugh to hear to gawd-denouncing coming out of my mouth.
Yeah, honestly I haven't really looked at Mars Hill and how it positions itself today. But it was a stepping stone for some mountain folk (my family) back in the day. I'm sure it probably fits in with what you are saying. And yes don't get me wrong, as a NC native, current SC resident and NC State graduate, there are plenty of people to paint with that brush.
crucify him!
Me thinks the good pastor has finally realized the teh intertoobs are not always an anonymous as he thought.
I can easily imagine someone waiting outside his church this Sunday, passing out fliers that explain his hateful actions to his flock, or even contacting his local papers with the story. I'm sure they'd love some of the things he wrote.
"but I really didn't intend to deceive or characterize atheism."
Uh...riiiight. That's not what you were doing at all.
Scumbag
This guy should be posting a public apology. Not privately sending back emails to just those he knows he's offended.
Magnum@40 -- Nice -- I might not have noticed that little bit of projection.
#27 - Yup, a certain Vox Asshole comes to mind.
It suprises and frightens me that one of the first acts religious people cite as doing if they weren't religious is killing.
Rev, just curious: Was your grandfather a collector/taxonomist, an ecologist, or a nozzlehead variety of entomologist?
It's bad enough to be hostile and hate-filled. It's worse to shift blame and justify and excuse himself and think he did nothing wrong, and to compare others' (far less spiteful, incoherent, irrational, illiterate - on an atheist site!) posts to his own lying, mendacious, two-faced, hypocritical deceit. It's even worse to claim to be a loving Christian. Oh, it gets worse! He's a pastor!
A shining beacon of the Lord Jesus Christ's lying, mendacious, deceitful, hypocritical, fraudulent, crooked, shifty, underhanded, two-faced nature. I'm feeling the call to turn Christian... baby, I'm right there!
From their church home page:
Living the Authentic Life
awthentik / adj. 1 of undisputed origin; genuine. 2 reliable or trustworthy.
Our society today has seen the inauthentic side to Christianity. The problem the world has with Christians is not that we don't have it all together. It's that we pretend like we do. Living the authentic life is simply being genuine and real, seeking to be like Jesus, who was authentic in His love, compassion, and service. Let’s discover how to be authentic and show our community and world we are who we are because of who He is and what He has done!
But don't you see? The pastor was such an abominably crappy liar *because* he is a good Christian, and hasn't had much practice. That little bit of internet shenanigans was probably his first falsehood ever--of course he'd do it badly. Us atheists can write Poes that would fool Jeezus because we are so practiced in chicanery and deceit. /snark
Seriously, I've had at least two quite-vocal Christians tell me that they'd be up on a roof with an AK-47 if it wasn't for Jesus.
Classic!!
Ecologist. He pioneered ecologically sound methods of pest control.
It's God's flesh PZ, not human flesh. Or it's somehow both or something, I'm not really sure.
I wrote Pastor Fox a letter. Here is the ending paragraph. Let me know what you think.
"By posing as an atheist and saying terrible things, you have only proven to me once again that morality is not derived from religious belief. Morality comes from knowing and understanding our fellow man. It comes from knowing our place on this planet. We are all stewards to the Earth. I don't believe in an afterlife but I do believe in making the most of this life. For this reason I think it is of the utmost importance that we must put our personal beliefs aside if we wish to exist together as a nation, or better yet as a species. To think that a man of god would purposely stir the kettle in an attempt to distort others beliefs is about as immoral as it gets for me."
Pastor Sly Fox can lie all he wants. He can murder and steal, and break every rule of his holy books. He just has to pray for forgiveness before he croaks.
That is morality, Christian style.
Having also received the good pastors form letter, I initially thought I would engage him in polite debate. Like several other posters here I suggested he confess to his congregation, to own up to his behaviour, however as I reread his crafted response, I do not get the impression he actually believes he has done wrong, only he feels guilt for having been caught.
In all we should thank men like him, his hypocrisy is the best recruiting tool atheism has.
Spiro Keat #61:
How do you know this? What studies have you done? How could such studies be done? Do you know how difficult it would be to really know this? Do you know you are making a generalization about...wait for it...two billion people? A bubbling cauldron of hate?
You seem to have quaffed a Big Gulp's worth of atheist superiority Kool-Aid. Your attitude buys you cheap smugness but little understanding, compassion, or opportunities to think constructively and helpfully.
The home page of the his church had this to say
Hypocrite
hyp-o-crite [hip-uh-krit}
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
reposting (damn optional preview!):
Spiro Keat #61:
How do you know this? What studies have you done? How could such studies be done? Do you know how difficult it would be to really know this? Do you know you are making a generalization about...wait for it...two billion people? A bubbling cauldron of hate?
You seem to have quaffed a Big Gulp's worth of atheist superiority Kool-Aid. Your attitude buys you cheap smugness but little understanding, compassion, or opportunities to think constructively and helpfully.
yes, the use of the phrase "so be it" three times in five very short sentences would seem to indicate a christian in sheep's clothing.
A lying preacher from south of the Mason-Dixon line?
Say it ain't so.
So, having been caught in a lie, what does he do? Lie some more!
Learning how to lie better, no doubt.
Yes, because of course 45 self-selected extremists are more representative of tens of thousands of doctors worldwide, than are those tens of thousands who are not committing terrorist acts, or the Islamic Medical Association UK, who unequivocally condemned the attacks.
CRITICAL THINKING FAIL--might as well just go ahead and put the "woo" right on back in...
Digg it, digg it!
http://digg.com/arts_culture/Pastor_Gets_Caught_Lying_for_Jesus
Nice. A nozzlehead in end, an ecologist in means. Much respect.
Richard Bond @#30, and where did Enlightenment Morality come from, in both the geographic sense, and its philosophical antecedents?
>>>Pastor Sly Fox can lie all he wants. He can murder and steal, and break every rule of his holy books. He just has to pray for forgiveness before he croaks.
That is morality, Christian style.
Thats pretty shitty, Newfie. Kinda like when people blame atheist morality for Russian Communism.
In his defense, Fox's email appears to be sincere. Given that it is, and that he doesn't do it again, then I say live and let live. Maybe he learned his lessons: that Internet anonymity is a myth, and that (especially given his title of Pastor) if he does something wrong, he will be called out on it.
** Take this, and eat . . .
Of course xian communion (aka mass) is nothing but a dim memory of killing and eating god in the raw, tearing apart a living animal or a human, including kings -- portrayed in its disgusting horror by Euripides in his play, The Bacchae. (400 years BCE)
Killing and eating children was a charge that pagans used against xians -- just what were those secretive Jesus worshipers during their "love feasts." (Why . . . indiscriminate sex, semen eating, and cannibalism.)
When xians decided that a Jewish monopoly on reading/writing/lawyering & money lending just had to end -- strange to tell Jews got charged with killing xian babies and eating them.
Typical lying xian leader, this not so sly Fox demonstrates a total lack of creativity. Slobs like this guy really do feed on others by taking their money fraudulently and spewing out vile beliefs into a world which has deserved far better for over 2,000 years.
Crush the infamy!
Note: Of course there needs to a de-deified morality. To get some sense of the project see Michel Onfray. Atheist Manifesto. 2006.
...I just love it when christians say they'll rape and murder me if their God doesn't exist. It just shows how demented they are.
Is anyone all that surprised? The fundies have a terrible track record on honesty or accountability. I'll bet there are millions who would happily defend the pastor to the point of arguing that white is black.
I'm kind of with you Ben. I have a fast urban non-twangy metroplex accent (the kind most people outside of Texas don't know exists). I can't believe how often I'm "complimented" on not sounding Texan. I never know how to take that. After all shouldn't it be what I say that matters? I've heard some pretty idiotic things said with distiguished polish.
Thanks! He's a pretty respected dude in those circles. They even have a lecture series in his honor at NCSU. EO Wilson and Ken Miller were the first two lecturers.
NAME DROPPER!!
@#58
I'm for cutting him a break. I believe that he just wanted to engage in dialogue. He agrees that he stepped over the line. I'm for inviting him to discuss his ideas on Pharyngula.
thalarctos: If a Muslim - ANY Muslim - can be persuaded by his faith that it is more important than an oath that he swore to protect ALL human life (which presumably they took while crossing their fingers behind their backs), AND when their own holy book tells them that it's acceptable, even expected of them to kill infidels because they are considered not human, then I stand by what I said. I will not trust any Muslim doctor. There is a blatant conflict of interest right there.
"Has anyone thought about contacting the Kendalls Baptist Church and let them know about this?"
Posted by: franz dibbler
I went looking for a local newspaper in the area, but apparently the County that New London is in doesn't have one. Any suggestions from people who know the area as to a good newspaper to send a letter to the editors about his behavior? Is there a major newspaper in North Carolina?
Also, it appears most people have sent letters to his personal e-mail address. There's also a church e-mail address:
kendallschurch@ctc.net.
Since I don't spoof and don't want such lying bastards to have my e-mail address I haven't tried it to see if it goes to someone else in the church.
Rev #99 with a Kwok-block!!
For shame!!
Presumably you'll never trust a white Christian doctor or pharmacist, because of ANY of those fundie assholes who'll let their values get between their patients and their fiduciary interests as well?
Or is it only brown people you hold to that particular non-representative double standard?
@#100:
Shit, I can't *wait* to see what we do to him if he shows his cyber-face up in here!
Nozzlehead's indeed. *snort*
How about a little respect for us cluckheads? You'd have some mighty lonely bacon without us.
Is it, Matt?
How would you explain last rites then?
"If a Muslim - ANY Muslim - can be persuaded by his faith that it is more important than an oath that he swore to protect ALL human life (which presumably they took while crossing their fingers behind their backs), AND when their own holy book tells them that it's acceptable, even expected of them to kill infidels because they are considered not human, then I stand by what I said. I will not trust any Muslim doctor. There is a blatant conflict of interest right there.
Posted by: Elwood (Red) Herring
Sounds like you can't trust any Christan or Jewish doctors either according to your standards since there are plenty of Christians & Jews who also consider their holy books more important than their oaths, and their books also promote genocide of outsiders.
And Brownian's Corollary to Poe's Law ("A fundamentalist theist/creationist is generally incapable of producing a convincing parody of an atheist/evolutionist.") remains unbroken!
Patricia, I enjoyed scrambled free-range eggs with Tilamook cheddar and fresh pico de gallo for dinner just last night. Delicious even without the bacon.
It was only a matter of time before someone used our bacon addiction to gain favor for another foodstuff.
Patricia, I hope you feel dirty.
On the subject of cluckers, I felt a little odd after dinner the other day because it suddenly occured to me that I had eggs and chicken on the same salad.
Two generations in one meal may be a little much.
I'm not very surprised by the contradiction between religious moral proscriptions and the behavior of some the religious. As I have observed most religions and in this case particularly the christian fundamentalist variety denies most of nature especially human nature which it fights and condemns as sinful. This is abuse on a most basic level.
As is common with abuse victims they often become abusers themselves. They project all of the evil and pain of their abuse onto some other who they can then victimize without guilt.
the pastor told everyone what he really feels about morality and his real beliefs in his projection.
abuse victims are sick damaged people some are very dangerous most are often unstable at least. all need help most will not get much.
E-mailed.
It's incredibly convenient for this Chris Fox dude to recant his post only after the proverbial shit hit the fan. It is, to be generous, disingenuous for him to claim that he didn't intend to be deceptive, in spite of the fact that he was a Christian pretending to be an atheist.
For him to say, "I wanted to ask questions that would allow others to think and bring out their thoughts" is laughable. Really? Posting offensive comments as a means of eliciting thoughtful responses? Give me a break.
Bjørn Østman writes:
Humans are instinctively moral, of course
ORLY?
If it's instinct, then it's not a choice and therefore it's neither moral or immoral - it's just a meat robot doing what it's programmed to do.
Of course the whole notion of right/wrong hinges upon choice, and I haven't yet heard a convincing argument that we have anything more than an illusion of free will. So, to me, the whole point is moot.
cm
"Your attitude buys you cheap smugness but little understanding, compassion, or opportunities to think constructively and helpfully."
Hey, whatya know, I'm a christian!!
Seriously cm, read the bible; study the genocidal history of the abrahamic religions; read about the Phelps and the pro-life maniacs.
Sven - I love Tillamook cheese too, the smoked cheddar is really good with smoked salmon. Yumm!
Kitty'sBitch - Nah, I never feel dirty about bragging up eggs. ;)
thalarctos - So you're now accusing me of being racist? That's a neat twist. Read my post again. The Koran explicitly states that infidels can be killed. The Bible does not. The Hippocratic Oath does not distinguish between religions or belifs, it covers ALL human life. Conflict.
I'm just saying that if I haad to rely on a surgeon to save my life, I would prefer a surgeon that unequiocally treated the oath he took as inviolable. After what happened in Glasgow, I realized that some don't, and that bothers me.
There are both genetic and memetic components to morality. It's difficult to observe the antics in a pre-school daycare and come up with the conclusion that human beings are instinctively moral... and yet, many children exhibit behaviors at a very young age that indicates that they understand the value of cooperation, of gaining the approval of ones parents or elders, and of (consequently) being accepted as a valued member of the interdependent personal network, aka the tribe. Children don't generally need to be taught not to kill each other, but they do need to be taught to respect the personal property of others, and that the necessary selfishness of the newborn is something to be grown out of, not nurtured through adulthood.
Oh yeah, and that God will hold their hand to the stove for all eternity if they say "Fuck."
thalarctos - Another thing - what makes you think that all Muslims are "brown"? Islam is a religion, NOT a race. I am not, and have never been racist. How about you?
FAIL.
Here's a few North Carolina Newspapers Letters to the Editors links for anyone interested in exposing our "Troll for Jesus":
Asheville Citizen Times
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=999970305038
The Charlotte Observer
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/contact/#editor
Chapel Hill Herald Sun
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/tools/letterstoed/letterform.cfm…
I admit that I do the same thing from the other side; there are "Poe" blogs and I often participate on these.
But this person (that Pastor) is a moron; in fact atheists commit crimes at a lower rate than theist, though I admit that this might be due to confounding factors such as wealth and educational level.
But to this moron I'd say: "I am a believer, and my Holy Book says to kill X, Y, and Z and I must obey God".
Here's a consideration one of my students pointed out to me. Should I really try to convince a fundamentalist that their reasoning is faulty? After all, they clearly believe that the only thing that keeps them from murdering, raping, pillaging, and stealing is their God's prohibition against it. Ergo, if something I say to them convinces them that their God doesn't exist, won't they then immediately commence murdering, raping, pillaging, and stealing?
Maybe those bus signs about the non-existence of God aren't such a good idea...
No, I am not accusing you of anything. I am simply asking you a question, which is to explain your assertion that you cannot trust ANY [sic] Muslim doctor.
You hold that ANY Muslim being an extremist is grounds to assert that ALL Muslim doctors are untrustworthy. That sounds like, but is not necessarily, an essentialist argument, so I am requesting that you clarify it so that we can better understand what you are trying to get at.
I am asking whether you hold white Christian doctors and pharmacists to the same standard. If you do, well then, clearly, you don't understand the statistical concepts of self-selection, nor of representative samples, and you do subscribe to essentialism to some degree, but at least you're internally consistent.
Racism is certainly one possible reason for your assertion, but I have not accused you of anything. If you do indeed have a different standard of representative samples for white medical personnel and non-white medical personnel, I am genuinely asking on what evidence-based grounds you found that distinction.
Personally, I don't believe there is one, but I am open to changing my mind if you can provide a reasoned, logical, unbiased answer that is not just a racist dislike of Muslims. But if you are just passing on essentialist attitudes about Muslims, it's kind of a contradiction to your self-professed striking out of the "woo" in your name. So I am genuinely curious how you explain the multiple contradictions I see in your comments.
@123 I say no. Some people aren't ready and perhaps will never be ready to leave the matrix. The bus campaigns are primarily for those who have already started questioning.
sorry it's OT, but it's another xian pastor/hypocrit:
http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/celebrities/20090320_Tattle_…
Haggard and his wife, Gayle, who stood up for him even after he stood up for men, were in L.A. this week taping an appearance on the syndicated show, to be broadcast nationally April 1.
How could this not be an April Fool's joke?
Because the Haggards are turning "Divorce Court" into "Don't Divorce Court."
The "Divorce Court" judge, Lynn Toler, is interviewing the couple about how their marriage survived Ted's outing by a male prostitute from Denver in November 2006, executive producer Mark Koberg said.
The Haggards, of course, say that their marriage and Christian faith are stronger than ever, and they want people to know that divorce is not the answer.
"This is part of Ted's journey," Gayle said. "It's made him a better man. I see what has happened as a divine rescue."
The Haggards will be paid an undisclosed amount for their "Divorce Court" appearance.
Liars for Jesus (tm) strikes again!
No, you miss another statistical point, that of differential correlation between skin color and religion, in favor of the essentialist concept of "race".
I grew up in the American South in the pre-Civil Rights era, and had the poison poured in my ear since birth. I had to do a great deal of work in science to understand how to get past essentialism and other unscientific concepts like that.
One thing that background did do for me, though, was teach me what dog-whistle language is.
So I am asking why you consider ANY Muslim to be representative of ALL Muslims. Because your assertion certainly sounds like dogwhistle-language, but then again, perhaps it isn't, and you can produce an evidence-based reason why it is actually true.
AJ Milne #33 - The dialog immediately following:
TODD: Heavenly! Not as hearty as bishop perhaps, but not as bland as curate, either.
MRS. LOVETT: Good for business, too. Always leaves you wanting more. Trouble is, we only get it on Sundays.
From memory. Why yes, I have seen the Lansbury/Hearn version well over a hundred times, does it show? :)
Someone a number of messages back said "it's not the Piedmont." Turns out, there may be a correlation between distance-from-the-sea and IQ:
"Teenage boys who eat fish at least once a week achieve higher intelligence scores"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/w-tbw030909.php
A curious and somewhat frightening article.
Atheists often consider their position to be enlightened.
But may I point that most of these posts are gross exagerations of Christianity. The very idea that you could categorize all Christians together with a flippant statement like 'Oh yeah, and that God will hold their hand to the stove for all eternity if they say "Fuck."' is self-defeating to this entire blog post. Clearly the pastor's statements were meant to be an exageration of atheistic viewpoints. Yet here many of you are viciously on the attack against him for doing so. So you do the exact same thing.
Do you propose that because you are supposedly more enlightened than Christians are that you can employ the exact same techniques you are here reviling? And that it's okay for you, but not for this preacher?
Nevertheless, the only thing any one, here or anywhere, really needs to know is that God loves you. Right now. No matter where you are in your life or your beliefs. However, He is not happy for you stay there, He'd rather you be with Him. Jesus died specifically for the atheist who ridicules those who try, yet often fail, to follow Him. He died for your sake, that all your spite or your indifference might be forgiven. "Repent and be baptized." That is your truth.
Thalarctos, FWIW:
I have to sit with Elwood here on this point. Not all Muslims are brown. Some of the white ones even put bombs in their shoes. 'Nuff said?
Paul Simon said that seeing a similar dish on a restaurant menu inspired his song "Mother and Child Reunion."
You write a blanket generalization about a large group of people, and then, in the next sentence, begin a building an argument against doing exactly that.
BOOM!*
*There goes another one.
thalarctos: Certainly I would be concerned if any doctor -WHATEVER their skin colour - were to appear overly religious to the detriment of their profession, but as I already stated and the facts have shown, certain Muslims (and again there is NO relevance to skin colour) have demonstrated quite clearly that they have no problem going against their oath to satisfy their faith. FAITH, not race, not skin colour. FAITH.
And I resent the implication that I am racist. Please retract your statement.
He died for your sake, that all your spite or your indifference might be forgiven.
When? Where? How do you know?
"He died for your sake, that all your spite or your indifference might be forgiven."
Jesus didn't die for my sake. I have an alibi.
Pastor Fox's form letter seems to be a classic non-apology apology. "I didn't mean to ..."
Obviously, it's all the fault of honest atheists for pointing out that his parody atheist is despicable and that only an unthinking self-described Christian would behave in such a vile manner. How dare we point out how much he is like the parody Pharisees of the Gospels and how little he looks like the followers of Jesus. How dare we do that.
I would hope that Pastor Fox's congregation would accept his apology and resignation on Sunday, before they allow him to do more harm.
And Eric Rudolph bombed women's clinics in the name of Christianity, and Timothy Rudolph killed I-forget-offhand-how-many in Oklahoma City in the name of Christian Identity terrorism. But I don't see Elwood refusing to trust ALL Christian medical personnel as a class, just because ANY Christian asshole goes on a killing spree.
Or perhaps he did, and I just missed that post.
Not really. I still don't see why ANY Muslim doctors invalidates ALL Muslim doctors, while it doesn't work the same way for asshole fundie Christian medical personnel. I'd still like to hear the rational explanation.
Joshua. Shut the fuck up.
I was baptized! What good did that do? I'm still an atheist.
You tool.
Apart from the dishonesty, which is at least deviously explicable, it’s the logic I don’t understand. It is self-defeating. If the atheist is indifferent to morals, how will the immorality of another atheist persuade him to abandon atheism?
By assuming an atheist audience accepts the premise that immorality is undesirable, he admits that God is not necessary to like morality.
"Nevertheless, the only thing any one, here or anywhere, really needs to know is that God loves you.
Posted by Joshua
The "only thing anyone...needs to know" is that people who only know one thing are willfully ignorant fools.
Ps. Your god is a banal, evil & childish fantasy.
Thalarctos, Elwood:
Re my #132: Mea culpa. Way too much time between refreshes. I'm behind on the conversation. Please ignore.
Aah, we got ourselves a concerned godbot. We don't need any fictional book, namely the bible, to find a good source of ethics. In fact, the basic ethic for most atheists appears to start with the golden rule, which many godbots couldn't find with a GPS system. So much for Xian ethics.
I'm dyin' for my sake right now... Kikkoman, hot or cold!
samuel black #141, exactly, I was thinking the same thing! This xian is so high on Jesus that he is reduced to being an illogical idiot. He does not seem to know that he has a problem with logic, and that is so silly, since he is supposedly trying to appeal to atheists, who often have a logical basis to their disbelief. Xians like this guy is no different from any addict and their unthinking, desperate focus. Really a turn-off. Actually his lack of logic is more offputting than his use of 'hyperbole.'
And as Jaycubed and I have repeatedly shown, certain Christians have no problem going against their oath to satisfy their faith--doctors who won't prescribe pain medication to terminally-ill patients because they disapprove of drug use, pharmacists who won't fill birth-control prescriptions because of their views on abortion, nurses who proselytize in the ICU. I can provide you with dozens or perhaps hundreds of cites if you need them to demonstrate what I am referring to.
I will be happy to retract any assertion I have made that turns out to be mistaken, but I am still not clear on why "ANY Muslim" (your words and capitalization) destroys trust in "ALL Muslim doctors", when you don't hold Christian medical personnel to the same standard. I cannot retract anything as mistaken until I understand exactly where I have misunderstood you, and you have not yet clarified how it works differently for the different faiths under discussion.
Joshua sez:
Except according to your mythology he didn't die, it was perhaps more like an extended nap. So there really was no sacrifice involved in the whole affair.
So Elwood may be a little extreme, but I think he has a point. I feel uncomfortable around doctors with ANY sort of religious undertones. I was looking into getting my eyes fixed surgically and the doctor's handout had an option to pray together before the surgery. That was enough for me to walk away. Doctors and woo just do not go together for me. I want a rational, scientific mind behind the scalpel please.
Bill Dauphin @ #56
To me this is a key point. Christianity is claiming for itself something that clearly is simply a characteristic of all humanity, not just Christianity-believing humanity.
Looking into the conflict between Christian, New Age, and atheist notions of what for lack of a better word we call "spirituality", I've seen the same sort of encroachment. It seems obvious -- to me, anyway -- that every human being has thoughts, feelings and experiences that would answer to the idea of "spiritual". Spirituality is part of the Commons, in other words. But Christianity has tried to fence off that part of the Commons and claim it for itself, just as it has done with morality. The unspoken claim is that no spiritual thought, feeling or experience is genuine unless it has somehow been filtered through a belief in God; anything else is a pseudo-experience, therefore worthless.
I wonder if this mightn't be a defining characteristic of Christianity, and perhaps all monotheisms -- that is, theft of, or appropriation of, parts of the Commons, of which morality and spirituality are only two examples -- which the religion then "rents" back to us.
Why do I say "rents"? Two reasons: first, it's not something we get to own, per se, since it always belongs to the religion; God, for example, is the source of morality and spirituality, while we -- if we're believers -- just borrow those attributes from Him. Believers believe that if you stop believing, or never believed, then you're Fallen, and lose your morality and spirituality. If that were true, then clearly a mere human could never "own" morality or spirituality in the first place.
Second, what the Church does with morality and spirituality resembles the "rent-seeking" behaviour of businesses that try to subvert the social contract to get governments to grant them monopoly rights to what is properly part of the Commons, which they can then exploit for their own gain. One could make the case that Christianity was just another Dead Prophet cult until Constantine made it the state religion, thereby giving it monopoly control of morality, spirituality (and from that base a whole lot of real wealth and secular power) within the Empire.
I see Pastor Fox's actions as the typical chicanery one can expect of a institution trying to protect its monopoly status.
thalarctos - As far as I am concerned I have made that point three times now. Or is refresh lag affecting your browser too?
You implied quite clearly that I was racist. That was out of order - you brought up the topic of skin colour, not me. I do not intend to say anything more on this subject after post 135 where I believe I made my point as clearly as I possibly could. If you don't understand it, that's not my problem. I do however still require an apology.
Joshua the logically-challenged godbot at #132:
Your religious delusions have warped your mind.
What we are mocking the good pastor for doing is not exaggerating "atheistic viewpoints"--whatever the fuck that means. We are deriding him for pretending to be an atheist (i.e., lying).
Do you seriously not understand that?
Here is the crazy thing about this whole “atheists have no morals” argument. From what I gather, their point is if one does not believe in a god or a heaven and hell, then one is free to do all sorts of horrible things because they will never be punished. Yet they never seem to realize what such a theory says about them, mainly the only reason they don’t do horrible things is because they are afraid of being punished. They don’t realize, as I and I imagine everyone else here does, say to themselves, “I wont do (enter bad thing here) because it may hurt someone, or its not the way I would want to be treated, etc.” In essence, these are the people that have no morals as the only way they will behave is because they are afraid of getting caught and being punished. To me that’s far worse. If you need a carrot on a stick to be a decent person, then you are most certainly, in your core, NOT a decent person.
Joshua: You need to get yourself a dictionary and look up the words "exact" and "same." Because you're using them wrong.
I would note that telling me that God loves me is the "exact same" thing as telling me that Frodo Baggins loves me. Except that it's a little bit more insane, since Frodo was a pleasant, loving fictional person whereas "God" is a genocidal, tyrannical, arbitrarily destructive fictional person.
And telling me that Jesus died for me is like telling me that Dumbledore died for me. You need to sort out the difference between reality and fiction. I know it's hard to do, but keep trying. You won't be able to get over that Christian habit of compulsive lying until you do.
There's your truth.
That was relatively new when Xianity started, as the idea that "all men are created equal" would have seemed absurd prior to, say, around the time of Socrates. - Glen Davidson
I disagree. Many gatherer-hunter societies (not all) are very egalitarian; and so far as historical records are concerned, apparent expressions of egalitarianism are present in third-millennium BCE Mesopotamia. The anthropologist and primatologist Christopher Boehm has done interesting work on the evolutionary roots of egalitarianism.
Adam for the win.
Oh, I totally agree with that point. I was in the hospital for a month in 2002, and in the ICU for a part of that time. While I don't think I ever went into full-blown ICU psychosis (but then again, how would I know? :), I did get very afraid of the Christian nurse who was using my captive-audienceness to proselytize to me. I got convinced that she was kind of an "Angel of Death", who'd put potassium chloride or something similar in my central line if I didn't accept what she said.
So maybe I did have a little ICU psychosis. But her putting me in the position to fear her proselytizing authority was totally out of line. I would agree 100% that if the doctor/nurse/pharmacist brings their "relationship with Jesus" into the conversation, I'm going to run, not walk, out of the therapeutic encounter.
My problem is with the assertion that it's somehow different for Muslim medical personnel, and that one fanatic taints them all. After all, I don't stop going to US doctors as a class, just because one batshit-crazy Christian nurse abused my vulnerability.
Perhaps I misread 135; I will re-read it to see if I have misunderstood.
Ok, caught up through #149 here. Thalarctos, I was addressing your question, "Or is it only brown people you hold to that particular non-representative double standard?" A fair question, I suppose - which he answered. The difference to him, if I understand correctly, is the religion - not the skin color. Isn't that what you were asking?
Otherwise, I'm with you. Elwood's point about "infidels" may hold water on paper but, just like a paper cup, will not do so indefinitely. Real events suggests not only that few western Muslims are radicals who'll blow up your mailbox (with you in it) for receiving a copy of "The Funny Times", but also that Christian radicals are not above using deadly force against innocents for whatever reason they feel justifies doing so.
Sure, a doctor could be a sleeper who starts offing citizens of Teh Great Satan, but really - what are the odds? I personally refuse to engage in fear-mongering after having roundly criticized our recently departed Republican administration for the years it spent doing just that.
samuel black #141 wrote:
Exactly. I think the pastor was trying to ask the same question many of the Christians and other theists who visit this site ask: certainly, you atheists can be moral -- but can you justify this morality? Can you give it an "objective" basis?
Most of the theists who ask this question don't literally pretend to be atheists. The pastor, however, wasn't content to just ask this question from the sidelines. He thought it would be more effective to "play" the part convincingly, so that the atheists would, on their own, realize that "hey, I can't tell this other atheist why he shouldn't kill or steal or hurt other people -- because I have no authority I can point to!"
This is a child's view of morality. Doing good means "obeying your parent." They're confusing ethics with obedience, and ignoring the fact that, in order to determine that God merits obedience, we need to have a moral system already in place which evaluates God, and finds Him good, and thus right to follow.
I don't think Christians who claim that they would rape and kill if they didn't believe in God really do mean that. They actually think that other people would rape and kill if there was no God. If they are forced to reflect on the matter, they recognize the same point samuel black makes: they chose to believe in and follow God because they don't want to be like that.
And then they confuse the issue, and think that believing that there is a God is just like choosing to follow God. So those who don't want to be like that -- and want an easy way to "explain" and "justify" good moral choices -- will 'select' God instead of 'selecting' no-God.
Joshua #131
Clearly the pastor's statements were meant to be an exageration of atheistic viewpoints.
Yes, of course, a mere exaggeration of atheistic viewpoints.
He was only trying to get us to be honest. A teaching aid, as it were. A true man of god, and his intentions were good and noble, and surely jesus gave him permission when he prayed about it before hand, so there you go then.
Christians, you never fail to astonish me.
Ok, Elwood, I have re-read 135, and I still do not see the connection.
Yes, in 135 you do say "certain Muslims", but you still do not connect the dots to your earlier comments.
How do you get from "certain Muslims" to "ALL Muslim doctors" (post 101), and why does that mechanism not kick in to make you distrust "ALL Christian doctors" who "unequivocally" treat their oath as "inviolable" (post 118) (except, of course, when they don't)?
I agree we're beating a dead horse here, and there's not a lot of point in going around and around wasting anyone's time any further.
What Joshua is saying is that our comments about theists only represent Some theists, so it's as bad as the good pastor pretending to be an atheist and representing views that are held by NO atheists, seemingly for slanderous purposes.
As tends to be the case, the godbots logic circuits seem to be offline.
Joshua, the pause between thought and statement should be filled with analysis.
Try again.
Ariel - thank you for backing me up here. I'm beginning to feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall. OK, despite what I said about not responding, I'll try again. I think that I would hesitate to put my trust in any doctor who would put his religion before his practice.
The only difference with Muslim doctors is that their holy book explicitly states that they must do this (and they will lie about it to non-Muslims too. I've had plenty of first-hand experience of that.) Their faith trumps everything, including the Hippocratic Oath apparently, and the fact that some of them can act on that to such an extreme makes me very uneasy. Not because I think all Muslims are extremists, but because of the explicit conflict between their oath and their faith which all Muslim doctors MUST be aware of. This does not apply to any other religion. Sure, a Catholic doctor might have all sorts of hangups, but there is no commandment in the Bible that says non-Catholics are cattle.
And even if they don't deliberately act on it, the conflict must be on their minds, and who knows if they might slip in the middle of a delicate operation and think "Ah - he's only a kuffar, don't worry about that little problem."
Nothing to do with race. And if any doctor of any religion asked me to pray, I would get another doctor straight away and file a complaint, you can be absolutely sure of that.
I believe that the foundation of Elwood's point may be found farther back in the thread, at #51:
And at #118:
Whether or not he's correct is open to discussion.
Forgive me if this seems ignurunt, but is "Mars Hill" one of those biblical-kind of references that I just haven't run into before?
They seem to be all over - though perhaps not as bad as Springfield....,
I am currently refuting many, many claims of physics, cosmology and just about everything else made by this whack-job - and I was just kind a wonderin... since this particular Mars Hill is in the Frozen North.
Maybe "Mars Hill" is a cryptogram for "Liers for Jeebus"?? Just wundrin...
JC
Jesus certainly never died for me. Or much of anyone.
He suffered on a cross for only an afternoon, much below the average for the million others who were crucified. And the billions who die slow.
He spent 36 hours in Hell, where billions of others spend eternities.
That doesn't pay for diddly.
As for me, personally, I am forbidden the congregation of the Lord, thanks to a sin of my ancestors. Yep, I was condemned to Hell before ever I was born, because of a man I never even met. Kinda the opposite of Jesus--more like Adam and his sin, eh? So Jesus couldn't die for me.
By the way, I didn't learn that about me until *after* realizing that religion is all hooey. I pity any kid who believes in God's love, and finds out that they are damned for no damn reason.
If I could get my hands on any aspect of God, an afternoon on a cross would seem like a picnic in the park.
Raven @ 20:
Raven, you are a bigot and a snob.
That was one of the questions I was asking.
Elwood is asserting that there is a qualitative difference between Muslim doctors, for whom any fanatic is enough to make all Muslim doctors untrustworthy, and Christian doctors, for whom that is not true. He has not yet clarified why he perceives that distinction.
Since there is a correlation, but certainly not a perfect one, between skin color and Islam vs. Christianity as dominant religion, I enquired whether that was the reasoning behind the distinction he perceives. I never called him a racist, as he accused me of, although I did observe that it was one plausible explanation. (I thought, and still do think, that he was taking an essentialist approach to it, and that he doesn't understand basic statistical concepts such as "representative sample" and "self-selection" as a source of bias.)
He says racism isn't why he's treating them differently, but has not yet provided an alternative hypothesis. He demands an apology, but I cannot offer one in good faith until I am sure that we are on the same page of the discussion.
Which is an event that's unlikely to happen, since in the meantime, we've both grown bored with going over the same ground talking past each other, and I can only imagine how much more true that must be for observers of the discussion. So I imagine this is probably where we're going to leave it, since he's announced he won't be responding any further, and I have no intention of talking to myself about it any more.
We do agree on one point--that medical personnel who inject their faith into the therapeutic encounter are to be avoided at all costs. I just don't draw the totalizing differential between Islam and Christianity that he does, nor do I understand why he does so.
Thalarctos -- I got me a dead horse over here needs beating, if you're done with that one.
"Nevertheless, the only thing any one, here or anywhere, really needs to know is that God loves you. Right now."
So, god's giving me a nooner right now? ew.
"However, He is not happy for you stay there, He'd rather you be with Him."
Then, shouldn't he do something to prove himself to us? I mean, in your mythology, he created us with free will and is also omnipotent. Therefore, he knew we would be atheists. So, isn't it his fault then? His fault but he will blame us and put us in eternal torture?
Sign me up! Sounds great. Really.
"Repent and be baptized." That is your truth."
Screw you, too.
Elwood, I think you'll be OK, as long as you live in the USA.
Elwood@118: The Koran explicitly states that infidels can be killed. The Bible does not.
ORLY? I think you're reading a different Bible than I am.
yah, we're all totally bored with it. I think this one is done.
Soooo... Hey, thalarctos, what high school did you go to? Did anyone famous graduate from there? Are they friends of yours? ;)
Here is my story. I used to be an atheist.
It was boring. Go to work, go home, watch TV, take the dog for a walk. You wouldn't think agricultural research would be boring, helping feed 6.7 billion people by evolving pest resistant, high yield crops.
Then I found jesus and became a xian. It was so much more exciting. I drove around stoning to death disobedient children, shrimp eaters, gays, prostitutes, anyone who looked atheist and so on. They were sort of like stones anyway, small lead "stones" tossed at 500 mph by a metal device using chemical propulation. After dynamiting a Red Lobster restaurant, the evil secular authorities kidnapped me.
I'm now locked up in a mental hospital and am writing for your help. This is clearly religious discrimination by the atheistic government/police forces. First they came for Kent Hovind, and now me. Donate to the Pastor Kris Sox legal fund. We need all charges dropped. Also, to continue jesus's work, more metal stone throwing devices, a few thousand rounds of "stones", and some grenades.
Australian Imam kicks door on his own mosque, phones police to blame it on vandals.
Idiocy is universal.
From #98: Posted by: blueelm | March 20, 2009 1:58 PM
"@26 'slight upper class southern accent'"
"I've got one of them low-rent Texas drawls. You'd probably laugh to hear to gawd-denouncing coming out of my mouth. "
I'm kind of with you Ben. I have a fast urban non-twangy metroplex accent (the kind most people outside of Texas don't know exists). I can't believe how often I'm "complimented" on not sounding Texan. I never know how to take that. After all shouldn't it be what I say that matters? I've heard some pretty idiotic things said with distiguished polish.
---
True enough, but the sad fact is certain accents (rural south, Texas twang, Jersey, Brooklyn) automatically subtract at least 20 IQ points from the speaker in the minds of many listeners. I grew up in the Texas panhandle (think Friday Night Lights, but a bigger town, with several high schools instead of just one), but a fanatical high school drama teacher drummed most of the accent out of me, and living outside Texas most of my life since I went away to college has eliminated the rest. I'm frankly glad, not because of anything inherently wrong with the accent, but because of that presumption.
One of my colleagues is originally from the very deep south, and said he worked hard to get rid of his accent when he was in grad school at an elite northern university. He found people just didn't take him or his work very seriously precisely because of the accent. A regrettable form of intellectual snobbery, to be sure, but there it is.
Because it is not really christian morality.
Confucian and Taoist morality existed at least 500 years BC, and Hindu and Jewish morality long before that.
Christian morality does not add anything significant to these, why in the world would it be considered christian morality instead of any of these others?
I agree, except for the fact that I was accused of being racist and never got an apology.
Joshua wrote:
ORLY? then what about this:
Doesn't sound like atheists are the ones for whom he died to save. I was not aware that "damned" meant "forgiven".
Ysabel - Please can you show me where in the Bible it advocates killing of non-Christians?
Seriously - if it's there, I want to know. I am not being sarcastic.
Christian morality does not add anything significant to these, why in the world would it be considered christian morality instead of any of these others?
Because there are so many Christians who are completely clueless about anything that ever happened on earth that wasn't written in their version of the Bible. They have no idea that "Christian" morality isn't particularly noble or unusual. They are too ignorant of the alternatives to have a useful opinion about it.
North Carolina has internet?
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Not original to Mark, of course, but most of the versions of the NT favored by fundies keep it in, and some don't even footnote it, so fair game I guess.
Look at the old testament. A huge amount of it is the jews fighting all the neighboring tribes. At least two of those, the Amelakites and Canaanites were completely wiped out in god blessed genocide.
While the OT is pre-xian (duh), the real inheritors of the religion were the xians. The jews (supposedly) missed the boat.
And at one point, jesus said, he came not to bring peace but with a sword. Which contradicts much of what he said elsewhere.
More to the point, for 2,000 years xians have been killing nonbelievers. The xian takeover of the old Roman Empire resulted in the slaughter of many pagans such as Hypatia. They've been going at it since, the crusades, cathars, Spanish jews and moors, pogram, Reformation, the Taiping rebellion, the New World conquest.
#133: The Japanese beat him to it; they have a dish called oyakodon ("parent and child bowl") which is a rice dish which includes both chicken and egg.
Seems it was a tad of mental masturbation time...getting his jollies from pretending atheist leanings.
He thought he was being a clever clone for jeebus.
Seems he is having trouble by being an honest Jonny in debate...no one gives a toss for his fantasies probably...
For a Pastor to actually consider doing something like that must reflect the sheer desperation the Church feels.
He obviously senses the decline of his pet delusion amongst the sheeple and panic does strange and dishonourable acts to compensate.
Obviously bible bashing preachers are not influencing folks like they used to do...so the piously insipid in their ranks do what they can to pretend encouraging 'debate' by lying for jeebus...tis a no brainer...Christianity is withering on the vine...and the more they get caught in those lies the faster they will rot!
A quick list of bible verses saying who to kill, how and why.
It is really far to easy to look this up. And did you know that an anagram of this is shit? For some reason, I keep typing shit.
JC
Scooter at #184 FTW !
Ysabel, JackC: Thanks, but that is not really what I mean. I know there are plenty of murders and killings and despicable acts all over the OT especially, but does it actually say anywhere unequivocally that non-Christians can or indeed should be killed on sight? It states famously Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live for example, but is there anything more general concerning non-believers, like these quotes from the Koran:
That's the sort of thing I mean, and there are plenty more where these came from. I'm pretty sure there's nothing like that in the Bible, but I am willing to be proved wrong.
CJO: Not applicable, sorry. To be "damned" means nothing to an atheist, we're talking about religiously authorised murder here.
Elwood -- I'm sure we can agree that both Islam and Christian are repulsive and immoral belief systems. I don't think it matters much which has a more vile "holy" book. In practice, they've both of them murdered, tortured and tormented their fair share of unbelievers.
I think I pretty much trust my Indian Muslim cardiologist, what with the slicing me open and fiddling around with my internal organs while I'm unconscious and all.
This article in the Boston Globe is actually quite good. At least, I thought so.
I particularly like this phrasing:
There are actually quite a number of gems in that article. Go take a few minutes and read it.
Yes, Ellwood, it does. Specifically. Deuteronomy is particularly rife, though not isolated.
This was good:
Oh - and lets not leave Phineas out:
JC
PZ wrote:
Hmmm... was that a hint that Vox Day is secretly an atheist trying to make Christians look crazy?
Ahhh, Christian morality.
Anything goes if Jebus got yo back.
OT But relevant in terms of moral choices and religious myths:
Battlestar Galactica finale tonight.
So learn we all.
I went to Pfeiffer University, which is just a few miles from where this church is located. Honestly, nothing that comes out of that area surprises me.
*191
Actually seems that was a classic misinterpretation...it was used as a reason to fuel the burning times though...did not matter a jot the good Christians got it seriously wrong in context.
Not that surprising...
You mean it's Friday already?
Sheesh, mayhempix, thanks for the reminder. I was all set to climb into the reading chair to with Neal Stephenson and Jack Daniels.
Lying for JesusTM at least he's honest about his dishonest behaviour.
"If a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it? So what if you don't like it, what if I do?"
Bride? Gee, what a sore loser!
AdamK: Agreed, they are both vile books. For me though it all hinges on the two facts: 1) that the Koran specifically states that unbelievers can be lied to, abused, maltreated and even killed with the full blessing of the faith, and 2) the horrific events in Glasgow two years ago brought home to me the stark fact that educated doctors could do this.
Maybe I am a bit biased against Muslims, but that is not racism, merely observation and personal experience from this side of the pond. I wouldn't have gone on about this so much if thalarctos hadn't tried to pin racism on me. That rankled, and I still haven't seen an apology.
Another thing - what makes you think that all Muslims are "brown"? Islam is a religion, NOT a race. - Elwood
So, how were you planning to determine whether a doctor about to treat you is a Muslim, so you could refuse their services?
Thou shalt not suffer fallacy to live.
I love this stuff - can keep it up all day. Save that the wife is about to pick me up for a night of shopping. Followed by a martini. Or perhaps a vesper. Or one of those odd things Bill Dauphine occasionally cooks up in his lab/lair. Or maybe all three. And bacon.
JC
Another thing - what makes you think that all Muslims are "brown"? Islam is a religion, NOT a race. - Elwood
So, how were you planning to determine whether a doctor about to treat you is a Muslim, so you could refuse their services?
JackC: Thanks, I'm taking a good long look at that now. However, although there are plenty of bloodthirsty stories in the Bible, I still haven't seen anything that states simply (as a directive): "The unbeliever must be killed" or words to that effect. And more to the point, I don't know of any incident where a terrorist act has been committed directly because of such a verse (definitely not in my country anyway.)
And again, I don't have a problem with being proved wrong.
(Sorry to go on about this, but it's important to me.)
I've responded to this particular bit of religious stupidity so many times that I've place it on my blog as a permanent article here:
http://www.brouelette.com/cgi-bin/blosxom.cgi/2008/01/14#20080113
Executive summary:
If the only thing keeping you from killing your neighbor is fear of hell then you're far LESS moral than I am. I don't kill my neighbor when he annoys me because I have empathy for my fellow human beings. We also have a very good system of justice and pushiment right here on earth in the form of cops, judges and jails.
The stupidity is just stunning.
Elwood -- I, for one, don't see any indication in anything you wrote that you are anything like a racist. As you said, thalarctos is the one who brought skin color into the discussion.
I hope that's a little soothing.
I think thalarctos should have acknowledged that.
I also think the horse corpse is so damn whupped you can barely tell what species it was any more.
If it's instinct, then it's not a choice and therefore it's neither moral or immoral - it's just a meat robot doing what it's programmed to do. - Marcus J. Ranum
"Instinctively moral" (though I might not have used those exact words) can be translated as "Having an innate propensity to develop a capacity for empathy and an aversion to inequity". That does not remove choice, partly because we are also "instinctively selfish", partly because our innate propensities do not always dictate a specific course of action (ever heard of "moral dilemmas"?). BTW, if we are "programmed", who's the programmer? Not natural selection - a programmer is always intelligent and purposive.
Of course the whole notion of right/wrong hinges upon choice, and I haven't yet heard a convincing argument that we have anything more than an illusion of free will. So, to me, the whole point is moot.
Have you read Dennett's Freedom Evolves? If so, what did you find unconvincing? If not, do. BTW, unless my memory deceives me, you as much as most people here have frequently weighed in with views that certainly appear to be based on moral judgements.
Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.It's part of a parable, but that hardly makes it any better.
the horrific events in Glasgow two years ago brought home to me the stark fact that educated doctors could do this.
- Elwood
Educated Christian doctors left black men with syphilis without treatment as part of a medical study. Educated atheist doctors certified critics of the Soviet system as insane. I think you'd better avoid all doctors in future, Elwood - you clearly can't trust any of them.
Surely it's entirely obvious that just as most Jews behave much better than they would if they followed the Torah, and most Christians much better than if they followed the Bible, so most Muslims behave much better than if they followed the Koran?
Knockgoats: I just hope I never have to. However it's just another risk that concerns me, and we all take risks every day. But when you put your life into someone else's hands, you naturally want to trust that person 100%. If I had any suspicions that knocked that percentage down too far, I'd certainly say something (like Ariel's story about her doctor suggesting prayer, or seeing a Koran on the table or something like that). But I hope you're not seconding thalarctos's idea that I judge people by the colour of their skin. That's abhorrent.
I have never heard of atheists commiting crimes in the name of atheism, and neither has Richard Dawkins; it's one of his main arguments. As for the Christian doctors, did they do this because of their faith? Or merely because they were assholes?
Why do you insist on missing my point?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that most of the theos that claim that they'd be out murdering without their religious beliefs are just full of it. They remind me of the guy at the truck stop church in "Religulous". He claimed to have been a high priest of Satan (IIRC), that suddenly "saw the light".
Yeah, sure you were buddy! ::rolls eyes ::
If they are really that homicidally inclined, they could just as easily use their beliefs to justify killing. IMO it seems as though all this is a feeble attempt at Argument from Consequence. "You just have to stop questioning my beliefs, or I'll be naughty!" Like a spoiled child threatening to throw a tantrum, if he/she doesn't get their way...
I've long held the opinion that many of those that are religious (in any modern society), deep down inside know that their beliefs are irrational, and it bothers them (some more so than others, of course). Especially, since they don't want to give up the beliefs, they have a hard time admitting to themselves of the lack of a logical reason for their beliefs.
That's why so many have a need to press their beliefs on others (justification through conformity/tradition), and are constantly trying to rationalize their belief in the supernatural. Those that accept that it's just not rational (or are at least less bothered by it) seem to be less driven to justify and impose their beliefs on others.
At least that's my opinion....
My last post on this subject (promise):
I was horrified to discover that the bombers of Glasgow Airport were intelligent highly educated doctors who presumably had taken the Hippocratic Oath. I eventually understood that the Islamic faith takes precedence over everything, including the oath. So I could understand how these doctors could justify (in their own minds) what they did. This has made me suspicious of Muslim doctors. I can't identify such a person by sight, but neither can I identify a salmonella infested sandwich. It just bugs me that the Oath can be discarded by Muslims so easily. If Xian doctors can do this also, then I will have to insist on an atheist doctor if ever I need one. End of story.
I've been posting on Pharyngula for over two years, and the sum total of all those posts probably doesn't add up to what I've posted tonight, merely trying to clarify what I thought was a simple point.
I'm off to bed. Thank you and goodnight.
I tried to send a message to the church where he preaches, but they're apparently no longer receiving email there.
If this is really what you believe, then I agree you are not espousing racist ideas and cherry-picking the data to overlook the cases that are contrary to your pre-formed conclusion. But that is different from what you originally wrote.
I really don't know what you want me to apologize for. You wrote that no Muslim doctor could be trusted because of the actions of a few. You ignored the statement from the Islamic Medical Association UK condemning the attack. You did not apply that same standard to Christian medical personnel, despite all the horror stories you've read here at Pharyngula over the years about Christian medical personnel "of conscience". What would you make of another commenter, one you didn't know, who wrote such an--at first--incoherent apologia?
If I were to be consistent with what you had originally written, I would have to abandon my Indian colleague, Dr. ul-Haqq's, extensive work in evidence-based medicine, as "can't be trusted", and go with your selective conflation of "certain", "any", and "all", selectively applied to differing groups with different skin-color phenotypes, as somehow "rational". That does not make any sense.
Now, based on what you just wrote, we can agree, and if that is truly your stated principle, then I do not have any reason to believe you are racist. But it is not what you wrote before, and I don't see any reason I should apologize if you a) previously did a poor job of expressing yourself, and now have corrected it to bring it in line with what you meant to say, or b) have actually changed your mind in the course of the discussion.
I don't have any grudge against you, but I do abhor statements that are isomorphic with what racists say. I'm satisfied that what you wrote immediately above is not racist, and I'm willing to believe you did a poor job of expressing yourself at first.
If it still bugs you that much, you can always killfile me, of course.
While I do give the dude a modicum of respect for finally manning up and apologizing, I do find it kind of pathetic that he engaged in such actions in the first place. I'm with y'all, how are *we* the bad guys here?
Molly award nomination for http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/trolling_for_jesus.php#comme…
Ahem! For those of you looking for an instance of killing non-beliievers in the New Testament, I serve up for you edification Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring them thither and slay them before me.
I love to bring this up to fundies, as it is from a red-letter edition of the KJV. They frantically twist themselves in knots trying to assure me that it does not mean what I think it means.
Excuse typos in oprevious, and maybe this missive. Husbeast is plying me with cosmos.
Wow! This guy is truly pathetic; not to mention ignorant, childish, clumsy and unethical. Way to be a spiritual leader Chris. Jesus must be so proud.
Scooter @#184
Of course we have the internet.
Now if y'all will excuse me, I have to put on my overalls and go check on the still.
Now where did I put my shoes?
Well said, thalarctos @217. Horse meat is tough anyway; needs a good beating before it's tender enough for sandwiches.
Luckily for him, Elwood has gone to sleep without engaging in a moment of dangerous self-reflection. I mean, if he harbored any of the racist tendencies that are the natural result of growing up in a racist world, that would mean that he'd have to do something about it. Change his comfortable view of himself as a progressive and rational person. Confront the ugly aspects of his subconscious mind, like you wrote about doing. And that would be a fucking tragedy, don't you think?
Mmm... hungry for sandwiches now.
Ellwood (for tomorrow, I suppose) (and I want to be clear here - I am NOT choosing sides in this thing, only responding):
Deut 17:12: "The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel."
I think that is fairly close and is only the first I have found so far. Let's see some more:
Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads."
Is that not a direct commandment to kill?
Deuteronomy 13:5: "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."
Oh - what the hell - Deut 13 is just so good, let's just keep going and going and going....
6-10: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known,
7: gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),
8: do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him.
9: You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
10: Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
Wow - I am breaking a sweat here. Have I managed to produce sufficient evidence that the Bible says "In this case, KILL this person, or these people, for offenses against me"???
I leave Deut 12 on as an exercise for the student.
I am certainly aware that anyone who has any knowledge of any of these quoted verses may say "But you have taken them out of context..." or "To understand why this is NOT murder of INNOCENTS (a spurious and totally inaccurate evaluation, by the way), you have to understand the position XXX was in..."
To which I call horsefeathers. I am well aware that this is merely story-telling, puffery and proverb, and that it applies locally and to a specific set of events. *I* am aware. Those who quote the bible as a source of moral certitude ARE NOT.
There is a blindness that sets in that manifests itself in the blinded by the belief that all that is in this one book is good and light, and all that is in all other books is evil and dark. Nothing is further from the truth.
Both the Q'uran and the Bible are texts cobbled together from stories, letters, poems and sermons written for the society in the neighborhood at the time. They hold NO relevance in total some 2000 years later, other than as a history (poorly writ at best) of the time. The Q'uran suffers (IMO) from being a REACTION to the works of the people who eventually produced the texts of the Bible. It is therefore an attempt to both guide, and protect those that the Bible says to kill. Reactions are never really any good.
When Modern Humans, through indoctrination that they are perfectly capable of rising above, choose to take this ancient collection of heavily interpreted, translated, modified and codified text and make it the basis for a choice for Moral Certitude, I can only sit back and gape in wonder.
Stupidity truly IS the most prevalent force in the universe.
One more bourbon and I am off to bed. By tomorrow, surely we will have another horse on the ground before us.
JC
That is sssoooooo transparent.
I am sorely tempted to head over to that church this Sunday, sitting through his sermon, then asking him about this issue. Then again, I'd rather drive up to Hampton, get wasted drunk with my friends and eat delicious crab. Decisions, decisions...
In the talk.origins news group that kind of post would get people calling 'loki'. It has all the marks of an atheist playing the other side of the fence for 'lulz'.
cute
Those folks who are students of the history of Watergate will immediately recognize the pastor as a spiritual heir to Donald Segretti.
@‘he sees nothing wrong with it’: I'm not surprised. It's called the doctrine of the Holy Lie, officially sanctioned by the Bible (particularly Abraham versus Isaac). But you find this elsewhere as well, albeit under different names, for example as Taqiyya and Ketman in Islam which range from going a lot further to contrarily being generally disallowed, depending on whom you ask as there are differences in creed between the various sects. Apparently Hilali thought it was okay, but apparently Allah betrayed him in the end. And don't think it's just the monotheisms, you can find this in Hinduism as well, and in fascism we find a somewhat dissimilar but related concept under the moniker of Große Lüge.
MS, are you from LUBBOCK?
For Thalarctos at 139:
It was Eric Robert Rudolph who bombed abortion clinics and the Centennial park bombing during the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta. He did so not out of traditional Christian group motive but from so-called "Christian Identity" group motive.
The latter is nothing more than re-branded KKK-Style white supremacist hate.
As for Timothy McVeigh, It could be argued that he too acted out of white supremacist motives, as he once sold copies of the white supremacist novel The Turner Diaries, and otherwise seems to have identified himself with the hatemonger mentality.
However, much of McVeigh's writings seem to point to anti-government sentiment as being the larger motivating factor.
These facts do not invalidate your statement that there have been any number of atrocities perpetrated in the name of the Christian religion, I just wanted to clarify the facts surrounding these two "Christians".
...and they put his email address right there on the website:
pastorchrisfox@windstream.net
I am guessing his inbox is overflowing at the moment, haha.
What if a woman wants to make a man her b****? --So be it? What if he likes it? (What if I wanted to make Pastor Fox my b****?)-- Is the answer to that "so be it" too?
I never realized there were so many conundrums associated with not believing in magical entities; but, then again, I hadn't realized that their primary job was to tell believers whom they can and can't "make into their b****"!
I learn something new everyday on Pharyngula.
You seem to be suggesting that because the KKK and Christian Identity are white supremacist groups, they are not Christian groups as well.
They both come from a culture where Christianity and white supremacy go hand in hand. When the KKK formed it was perfectly natural for them to identify as a Christian organization, and no one questioned this. Indeed, it made sense to them to say that they were obligated to be white supremacists because they were Christians.
The Ku Klux Klan is not a white supremacist group re-branded as Christian. They really are Christians, and they really are white supremacists, and they really see no contradiction there. I don't know enough about the Christian Identity group to say the same for sure, but their white supremacist beliefs should not be taken as counterevidence to their claims of Christian belief.
Non-believers stand up for yourselves with dignity!
IMPORTANT - Do this WITHOUT insult or abuse, as it will make you as bad as the perpetrator and vindicate his actions.
To everyone who is offended as I am about this matter, and regardless of your beliefs, I urge you to write personally to Pastor Chris Fox expressing your concern at his actions and requesting a public apology.
Here is the email I have just sent to the Pastor if you want some ideas...
Dear Pastor Chris Fox,
Your actions in impersonating an atheist for the sole purpose of spreading hatred based on your own wrong stereotypes, are deeply offensive.
In doing this you have disgraced not only yourself, but the values of the church you represent. Apart from denying your own God, your willingness to repeatedly bear false witness against those who have done you no harm has hurt and insulted very many people, religious and non-religious alike.
Nothing but a full, unqualified and sincere PUBLIC apology to ALL atheists will come close to redeeming your utterly abhorrent behaviour.
Yours sincerely,
Peter B.
(Full name given)
-------------
Please also consider joining the Brights and supporting the Out campaign.
Yeah, because we all know that no Christian man has ever made a woman his bitch (even though it's actually mandated by the Bible) or killed his neighbor. But, like PZ said, it's fine when they do it because they can just get a pardon for anything.
These facts do not invalidate your statement that there have been any number of atrocities perpetrated in the name of the Christian religion, I just wanted to clarify the facts surrounding these two "Christians".
Ah... I love the smell of No True Scotsman™ in the morning.
Wow. And *I* thought this thread was dead!
I gues elWOOd isn't coming back for a comment. Oh.. Did I have my caps lock key on??
JC
Atheists or anyone can find imperfection on those that claim to be "christian". I usually look for the nearest exit when someone is quick to inform me that they are a "christian". Having stated the aforementioned..... Jesus didn't preach "christianity", humans invented that. You can easily find faults with christianity, but never can one find fault with the subject of the Bible, which is Jesus. Focusing on humans (non-deity) will always reveal comedy/disappointment. Just sayin'...
Re my post #237
Pastor Chris Fox has apologised to me personally, and has posted his public apology at the Unreasonable Faith blog site. This is a truly commendable action on his part, and I believe he is truly remorseful for having acted as he did. Let us assume he would have eventually been just as remorseful by his own conscience without the intense attention he received from having been unmasked.