…and this is a 
I'd never realized what a useful tool the Bible is in infallibly resolving difficult moral problems until I read this detailed dissection of a difficult situation on Answers in Genesis.
Here's the hypothetical situation: you know the whereabouts of a family of Jews hiding from the Nazis. A Nazi patrol comes up to you and asks where they are; you, a good God-fearing Christian, can either lie and say you don't know (which would be bad, because, like, lying is a sin), or you could tell the truth, and the Nazis would zip off and search for and presumably execute the family. What do you do?
As a non-Bible believing amoral godless atheist, my first thought was that this is trivial: you lie your pants off. The 'crime' of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.
According to Bodie Hodge of AiG, though, I'm wrong. The good Christian should reject lies, Satan's tools, in all circumstances, and should immediately 'fess up the location of the Jews. He backs it up with Bible quotes, too.
If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first--before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?
Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don't know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life--keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.
As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ's approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person's life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
Gosh. I never thought of it that way. So…all those Christians who sheltered Jews during WWII are actually burning in hell right now for their sinful wickedness? That is so counterintuitive, it must be true!
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Posted by: Sir Eccles | November 13, 2009 11:39 AM
Couldn't you just shoot the Nazi, that way you know he won't find the Jews hiding in the attic.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
November 13, 2009 11:42 AM
And the anti-science creationists who make things up at Answers in Genesis?
Bodie must be right since he is saying that he is sinning.
Posted by: murgadroid | November 13, 2009 11:42 AM
This story just makes me ill. My only hope is that followers of AIG who still have a smidgen of sanity and rationality left will realize how terrible it is and tell them to go screw themselves. Maybe something that is so over-the-top idiotic and evil will sway these people when evidence hasn't.
Posted by: ckerst | November 13, 2009 11:43 AM
The moron that wrote this is drowning in a pool. I could jump in and save him but, I don't know that by jumping in I would be certain of saving him. I might get a cramp and drown myself. I think I'll just watch the fool drown.
Posted by: Coragyps | November 13, 2009 11:44 AM
One wonders if AiG has a mole on the payroll. That's mind-numbing if it's not a Poe.
Posted by: vanharris
|
November 13, 2009 11:45 AM
Why not stop loving this fucked-up god? And become rational.
Posted by: momentofsciencetx | November 13, 2009 11:45 AM
If lying is so wrong then why does Ass Sores in Genesis do it all the time with their website and museum.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | November 13, 2009 11:46 AM
It is often asked how did the good Christian folk of German let the Holocaust happen.
This article from Mr Hodge is the answer.
Posted by: felixthecat
|
November 13, 2009 11:46 AM
I was raised in a Fundie home, and I remember wondering about this very same thing. The Sunday School teachers said that we must not lie, and that we must not disobey the government that God has so graciously given us. My mother, a strong Fundie, oddly enough said that she had some doubts, and would hide the family but refuse to answer the Nazi's questions. That way she wouldn't have to lie, but could still maybe save the Jews by her own torture and death.
My life as a child was great fun for sure.
Posted by: Curt Cameron
|
November 13, 2009 11:46 AM
But it says right there that everyone will eventually die anyway, so what does it matter if those Jews get killed a few decades early? They're just going to hell anyway!
Posted by: Coragyps | November 13, 2009 11:47 AM
Wait - are they laying the groundwork for what to do when Grandma is hiding from the Death Panels?
Posted by: Cameron | November 13, 2009 11:47 AM
These people really are just becoming parodies of themselves. I'm sure Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, AIG, etc do more to turn people into atheists than a thousand Pharyngulas.
Posted by: Chuck | November 13, 2009 11:48 AM
But what about when Jesus himself lies, as Paul tells us in 2nd Thessalonians 11: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
What a bastard this Jesus of Nazareth is.
Chuck
http://www.irreligiosophy.com
Posted by: MyMelody | November 13, 2009 11:48 AM
And people gasp when I say my morals DON'T come from the bible. Sheesh.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 13, 2009 11:49 AM
Okay, I've got a similar moral dilemma:
Hmm, that's a tough one.
Posted by: Chuck | November 13, 2009 11:50 AM
Whoops. That's 2nd Thessalonians 2:11.
Chuck
Posted by: Jim B | November 13, 2009 11:50 AM
I'd hate to be this guy's wife.
"Honey, do I look good in this dress?"
"Well, dear, actually, you look really bad in it, but it isn't the fault of the dress. God created you homely and nothing is going to change it."
Years ago Joe Montana was hosting Saturday Night Live, and performed a skit where his character was pure in mind and heart. Each time a character would say something, it was followed by an offstage voice speaking their internal dialog, which was at odds with what they had just said out loud. A character asked Joe what his plans were for the evening and Joe replies: I'm just going upstairs to masturbate in my bedroom. Then you hear his internal dialog: I'm just going upstairs to masturbate in my bedroom.
Alas, I can't find a youtube of the skit.
Posted by: Unity | November 13, 2009 11:51 AM
Oh well, what they lack in originality they make up for in scriptural gusto.
The 'should you lie to save a Jew from the Nazi's' dilemma is most closely associated with critiques of Kant's categorical imperative and of moral absolutism generally. AiG have just nicked at and lobbed god into the mix to suit their particular prejudices.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 13, 2009 11:52 AM
In reality these people are willing to tell outrageous lies if they think it would further their goals. So, lying to save Jews, bad. Lying for Jesus, good.
Posted by: Brock | November 13, 2009 11:53 AM
Figures. The atheist would "lie his pants off" in order to help people outside his group, and even save lives. The deluded misanthropic death-cult member would rather spread lies, claim to be against lying, and accelerate the fatality rate for other groups. *Yawn*
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 13, 2009 11:53 AM
I don't why anyone is surprised at this. For a *true* Christian it's a no-brainer : anyone sheltering Jews would already be in violation of Romans 13:1.
See the Nazis were ordained by god, it says so right there.
Mike.
Posted by: Robert H | November 13, 2009 11:54 AM
Gee, I wonder what happened to Peter because he denied Christ three times?
Posted by: Jim Etchison | November 13, 2009 11:55 AM
There's an example of this in Christian lore: Corrie Ten Boom's book "The Hiding Place" was about a Christian family hiding a Jewish family during the war. They hid under the dining room, accessibly by a trap door under the kitchen table. When interrogated by Nazis, the author was torn by this conundrum as well. She laughed, and blurted "They're under the table!" At this point that Nazi's looked merely under the tablecloth, assumed the author (then a young girl) was being silly, and left.
You see? She told the truth and God spared them! It's all God's grace ... blah blah blah. Of course, if the Nazis had subsequenly found and killed the jews, as indeed happened in hundreds of other examples, no book would have been written about it.
It kind of seems like AIG stole this from Ten Boom.
Posted by: alextangent | November 13, 2009 11:57 AM
Unbelievable. The paucity of intellect -- and the sheer lack of humanity -- of the mind that can write this...
Complete fail on Ethics 101.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
November 13, 2009 11:58 AM
Now for the challenging questions for these supposed Christians: Which one managed to take a positive lesson out of the parable of the Good Samaritan? Which one is acting more the way Jesus said people should act in loving their neighbors as themselves?
Posted by: Shane | November 13, 2009 11:59 AM
The guy is nuts. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (my favourite - see http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com ) Jesus SPECIFICALLY demonstrates that your primary duty is to your neighbour, REGARDLESS of your religious rules. The priest and levite walk by because they are forbidden by YHWH to touch a wounded man (unclean, dontcha know). The Samaritan ignores HIS religious injunction not to touch Jews, and helps the man in need.
This parable is, actually, deeply ANTI-religious, deeply humanist, and makes me think the REAL Jesus would have been delighted to have read The God Delusion (would have possibly saved him from a sticky end) and become an atheist himself. WWJD? He would have lied. Simple.
As it is, this parable would have, at the time, enraged the C1CE equivalents of Answers In Genesis. But then they don't really know very much about the sort of chap Jesus was, do they? It's a pity we didn't get to him first. I think we could have Saved him ;-)
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 11:59 AM
Don't lie - how neatly black and white. I guess when you see the world in those terms, you are unable to think a little further and realize that it isn't wrong to give false information to someone who has no right to it.
Posted by: Chris | November 13, 2009 11:59 AM
If he wants to argue for an absolute moral prohibition against lying, that's one thing, but revealing the location of the hidden Jews is not the only alternative. He could simply refuse to answer. Sure, that would probably get him killed, but it would satisfy his prohibition against lying without getting someone else killed. Note that this solution does not require God, just huge brass balls.
Posted by: LtStorm | November 13, 2009 12:01 PM
Ah, nothing like following the Bible to the letter rather than the spirit of its passages. Isn't there a new news story every week about Muslim clerics doing the same thing in the countries stricken with fundamentalist Islam?
Bets that the guys at Answers in Genesis would be appalled by the suggestion they're no better than the guy that required women to shake their ta-tas to prove they aren't wearing a bra?
Posted by: Shane | November 13, 2009 12:01 PM
Ah- FreeLunch beat me to it :-)
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 13, 2009 12:01 PM
It seems the person may be committing a sin either way. If you tell a Nazi where a hidden Jew is and you know that the Nazi will kill this person; wouldn't you be an accessory to murder?
Posted by: IaMoL | November 13, 2009 12:03 PM
One more example of stupidity that proves religious fundamentalists are a blight on the Earth. It's so hard not to get so beat down that you can imagine the planet will be better off without humans. Perhaps a less idiotic/irrational species will evolve a higher form of sentience and empathy for all.
I guess I just need a Purple Drank®
Posted by: Valdyr | November 13, 2009 12:03 PM
How very Kantian. I always find it ironic when people who recognize that morality is (gasp!) relative are derided as somehow corrupt and responsible for the atrocities of the 20th century, when a story like this beautifully demonstrates how surreal and fucked up it is to place all of an action's moral weight on intent rather than consequences, and adhere to an unbending iron standard in all circumstances.
I'm sure I'll piss off some people here by saying this, because it seems you can't swing a cat without hitting someone who thinks Kant was the smartest person ever, but the "universal imperative" model of morality does not fucking work in anything that could be described as "the real world", and this story (from one of its proponents!!) demonstrates why better than I ever could.
Posted by: mike | November 13, 2009 12:04 PM
keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically
It's ok to let someone get killed, since we'll all die anyway. And to think that these are the same people who claim that atheism leads to nihilism.
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 13, 2009 12:04 PM
But remember, they're just using "Jesus Christ" as a metaphor for an indescribable transcendence.
Posted by: Larry | November 13, 2009 12:05 PM
Its people like that that make it ever so comfortable to be an atheist. However, I bet he turns himself in to the traffic cops whenever he drives above the speed limit because, it wouldn't do to lie ya know.
Posted by: Dahan
|
November 13, 2009 12:05 PM
Lovely,
I can't tell you how happy I am that unlike so many others, I don't get my morals from a bronze age text written by some seriously fucked up people.
Posted by: Djiril | November 13, 2009 12:06 PM
I love how the possibility of just refusing to say anything (and thus probably sacrificing oneself to save one's neighbor) doesn't even occur to this person.
Posted by: Lynna | November 13, 2009 12:08 PM
Lovely. Just lovely. Remember, every one is going to die physically, so, no problemo really. Let the innocent die, and let them die terribly. God will sort it all out in heaven.
In the meantime, the AIG monsters can go their graves serenely, knowing they haven't broken one of the commandments.
Reminds me, also, of the rationalization offered by suicide bombers who blow up some of the wrong people by accident. Allah will reward the innocent. Allah will sort it all out later.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 12:08 PM
This is not a knock against the Categorical Imperative. The universal law in this case wouldn't be "don't lie," it would be "don't help murderers find their victims."
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 13, 2009 12:08 PM
Ahhh... that was too easy ! Should AiG supporters be expected to do something for non-Christians ? For the ones to whom they'd say "you'll burn in hell"(*), burning in a crematory seems, well, not so awful.
Now, the problem should be rephrased, with God-fearing, born-again Christians hiding from bloodthirsty socialist liberals hellbent on imposing public healthcare to them. Ah, now it's more difficult not to lie, isn't it?
(*) Isn't the best answer: "OK, see you there" ?
Posted by: drew | November 13, 2009 12:10 PM
but according to Mr. Deity that lie would fall under a sin that we are absolved of because the boy died on the cross.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 13, 2009 12:10 PM
@22:
Didn't you read the article. Peter lied because: a}dat 'ol debbil made him do it [cue Flip Wilson] & b] Jesus wanted it that way [makes a better story]. In the end, Peter was crucified head-down [he wasn't "good enough" to be crucified the normal way].
This is just a version of Let's kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
November 13, 2009 12:12 PM
AiG demonstrating anti-semitism... why am I not surprise?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 13, 2009 12:12 PM
Shane,
That is contingent upon "real Jesus" ever having existed. In which case
as we all know he would be dismissed as a socialist.
Posted by: sfchemist | November 13, 2009 12:12 PM
Since we are all going to die anyway can one assume that fundies don't seek medical care? Why bother? And how many of these fools are lining up to get a H1N1 vaccination? Why bother?
Posted by: Stuart | November 13, 2009 12:15 PM
I'd lie
Posted by: Laurie | November 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Yep, the black-and-white thought processes of fundamentalism are fundamentally stupid.
I used to comment regularly on a fundie baord.
I was accused of lying because I commented under a pseudonym (a fact that I was always open about).
On another occasion, a woman paraphrased another person's comments, mistakenly attributing them to me. When I pointed it out, she apologized profusely for "bearing false witness." When I responded that making an unintentional error that she immediately remedied was hardly a violation of the ten commandments -- but she insisted that, oh no, she had committed a terrible sin. It does seem to render morality meaningless when harmless, uninentional errors are equated with major sin.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 12:16 PM
Moral monster.
I cannot help but think of the pivotal point in Huckleberry Finn, when Huck decided that helping Jim would mean that he would burn in Hell, then he will burn in Hell.
I will always be grateful that some believers will go with being humane over being obedient.
Posted by: Julian | November 13, 2009 12:17 PM
Bible never says not to lie. The Bible says god is the truth, and loves truth, but it never says there is a divine law against lying. All this bumpkin has really done,beyond exposing himself as an amoral cur, is admit his ignorance of the very man-made book he considers infallible.
Posted by: Anthony | November 13, 2009 12:17 PM
It seems to me this is a situation where The Golden Rule results in a better outcome than following the Ten Commandments.
The strange bit is there shouldn't really be much of a dilemma for a Christian either. They should see that murder and lying are both on the naughty list but they can ask for forgiveness for the lie.
Posted by: cm | November 13, 2009 12:17 PM
Based on this, if you ask me who I'd take--Bodie Hodge or Noddy Holder--I think at this point I can state with confidence I would take Noddy Holder. Hell, I'd even take Burke Shelley over Bodie Hodge!
Posted by: Valdyr | November 13, 2009 12:18 PM
"The universal law in this case wouldn't be "don't lie," it would be "don't help murderers find their victims.""
But fulfilling "don't help murderers find their victims" directly conflicts with "don't lie" in this scenario. Can you obey more than one imperative at the same time? How do you determine which is "more important"?
Posted by: SteveM | November 13, 2009 12:18 PM
The movie "The Invention of Lying" imagines a world where everyone speaks only the truth, no one can even conceive of lying, they don't even have a word for "not true". It is only when the main character discovers an ability to lie that religion is created. I think AiG should be careful what it wishes for, if people really start to never lie that just might be the end of religion and AiG.
Posted by: Carlie | November 13, 2009 12:18 PM
The guy is nuts. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan. [...]Jesus SPECIFICALLY demonstrates that your primary duty is to your neighbour, REGARDLESS of your religious rules.
No, no, no. The point was that the Levite and the priest weren't following the RIGHT religious rules. Never mind that those were rules that God had given them in the first place, see, he changed his mind about it when he was Jesus so only what Jesus says about it is the real rule now, which is the one you should follow, which is also why now we can discard all the annoying rules like not eating shellfish and stuff, except the one about gays because they are like SO ICKY and stuff. Or something.
Posted by: Deen | November 13, 2009 12:18 PM
If we apply that logic consistently, the Bible tells people to never lift a finger. After all, you can never know what happens if you do anything, and besides, Jesus decides what's going to happen anyway.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 13, 2009 12:20 PM
@ 32:
Not me, because I know that:
Immanuel Kant is a real pissant, and very rarely stable
Posted by: Tulse | November 13, 2009 12:20 PM
Where in the bible does it say that lying is always wrong? The commandment reads "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour," which is by no means the same as lying.
Posted by: daedalus2u | November 13, 2009 12:20 PM
So the excuse "I was just following orders" is good enough for God?
So all of those "scientists" that Ben Stein rales about who stuffed his relatives in the ovens were blameless because they were told to do it?
Interesting that the option of not answering is not brought up. Not answering would save the Jews and not violate God's commandment to not lie.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | November 13, 2009 12:21 PM
I call false dichotomy. For the really pious there is a third option: offer to let them rape your own daughters instead. (Gen. 19:8)Posted by: Headbhang | November 13, 2009 12:21 PM
So that guy is basically saying that Hitler was just Jesus Christ's tool in the timing of the lives of countless Jews et al.?
Posted by: Valdyr | November 13, 2009 12:23 PM
I forgot to argue that they had no idea whether or not the Nazis intended to personally murder the Jews. It's more likely that they would just deport them to somewhere else where they would be murdered, which would seem to get you off scot-free as far as Kant is concerned.
And isn't one of Kant's main arguments against appealing to consequences that thinking ahead is not applicable because we can never predict the consequences of anything? How can it be said that "don't turn victims over to their murderers" applies here, when we don't know the Nazis will kill them or not?
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 13, 2009 12:23 PM
Then if I lie, it's because Jesus intended for me to do so. I mean, Jesus let the Nazis take power, Jesus let the Jews get rounded up, so I'm not very well going to lie unless Jesus is okay with that, right? Right?
Posted by: PaulBurnett
|
November 13, 2009 12:23 PM
NoAstronomer (#21) wrote: ""the powers that be are ordained of God." See the Nazis were ordained by god, it says so right there.
It also says so on the SS belt buckle: "GOTT MIT UNS" ("God is with us") - see http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5383;st=30#entry101673
Posted by: MoGemStone | November 13, 2009 12:23 PM
This goes beyond Christianity - a popular and obvious target in our culture. Rationalization is the inherent god of humans, and religions (or other non-rational beliefs) are its sanctuary. Few of us are immune to rationalization. We are fortunate if we can avoid such blatant traps as AiG's example.
The AiG rationalization serves to insulate the believer from responsibility. We may see this directly by noting the depiction of SS Captain Amon Göth (played by Ralph Fiennes) in 'Schindler's List': he pondered morality very briefly until he discovered the magic incantation "I absolve thee".
Posted by: norumaru
|
November 13, 2009 12:27 PM
I'mma bring this up next time someone tries to make it a point that some Christians sheltered Jews to "prove" that religion is a force for good.
Posted by: Carl | November 13, 2009 12:27 PM
How about a variant on Pascal's wager. We don't with 100% certainty know that there's a god, so we should do the sensible thing and lie?
Posted by: PaulBurnett
|
November 13, 2009 12:28 PM
...and we all know in our heart of hearts that the Answers In Genesis response would have been different if it had been a family of Christians hiding from the Nazis.
Anybody know if Answers In Genesis has been openly anti-Semitic before this public example of cooperating with the Nazis?
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Wow, lie about scientists who are doing nothing but honest work, then tell the truth about Jews hiding out?
And we actually think they're less than admirable?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Paleos
|
November 13, 2009 12:28 PM
Wow.
You don't 'know' whether or not your lie would save someone's life so it's not even worth trying? That is the dumbest fake rationalization yet. We don't 'know' whether anything we attempt will work out but we have to try anyway.
These people are just sick.
Posted by: penn | November 13, 2009 12:29 PM
Would his answer change if it was a pedophile looking for a small child?
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
November 13, 2009 12:29 PM
Sure, it bugs me that Bodie Hodge's moral corruption is so obvious, and that he is so oblivious to it, but it bothers me even more that I now have "One Tin Soldier" music running through my head to back up Bodie's perverse morality:
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won't be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after....
One tin soldier rides away.
Bodie makes his religion mean exactly what he wants it to mean. He is the master and his religion is the slave.
Posted by: Dan
|
November 13, 2009 12:32 PM
@4: spot on. For people who believe in pure fantasy at the slightest suggestion to be skeptical of the outcome of telling the Nazi's the whereabouts of the Jews is tragically funny.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 12:32 PM
Kant only proposed a single Categorical Imperative (that is, a law you must obey in all situations), and "don't lie" isn't it. Although he gave it three different formulations, it's easiest to understand in the first, which I'll paraphrase "always act in a way that your behavior could be a universal law." There's more to it than that, but it is roughly equivalent to the Golden Rule or the Veil of Ignorance.
Thus, you make a temporary universal law in your mind based on your proposed action and see if you could live in a world where this law was in force. Would you really want to live in a world where some stranger would condemn you to death because he doesn't want to lie to some jack-booted thug? I am guessing: probably not. Would you want to live in a world where it is OK to lie to people who are going to do something bad with the information they are seeking? I know I would.
I am currently reading "Moral Minds," so it's interesting to see Hauser slowly chip away at the idea of getting moral laws by thinking them out, as Kant would have us do, but I still am inclined to believe that Kant was on to something, in the same way that linguists are on to something when they explain grammar. Sure, we don't figure out grammar as we speak, nor do we need to in order to speak well, but linguists still can tell us why some things are grammatical and others aren't, even if we don't have access to those rules without deep study.
Posted by: Joel | November 13, 2009 12:33 PM
What the bible says or does not say is quite irrelevant to a fundamentalist Christian. The common understanding is that the 9th commandment (Ex 20:16, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor) means you should never ever ever lie. Again, not relevant that it doesn't say that, that's how the fundies interpret it.
Posted by: DJM | November 13, 2009 12:33 PM
Speaking of religion, seems like Prof. Myers is the subject of David Klinghoffer's ire, again:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/kingdomofpriests/
PS - Klinghoffer has been calling 'biblical literalists' "naive".
Posted by: daveau
|
November 13, 2009 12:33 PM
But we could make a reasonable inference. Hiding your head in the sand does not absolve you of responsibility. I guess if God didn't want those jews killed, he wouldn't have sent the nazis to your door. Or created nazis in the first place.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 13, 2009 12:36 PM
A Nazi patrol comes up to you and asks where they are; you, a good God-fearing Christian, can either lie and say you don't know (which would be bad, because, like, lying is a sin), or you could tell the truth,
You left out choice C: Give the game away by losing control of excretory functions, right then and there. Which, unfortunately, would be my most likely response, whether or not I wanted to.
I bet this guy thinks that, notwithstanding the clear pacifist, anti-violence theme in Jesus' teachings, it's OK to kill if you've got a good enough reason, like: self-defense; defense of an innocent third party; defending your country from invasion (often by pre-emptively invading some other country on the far side of the globe); the target is an Evil Person who will corrupt the children by teaching them about Gay Satanic Evolution, etc....
Note how many of those situations involve making a prediction about possible futures (despite the fact that only God knows for sure), and then acting to encourage the outcome the actor morally prefers. So: the prohibition on lying is absolute; but the one against killing people? Not so much.
Dogmatic religion, so far from being a force for moral good, is in fact a corrupter of morals. It both forbids moral reasoning, and inverts moral priorities.
Posted by: natural cynic | November 13, 2009 12:36 PM
The Good Christian is just thinking of his neighbor - the Nazi stooge who just has to do his job. After all, who is the one with "Gott Mit Uns"?
Posted by: gadfly47
|
November 13, 2009 12:36 PM
I wonder if AIG's reasoning would be the same if instead of Nazis and Jews it was the Spanish Inquisition searching for Protestants?
Ah ha! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
This whole idea of moral absolutes is so ironic coming from this bunch, anyway. They've already proven themselves to be pathological liars.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 12:36 PM
You have no proof of that this moral monster would act differently if it was a christian family in hiding. Charges of anti-Semitic is no needed. That fact that Bodie Hodge is inhumane is enough to condemn the fool.
Posted by: John | November 13, 2009 12:37 PM
Reminded me of Pinnocchio's interrogation in Shrek 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ2YeHK3Gic
There is a third option. Don't cooperate. There's nothing that requires a xian to answer the question. Of course, they run the risk of martyrdom. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Fortunately, the US Constitution includes a right against self incrimination (5th ammendment). More of that enlightenment thinking at work.
Posted by: Kyle Tudor | November 13, 2009 12:39 PM
If we could learn anything from any biblical figure on dealing with scary intruders banging on a good believer's door, I would nominate the good follow of God Lot. You just need to keep a handful of virgin daughters on hand for just the right moment.
Posted by: Billy C | November 13, 2009 12:39 PM
I wonder when's the last time Bodie Hodge read the book of Joshua. There's a little story in there about a harlot and some spies that makes me think maybe Hodge's God didn't get the memo.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 13, 2009 12:41 PM
I wonder if they think it would be ok to lie to the tools of the government oppression of Christians when they come looking for the true believers.
Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 13, 2009 12:44 PM
That's perfect. I'm sure that's what many of the saints would have done.
Posted by: Valdyr | November 13, 2009 12:44 PM
"which I'll paraphrase "always act in a way that your behavior could be a universal law." There's more to it than that, but it is roughly equivalent to the Golden Rule or the Veil of Ignorance."
I know that.
"Thus, you make a temporary universal law in your mind based on your proposed action and see if you could live in a world where this law was in force. Would you really want to live in a world where some stranger would condemn you to death because he doesn't want to lie to some jack-booted thug? I am guessing: probably not. Would you want to live in a world where it is OK to lie to people who are going to do something bad with the information they are seeking? I know I would."
But I thought the whole point of Kant is that it's a UNIVERSAL imperative, not a temporary, situational one. That is: lying is still the wrong thing to do, even to a posse of Jew-hunters, because you must think, "Do I want to live in a world where everyone lies all the time?" Of course, your point also stands, but that only leads us back to my original question. Which is a more important question: "Do I want to live in a world where everyone lies all the time?" or "Do I want to live in a world where I might die because people are always unwilling to lie?" And how do we make the determination?
It seems to be that there is an (entirely reasonable) vein of utilitarianism in your presentation of Kant. Obviously, it makes sense to take the variables of any given situation into account, rather than immediately snapping to "I must tell these Nazis the truth, because lying is always wrong, because I would not want to live in a world where everyone lies." The way I learned Kant, though, it's that kind of rigidity that characterizes the whole philosophy and sets it apart from utilitarianism.
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 12:44 PM
Yep. Want to know why?
Posted by: nic nicholson | November 13, 2009 12:46 PM
How weird!
I had just been considering a very similar situation. I was imagining I was living some 18 odd centuries ago, and the Romans were knocking on my door, saying that they wanted to know where some Christians were hiding...
It's so nice to have spiritual guidance.
Posted by: bo-weavel | November 13, 2009 12:48 PM
I just looked at the AiG website. It's disgusting. The guy emailing questions to Bodie is really sucking his wee-wee hard. My favorite: "I can’t fault your stance though, your conscience and the Word must be your guide." The website should have a black box warning for people with weak stomachs.
Also, it's amazing how corporate and money-grubbing AiG is. It's like watching an informercial, and uses many of the same tactics. Hustlers.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 12:54 PM
I don't find the Categorical Imperative to be rigid at all. The name certainly makes it sound that way, but I liken it to doing math. It makes no sense to say "what is the answer to the math problem?" without knowing what the problem is. In one problem, the answer will be 5, and in another problem, the answer will be 6, but the principles of math are still universal.
Saying "never lie" is like saying "the answer is always 5!" That the answer may not be 5, however, does not make morality relative (at least, not in the sense of moral relativism; it is still relative to the circumstances, in the same way that the answer to a math problem is relative to the inputs).
Posted by: Matt Hardy | November 13, 2009 12:54 PM
Surely the moral option for the person who doesn't want to lie is.
"Yes officer I know exactly where the family of Jews are hiding but I'm choosing not to tell you as I believe you will use that information to evil ends which I will oppose even in the face of your threats or practise of torture and murder"
Great if you have a martyr complex. Me I prefer my liberal moral relativism and would simply lie.
Of course since most Christians in Germany were Catholic the proper response in the early 40's would have been informed by Catholic Dogma Prior to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.
It was only then that the Catholics changed their stance on Supercessionism (the view that God had rejected the Jews in favour of Catholics) and Transfer of Sin (the view that all Jews from the 1st century onwards bore the responsibility for the death of Christ)
So surely the sin of lying is irrelevant. The NAZI's didn't invent Anti Semitism. Jews being accursed and rejected by God had been Christian teaching for many centuries. The good Christian at that time would happily cough to the Jews location knowing that persecuting the Jews would make his priest proud. In fact the NAZI's rounding up the Jews for their Final Solution were probably Good Catholics themselves.
And if anyone wants to claim that protestants of the time were any more enlightened on the matter then I'll have some of what they're smoking.
Posted by: Mark Siefert | November 13, 2009 12:57 PM
AIG's answer to this errr.... quandry doesn't surprise me given the fundamentalist right's historical attitude toward Jews. Yeah, they'll dredge up the Holocaust and Hitler when they want to compare evolution or legal abortion to Nazism, but as for the Jews themselves? Why should they care about those "godless," "money-grubbing," "commies" who turned their back on God and crucified JEEZ-us.
It's not like you find a whole lot of atheists in the ranks of the KKK or Aryan Nation.
Posted by: Martin | November 13, 2009 12:58 PM
So.... "It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10)."
Interestingly, they never give a shit about this, whenever they don't want too.Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to oppose abortions. Or actually do anything.
If they would take this quote serious and not only use it whenever it suits their purpose, they could actually never do ANYTHING.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 13, 2009 12:59 PM
@5: No, it's not a Poe. Fundies really are this morally stupid.
When they start thinking morally for themselves, they usually become liberal theists or atheists.
Posted by: JesusLover | November 13, 2009 1:08 PM
There are two reasons for telling the truth in this case. One is given by PZ in his post, but the second, which has been overlooked is that Jews are heathens and deserve to die. Don't forget, this was the moral foundation of the Inquisition...
Posted by: John | November 13, 2009 1:09 PM
3 words ... this strains credulity
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 13, 2009 1:10 PM
Translation: It is not for us to think.
Posted by: Jim | November 13, 2009 1:10 PM
Presumably this also means there is no exception to "Thou shall not kill". I mean, if someone is about to kill you or a loved one, why worry about the uncertain future?
Posted by: Tom | November 13, 2009 1:11 PM
"Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ's approval (Luke 22:31). "
So clearly, the actions of the Nazis are the implementaion on Earth of God's desires. Therefore anything you do in opposition is a mortal sin. You're going to Hell forever, barbeque-boy.
Posted by: Reynold | November 13, 2009 1:13 PM
I've saved that webpage---I suspect it won't be up too much longer.
Holy F**^! My mind is blown. I can't say anything more beyond what the others here have said. I'm just going to do what I can to spread this little article of theirs far and wide, all the better to shove it up their asses.
And yet, those people are the ones who claim that xians stood up to the nazis (Johnathan Safarti I believe)? Well, that's just been shown to be complete bullshit here.
You know, I don't think that the "they would have died anyway" crap would have flown at Nuremburg either.
Posted by: colonel Cocoa | November 13, 2009 1:14 PM
Stop all this BS. All of this shit is nothing more than personification of the inanimate. Why dignify relgion by even mentioning it.
Posted by: AZ Geo | November 13, 2009 1:16 PM
It makes you wonder how many xians at the time actually did this...... Bastards.
Dawkins et al may not wish to destroy religion, and be satisfied with taming it, but I won't be satisfied 'til it's vanished from the Earth, existing only as a scary story to tell your children. "There once were these horrible people called Christians......"
Posted by: James | November 13, 2009 1:18 PM
"In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don't know."
Yeah. Except the truth will certainly NOT save a life. It must be easy sitting in ones nice comfortable chair in a cushy office and writing those words - how much do you want to be this author would be lying his pants off if he actually found himself in that situation?
Posted by: waldteufel | November 13, 2009 1:18 PM
Bodie Baby is one of the more insanely stupid godbots who ply the halls of AiG. I doubt that he could chew gum and walk at the same time.
Praise Jeebus!
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 1:21 PM
My comments, for what they're worth:
I like the website illustration of sauropods frolicking and gamboling with early horses. It would make a nice (if goofy) screensaver.
Knowing I was wasting my time, I let AIG know what I thought of "Bodie Hodge"'s moral imbecility. The name seems almost too good for a fundamentalist dumbass--does anyone here know whether it's for real?
Posted by: wombat | November 13, 2009 1:24 PM
"As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say."
The next time some godbot goes on about the gift of free will, I will point them to this post.
Posted by: Kristian Käll | November 13, 2009 1:25 PM
Good thing we got the bible to guide us in such moral dilemmas. I, just like PZ had it all wrong. :o
Posted by: RSA | November 13, 2009 1:29 PM
Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ's approval.
So Christ loved Peter more than several million Jews? Nazis were more powerful than Satan? The Holocaust was pre-approved by Christ? Help me understand the general principle, AiG!
Posted by: marie-annick
|
November 13, 2009 1:30 PM
This is what I was taught in that horrible Accelerated Christian "Education" program. This is an example straight from the Corrie Ten Boom book The Hiding Place. In it, a relative hides Jews and tells the truth when the Nazis come calling. They always leave without searching because they think she's joking.
Of course, eventually they find the Jews and kill everyone in the house, but hey, at least she didn't lie !
Posted by: brian smith | November 13, 2009 1:35 PM
The references to the work of Immanuel Kant in some of the comments above (starting at #32) maybe reflect the most substantive philosophical objections to the morally horrendous conclusion of the religious 'analysis' of this hypothetical.
It's interesting to see how parasitic the whole AIG process is on the thinking of others: I suspect this hypothetical was just stolen from the long-ago debate over Kant's categorical imperative.
The eighteenth century Swiss philosopher Benjamin Constant was the first to raise this murderer-at-the-door hypothetical as a 'killer' objection to Kant's categorical rule. To anyone with half a brain, it acts as a reductio ad absurdum, the demonstration of a contradiction in the position being analyzed, a proof that there's a flaw somewhere. Kant can't be right!
Amazingly, Kant DID take the position parroted by the AIG 'thinker' in his essay "On a Supposed Right to Lie from Altruistic Motives'.
To anyone with ANY moral sense, this response to the hypothetical simply shows that any moral system that produces this result is appalling.
I share the incredulity of the commenter above that anybody can take Kant all that seriously as a guide to thinking right about anything. He was obscurely wrong about the necessary truth of Euclidean geometry, which is maybe forgiveable, and obviously wrong about morality, which maybe is not.
It is at least conceivable that his deadly prose and his dreadful analysis of this hypothetical had some real effect on the German people who took his stuff seriously when they confronted real murderers at the door in the shape of the Gestapo.
No moral system that can reach such a result is worth holding. This AIG stuff shows that the AIG creationist website is as morally bankrupt as the AIG insurance operation that shares its initials is financially!
Believing this Bible stuff clearly does not necessarily lead to an admirable moral code. But we already knew that.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 13, 2009 1:37 PM
You follow the third option, of course -- the only one that is truly consistent with the form of Christianity being pushed by AIG:
You invite the patrol in, and ask them if they have heard the Good News about Jesus. And you offer them some pamphlets.
They won't be able to leave fast enough.
Posted by: Greta Christina | November 13, 2009 1:37 PM
I see.
"Really we don't know" that the Nazis who are beating on the door searching for the Jews are going to take them to the concentration camps and kill them. We don't know that for certain. Maybe they just want to give the Jews a Candygram.
But we do know for certain that a book written 2,000 years ago by highly biased second-hand sources decades after the fact gives an accurate account of the teachings of a Man-God. That, we can count on.
This has to be a Poe. Please. Loki H. Thor on a raft, please let this be a Poe.
Posted by: Blondin
|
November 13, 2009 1:40 PM
It's discussions like this that present an opportunity to throw the "what if your're wrong" meme back in their faces.
Posted by: Robert H | November 13, 2009 1:45 PM
I wonder if the Golden Rule applies here in that, were the tables to be turned just a wee bit and Bodie Hodges were to be hiding instead of the Jews, he would counsel that rather than his hosts telling a lie he would prefer them to tell the truth and give him up to certain death? This whole thing wasn't taken from a Monty Python skit, was it?
Posted by: --E | November 13, 2009 1:46 PM
Wow. Way to surrender all authority and autonomy.
No wonder these idiots don't understand that atheists can be moral. If you will only follow simple rules enumerated for you, you never need to develop a moral compass.
Posted by: John M | November 13, 2009 1:46 PM
Reading this story reminds me of how lucky my wife was, when her mother and 6 of her siblings lived in a Paris street during WWII, a street full of "Christians" who all knew they were Jewish. They were not, however, listed at the local synagogue - a nontheist, secular family - but the Gestapo were suspicious.
The story goes that 'maman' pretended to be almost totally gaga when interrogated/interviewed on three occasions. The neighbours knew of this pretence. When Herr Flic and Co. walked the street asking about Madame Guedj, the wicked christians lied in their teeth, making a rotating-finger-to-temple gesture at the very mention of her name. I guess they're all together in hell now, having a fine old time enjoying maman's fantastic couscous - she died last year age 104 - laughing about duping the idiot gestapo foot-soldiers who are presumably sharing Catholic heaven with Pope Pius XII, Mother Theresa, and a host of other nasties.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 13, 2009 1:47 PM
Free Lunch@72:
So you thought you would share your earworm with the rest of the group? Why do you hate us Free Lunch? Was it something we said?
Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 1:48 PM
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/hitlerspope.htm
Pope betrayed the Jews...interesting and quite damning..but make your own mind up!
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
November 13, 2009 1:53 PM
When Matthew has Jesus reply to the Pharisee lawyer in 22:39, he quotes the law back at the lawyer (Leviticus = law). However it is not the full Leviticus verse. The NT authour quotemines the OT, softening it.
The full verse is:
The original can be interpreted as applying only to those who are the children of thy people, 'us' rather than 'them'. Without the qualification, the NT version can apply to everyone, outlander or not.
The Bible is useless as an instruction book for morality. There are so many conflicting statements, it is hard to be sure that there is any single moral position taken that isn't elsewhere contradicted in it.
Tell me again why the OT verses were kept, if they were only going to be ignored? Shellfish, mixed fabrics, cattle breeding, haircuts, why leave them in?
Posted by: Creature of the Universe | November 13, 2009 1:54 PM
There AiG goes again...slandering Christ as the one who is ultimately responsible for all sorts of horrors.
Who ever wrote that should be banished to the bell tower.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 1:55 PM
Once again "Religious Morality" meets "Real World" and explodes in a puff of intestinal gas. Whether (in fact when) to tell lies is a familiar personal dilemna which includes the consequences of telling the truth. Ancient text junkies just can't see past the words that so terrify them to any conceivable, compassionate, sensible outcome.
But in any case, the example is wholly repugnant. Why Nazis and Jews? What, apart obviously from doing nothing, did God have to do with that? This is, in fact a particularly nasty anti-Semitic fantasy that the writer felt he had to share. And boy, do the biblical quotes (Bollocks 3:14) add to the pleasure for him!
Yuck, on every level.
But, the image of us atheists somehow depending on Biblical morality at heart is difficult to shake. Recently, a friend of mine, who is a Professor of Philosophy no less, informed me that my own morality was, at heart "based on Judaeo-Christian foundations". (Like, perhaps, the cellar where the Jews were hidden?).
I failed to agree, loudly, and at length.
I can say, however, that when the New Enlightment Liberal Stormtroopers visit me and ask where the Nazi-loving, Reality-denying, Intellect-abusing Christians are I shall, without a moment's thought, tell the truth.
"Start with AIG" I shall say.
It's What Jesus Would Do, I'm sure of it.
Posted by: Gav | November 13, 2009 1:55 PM
I'm not really surprised at AIG for getting the wrong answer, as they've shown themselves to be past masters of the false dichotomy.
Jesuits (I think) came up with the answer a while back, which is to equivocate. Example: "I don't know where they are [mental reservation: right now; they might have gone out shopping or something]."
Posted by: RPJ | November 13, 2009 1:58 PM
Of course. Christian "morals" have an entirely separate basis from humanistic ones.
Humanistic morals are based in benefit and harm to other humans, creatures and the world; they're grounded in logical reality, acknowledging cause and effect.
Theistic "morals" are based on kowtowing to their deity. If the deity decreed that stabbing babies and eating their hearts was moral, then it would be so, reality be damned.
There's no need to try to reconcile the moral systems. I would argue that to do so would betray the humanistic morals of maximizing benefit. Theistic morals should simply be obliterated (as an idea, that is; I'm not implying that those holding them should be wiped out).
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 13, 2009 1:58 PM
The bible says - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28(KJV)
So when the Nazi asks me if there are any Jews hiding in my house I would say - NO and it would be the truth.
Amen.
Lion (IRC)
PS - PZ Myers - Thanks for a scripture based thread!
Posted by: Michelle R | November 13, 2009 1:58 PM
Excuse me while I go outside and start screaming obsenities at the nearest church.
Posted by: Vanessa | November 13, 2009 2:03 PM
I know not all religious people are like this and yet the propensity for the feeble-minded and the hate-filled to abuse it is so powerful, I just can't abide with it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 13, 2009 2:03 PM
if I could roll my eyes any more than I am right now they'd pop out of my skull
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2009 2:04 PM
I haven't been following a lot of recent threads, but has anybody pointed Lion IRC to the Armor of God?
tee-hee
Posted by: 386sx | November 13, 2009 2:05 PM
This has to be a Poe. Please. Loki H. Thor on a raft, please let this be a Poe.
Sorry, but that's the way they really think over there at AIG. Total cult factory. All cult, all the time!
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
November 13, 2009 2:07 PM
Surely that Galatians verse only applies to believers, and thus Lyin' is lying again when he says it would be the truth.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 13, 2009 2:07 PM
Wow. What an immoral belief system. The next time a christian plays the morality card, just mention this story. Pledging allegiance to an imaginary being over saving the life of a fellow human.
(head bangs against desk...head bangs against desk...)
Christians actually believe they are being "saved" and will live eternally in a place called heaven. If you genuinely believe the same thing, then preserving your own soul seems like a perfectly "fit" practice, no? Only the fittest (most-righteous) will survive into an afterlife filled with harps and hymns, not the alternative (fire and brimstone). It's a very primitive human instinct. Emphasis is on 'primitive'.
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 2:08 PM
Wow... even the Catholic priests in my parish wouldn't go along with that one, PZ, and they went along with some crazy s***. Actually, they would hem and haw about that scenario being the only possible situation where it was acceptable to lie.
(Kind of like their whole "abortion is evil ... unless the mother's life is in danger" and then the priest told this story about this lady who died in pregnancy even though she had little chance of survival and he had told her on no uncertain terms that not only was an abortion acceptable in her case but that God wanted her to be there for her existing children ... but she was adamant, and died. American priesthood--b/c of their education--have long been more liberal than Rome or the laity. This guy still had a conscience intact, despite all the years of RCC indoctrination ... sadly this lady didn't, or just couldn't face reality, and her kids paid the fucking price by not having a mother any more. Maybe he was trying to tell us kids that no matter what the catechism said, don't be a f***ing idiot.)
Of course, in Judaism the rabbis figured out centuries ago that it was acceptable to break the commandments--even the Sabbath--to save a human life. Judaizers should be sat down with a copy of the Talmud.
Seriously, what a moral monster.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 2:08 PM
A cu*t factory indeed.Posted by: Vole | November 13, 2009 2:08 PM
By their fruits shall ye know them.
Posted by: mattand | November 13, 2009 2:10 PM
Went and checked out the AiG post in question. The Apatosauruses grazing with the gazelles at the top of the page was a nice touch.
My main motivation to read the comments section for the article, wondering how genuine AiG readers would respond.
Surprise, surprise: no comment section at all. Maybe deep down, the author realizes how morally idiotic and bankrupt his view is.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 2:10 PM
That's why I come here - really smart company. Oh, and the squids.
And the cookies.
Posted by: James Haight | November 13, 2009 2:12 PM
..and if we were to ask you if you were a man, you'd say NO and it would be the truth? Hm.I don't get why everyone's ragging on the Nazis anyhow. Hitler was a great humanitarian, sending millions off to Heaven with great alacrity and commendable efficiency.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 2:13 PM
It continuously amazes me that just as I think I can have no less a respect for religion, it shows that it hasn't yet plumbed the true depths of depravity.
And now that depravity is a "feature"?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 13, 2009 2:13 PM
Lyin' -
Is that before or after it tells you under what circumstances it's ok to beat your slave?
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 13, 2009 2:15 PM
Wrong, unless these "Jews" were Christian converts. Even then, you'd still be lying.
But you'd still get moral brownie points for lying to save someone instead of killing them to save yourself from an uncomprehending, apparently stupid god. It's the right action, even if the reason is screwed up.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 13, 2009 2:17 PM
So when the Nazi asks me if there are any Jews hiding in my house I would say - NO and it would be the truth.,/i. - Lyin' JIRC
And if the Nazi uses slightly different wording, like "Is there anybody hiding from the Nazis in this house?"?
Posted by: Menyambal | November 13, 2009 2:18 PM
Oh, good one, Lion. That scripture that you twist was referring to faithful followers of Christ--Christians, if you would. So Jews who have not accepted Christ are still Jews. Your lie is still a lie, and you are revealed as a very poor reader, as well as a dishonest pretender. Praise Jesus.
I recall reading something similar to this a long time ago. The questiion was whether the mother of a family could flirt with the guards to distract them while her family escaped. The Christian author equated it to prostitution, and condemned the woman for even thinking about it.
One of Shakespeare's characters said that war is God's beadle, and a king should not be held responsible for the deaths of his soldiers. Not sure what my point is, there.
Of course, the Nazis had a nasty habit of shooting a whole lot of people as punishment for the actions of a few, un-related, folks, which sounds a lot like God punishing us all for the sins of Adam.
The Nazis also went around threatening the deaths of innocents to get what they wanted from other people..."Zier bloodt vill be on your handz!" Which is what this conundrum really is like. A True Christian of the Lion sort would simply tell the truth, and shrug off the killing as the fault of the damned Nazis.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 13, 2009 2:19 PM
So what does it all mean exactly? That God is a Nazi? I mean it explains a lot, but really?
Including that Pope Pius XII guy whoever he is...
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” - God in Genesis 2:17. Well that's not exactly what supposedly happened, now was it?Posted by: JBlilie | November 13, 2009 2:20 PM
This is truly remarkable. I thought that answer was just an old joke that people kicked around in discussion. The thing I like about it is that it clearly points out the contrast between sin (a victimless non-crime) and morality, which is based on empathy and harm/preventing-harm.
Fortunately, it seems like most Xians ignore such advice. Religous people and atheists consistently make the same choices (overall/on average/within error bars) on tests of moral choices. (Good thing they don't really rely on their "holy" books for moral advice!)
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 2:20 PM
I'm afraid Lion's #125 merely points out that when christans want to get out of their lying predicament, they just weedle out of it using another bit of structure.
This is why we don't like scripture Lion, it doesn't mean anything, you just wallow in it, spout whatever you want, add your own meanings to it.
Something with a thousand different meanings has NO meaning in itself.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 13, 2009 2:21 PM
John M #117, thank you for that story of survival. Nothing more needs to be said to out AiG as immoral to the core.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 13, 2009 2:21 PM
Don't worry Lyin' Lion. You showed no integrity by citing the unproven mythical book, which means you said nothing cogent. We know your lack of intelligence, honesty and integrity. Nothing you say is considered seriously.
Posted by: SoreLoser | November 13, 2009 2:21 PM
I think that anyone that could actually arrive at this twisted moral justification of aiding in the murder or others wouldn't have been in the position in the first place. If they had known of the location of this group of Jews, they would have just have gone down to the local Party office and turned them in at once. They certainly wouldn't have been the ones hiding them!
Posted by: Randomfactor | November 13, 2009 2:26 PM
Jesuits (I think) came up with the answer a while back, which is to equivocate. Example: "I don't know where they are [mental reservation: right now; they might have gone out shopping or something]."
Modern physics goes them one better.
"It is physically impossible for me to know their current location and where they are going."
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | November 13, 2009 2:27 PM
Lying protects not only the family in hiding, but also the Nazi soldiers because it prevents them from committing murder.
If you tell the truth, you are sending those poor soldiers straight to Hell!
Posted by: JJR | November 13, 2009 2:28 PM
Actually the SS buckles say "Meine Ehre Heisst Treue" (My Honor is Loyalty). It's the Wehrmacht (Army) buckles that say "Gott Mit Uns".
/mil.hist pedant].
Posted by: Valdyr | November 13, 2009 2:29 PM
"Surprise, surprise: no comment section at all. Maybe deep down, the author realizes how morally idiotic and bankrupt his view is."
No, that's pretty much standard practice for Christian apologetics blogs, websites, YouTube videos, etc. Sometimes they try to justify it, but usually the silent little "Comments are not enabled" box is all you'll get. Obviously, there are both blowhard douchebag Christians and blowhard douchebag atheists, but it's really interesting to see how many Christian sites disallow comments (or restrict comments to registered members, and then ban anyone who disagrees with them, however politely--I'm thinking of Rapture Ready and Biblocality, here) compared with the way atheist blogs openly invite disagreement and discussion (as much as goobers like Lion IRC will try to claim otherwise when they get chewed out for exhibiting their goobosity).
Posted by: jcaps | November 13, 2009 2:29 PM
So:
Lying = Bad
Lying for Jesus = OK
Lying to save Jews = Bad
Jesus = Jew
.
.
.
uhh.. carry the 1,.... {raises hand} Teacher! I don't get it.
Posted by: stptrck75 | November 13, 2009 2:33 PM
I'm always bemused and disgusted by how these types of sanctimonious morons sign off on their odious screeds.
After wonderfully exemplifying the bilious nature of christian logic, Mr Hodge writes,
"With humbleness in Christ,
Bodie"
This is an example of false humility. Mr. Hodge's humility is meant to draw adulation and admiration towards Mr. Hodge.
Posted by: arachnophilia | November 13, 2009 2:34 PM
AiG: the single worst place for biblical exegesis on the interwebs.
did they even consider... asking a jewish person? pretty much any jewish person would say "lie, of course." -- and the religious ones would defend it with the bible, too. which book would they find their answer in? genesis. (and the talmud, but about stories from genesis, anyways)
as for this "lies [are] satan's tools" business, the first lie in the bible is spoken by god himself, when he obscures the function of the tree of knowledge with a lie that eating from it would cause death. (the tempting serpent, in contrast, tells the truth)
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 2:34 PM
another question for Lion #125. What if they didn't say Jew? Your bible reference wouldn't be usable. What would you do then? Your bible would have let you down.
Hey here is a great idea. Why don't you put the book down and think for yourself what you would do and why.
(obviously in my last post i meant "scripture" not "structure")
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
November 13, 2009 2:34 PM
I guess the Christians at AiG never heard of pikuach nefesh, the principle that allows Jews to break most of the commandments in order to save a life. Of course, one of the exceptions to that principle is blasphemy, so while Jews can safely lie to save a life, they are not permitted to blaspheme.
Posted by: Jud
|
November 13, 2009 2:35 PM
You cannot make this stuff. Up.
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 2:35 PM
/me is very surprised we haven't had someone play the "No True Christian" card yet....
Posted by: Rob F | November 13, 2009 2:35 PM
Most of the objection regarding Kant seem to be about moral absolutism rather that duty theory per se. If one is a moral absolutist, it means that there are no exceptions to your duties. Hence, one would be required not to lie in this situation. Moral absolutism makes resolving moral dilemmas/conflicts between duties difficult.
This issue can be resolved by adding a rule that ranks duties. That way, when they come into conflict any dilemmas can be resolved.
Kant argued that actions were morally good when you did your duty for the sake of duty, morally neutral when you do your duty for the wrong reasons (self-interest or immediate inclination), and morally bad when you don't do your duty. If you add a qualifier, "when duties come into conflict, follow the more important one", you can resolve dilemmas. In this case, your duty not to lie is below your duty not to put others in danger, and hence it is permissible to lie in this circumstance. Notice how this modification of deontology means that you abandon moral absolutism, rather than the categorical imperative itself.
As for my view, I think you should lie. If you lie, while you are showing the vice of dishonesty, you are also showing the virtues of beneficence (since you are doing something that benefits others), courage (since you are risking retaliation if you are found out), protectiveness (since you are preventing others from coming to harm), and so on. In this circumstance, these virtues outweigh whatever negative character effects result from lying, and hence you should lie when asked where the family is hiding.
Posted by: Rev. El Mundo
|
November 13, 2009 2:36 PM
These buffoons lack all nuance and all sense of proportion. They think in only two states - ON and OFF - because their DNA lacks the potentiometer gene.
The easiest way to identifiy these morons is to ask them almost any question. If the answer is given w/o equivocation, the answerer is cocksure about his answer and the answerer believes that only two options qualify as a valid answer, turn 180 degrees and run for your life.
Failure to follow this simple, common-sense rule will lead to nothing but mirgraine headaches and indigestion, maybe even colitus.
~Rev. El Mundo
Pastor, www.WVCSR.org
Posted by: Jud
|
November 13, 2009 2:37 PM
A popular verse to quote, except, for some odd reason, when gay marriage is being discussed.
Posted by: awaken | November 13, 2009 2:38 PM
I used to be condensing smug atheist intellectual like the people here. It's really easy to do if you ignore the factual evidence of the world.
My advice to atheist is to actually read the Bible and find out its fine points. Only then can you truely be wised and have a good arguement.
And if you are wondering, yes I am a Christian now and I have a degree in Math.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 2:38 PM
I think Germany needed more atheists.
Posted by: Randomfactor | November 13, 2009 2:39 PM
It's the Wehrmacht (Army) buckles that say "Gott Mit Uns".
Commonly mistranslated. Actually, it says "Do you have your mittens?"
They were so *FORGETFUL*...
Posted by: catgirl | November 13, 2009 2:44 PM
It's weird. I always thought that the Bible specifically forbids perjury (bearing false witness) rather than lying in general.
Posted by: Randomfactor | November 13, 2009 2:44 PM
My advice to atheist is to actually read the Bible and find out its fine points.
I have. One of the many reason I'm an atheist rather than a Christian.
Posted by: Jamie | November 13, 2009 2:44 PM
This is awful. You can use the reasoning to ignore any consequence. Oh God will take care of it, no need to help anyone (or yourself!), or indeed do anything. But it doesn't surprise me because that's exactly what those parents who pray and don't take their kids to the doctor believe. Even though one could do something to prevent a horrible disaster, and horrible things happened, it was supposed to because that's what God wanted. How can a sane person reason that? Everything that happens is exactly what God wants, right?
Posted by: petursey | November 13, 2009 2:44 PM
Before I read this I just though AIG was just a bunch of money loving silly deluded creationist religiously-afflicted bunch of loons....
Now I see how truly evil and twisted they are
1) for even thinking this
2) for believing this and
3) for daring to print it..
I'll be sure to show it to the christian folks here in Holland who sheltered persecuted Jews throughout the war...some did for money, some did from the goodness of their hearts and some did it because their priest told them to.....but they did it...and I suppose those that are still alive would be truly disgusted by these bigoted holier than thou AIG types misrepresenting their acts.
The sooner this lot goes bankrupt or is shut down the better.... they truly make me want to vomit.
Posted by: CJO | November 13, 2009 2:47 PM
I used to be condensing smug atheist intellectual like the people here.
And now you're just dense.
read the Bible and find out its fine points.
Condensing again? I'll wager you don't know a goddamn thing about the bible.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 13, 2009 2:48 PM
It's just more of the same from Lion IRC, who is protected from critical reading of the Bible by the Armour of God!
Condensed smug atheist intellectuals? They come in a can, right?Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 2:49 PM
Condensing? On what?
Now you're a smug Christian anti-intellectual.
Such as?
Why? I'm already an atheist.
Yeah, like, "what the hell does it mean?".
Ooooooh, a degree. I'm impressed. Duz taht make u teh smart?
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 2:51 PM
Posted by: Free Lunch
Now for the challenging questions for these supposed Christians: Which one managed to take a positive lesson out of the parable of the Good Samaritan? Which one is acting more the way Jesus said people should act in loving their neighbors as themselves?
Posted by: Shane |
The guy is nuts. In the Parable of the Good Samaritan (my favourite - see http://churchofjesuschristatheist.blogspot.com ) Jesus SPECIFICALLY demonstrates that your primary duty is to your neighbour, REGARDLESS of your religious rules. The priest and levite walk by because they are forbidden by YHWH to touch a wounded man (unclean, dontcha know). The Samaritan ignores HIS religious injunction not to touch Jews, and helps the man in need.
What you're both forgetting is that we're talking about Dispensationalists. According to Dispensationalism, Jesus' words were for Jesus' time only.
Instead, they take the words of the epistles as their commandments.
Christians, ex-Christians ... if you've ever wondered why America's soi-disants Christians don't seem like Christians at all, this is why.
IMO, Christian means two things: follow of Christ, or anointed one/people. Dispensationalists (which make up a good chunk of American evangelicals) are only Christians in the latter sense.
If you've ever thumbed through contemporary evangelical literature/propaganda, Jesus is propagandized as this kind of accessible deity a la Ganesh who nevertheless like your mom has some issues with boundaries and probably needs to get a life. However, the idea of "taking up the Cross and following Him" is certainly not to be found, although I concede it MAY be found in those CS Lewis reprints.
(I don't think the fundies actually read that stuff. If they did, they wouldn't push it on unbelievers. I read the first few chapters of Lewis' apologia and it was a classic of doublespeak. In fact I'm rather convinced Lewis was an atheist. His basic argument was that Xtianity or any religion was useful for keeping the masses in line (the having faith in faith argument) and secondly he chose Xtianity because it was cultus noster and not for any underlying merit, although of course English culture was superior to all others on Earth because Mr. Lewis says so! I thought this particular argument was fecking funny because Xtianity was an import to Albion. (But then again, so is tea.))
WWJD bracelets seem to point back to a more Jesus-centered Xtianity, but my impression was that the people who wore them were no experts on gospels but rather went with some sort of "gut" feeling that generally resulted in admonishing/scolding others along the lines of the epistles. (Jesus would speak up and tell you that your sin is sending you straight to hell.) Their Jesus is the living Jesus who talks to them, not some 1st century rabbi who challenges you to love your enemy.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 2:51 PM
Awaken, please point out to we condensing smug atheist intellectuals are wrong about Bodie Hodge' s ethics. Complaining about out lack of belief and and not knowing the fine points does not cut. An the fact that you have a degree in Math adds nothing.
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 13, 2009 2:52 PM
Valdyr, I won't necessarily defend Kant, but it seems to me that you are greatly understanding what he was saying.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
November 13, 2009 2:53 PM
Bodie Hodge of AiG should be jailed for life on some charge or someone should send him to the reward he seeks.
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 2:58 PM
And isn't one of Kant's main arguments against appealing to consequences that thinking ahead is not applicable because we can never predict the consequences of anything?
Are you sure this is an accurate portrayal of Kant's position? I ask because it's really stupid, and generally Kant wasn't quite that stupid.
Then again, categorical imperative.
Posted by: Wooster | November 13, 2009 2:58 PM
@awaken, #164
You know, when I was still a christian, I did in fact read the Bible, or most of it at least. I skipped the prophets, but read from Genesis through Kings and all of the New Testament. It's mostly rubbish, utterly unreliable as history, and completely inconsistent. And yet, I believed in it enough that I seriously considered joining the clergy, to the point where I actually applied and was accepted to a seminary.
Fortunately, I realized it was all nonsense before getting more deeply involved. Oddly enough, my turning to atheism was more of an awakening than my faith ever was. I happened to be a christian because my family happened to be. However, there was always a conflict between what these ancient books claimed was true and what I knew to be true based on our scientific observations about the universe. I was fortunate enough to have been educated by normal, sane people, and so I had always been taught and accepted as fact that the universe was 14 billion years old and all animals evolved via natural selection from a common ancestor. I studied classics and history in college, so I knew how most christian rituals were adapted from earlier pagan beliefs, how most of the fable of Jesus was stolen from Mithras, how Pauline christianity was the bastard child of Near East mysticism and Greek philosophical traditions. Reconciling my education with my religion was literally Doublethink, in the true Orwellian sense of holding two mutually exclusive notions in your head at the same time. I'm not entirely sure when I stopped believing or what the catalyst was, but one day I simply didn't and it was much more intellectually rewarding.
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 13, 2009 3:00 PM
Actually, what most linguists think is that we do know rules of grammar and follow them without thinking about them. They're just not the prescriptive rules of grammar you learned in school.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 13, 2009 3:00 PM
we must not disobey the government that God has so graciously given us
Religion: the original tool for political control.
Posted by: AJS
|
November 13, 2009 3:02 PM
That was supposed to be a joke, wasn't it? Or at least a reductio ad absurdum argument against taking the whole Bible literally.
There aren't really actually any people who really think like that in real life.
Are there?
Posted by: catgirl | November 13, 2009 3:03 PM
Here's my advice: If you're hiding from someone who's trying to kill you, don't tell Hodge where you're hiding. He'll tell that murder exactly where you are, just like Jesus would do.
However, why does he have to tell them anything? Can't he just refuse to answer questions? Can't he just lock the door and not talk to the Nazis at all? Wouldn't that be the most moral thing to do?
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 13, 2009 3:04 PM
To the authoritarian fundy, hiding your head in the sand does absolve you of responsibility. That's why they don't blame George W. Bush for believing the faulty WMD intel. He believed Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld and deliberately ignored the experts who said the intel was false. Since he let himself be deceived, he's not guilty of lying, so it's not his fault he acted on bad intelligence.
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 3:09 PM
Ha ha, Jesuits.
I think it's only a matter of time before they get suppressed again. Too
intelligentindependent.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 13, 2009 3:12 PM
Now I know what it means to "burst out laughing".
Posted by: Becky | November 13, 2009 3:13 PM
Rat out the Jews, because that's what Jebus would do..
You can't beat Christians for compassion.
Posted by: ChrisH
|
November 13, 2009 3:14 PM
Is lying only acceptable if it's for Jeebus? The inference is there although thta might just be how it was translated*.
*Nowhere near a biblical scholar. Life's too short. And fun.
Posted by: sethv | November 13, 2009 3:15 PM
@182
Yes.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 3:16 PM
Awaken is currently reading his bible to learn what to say next. I don't think he has dealt with teh heathens for a while.
Um, Awaken, please remain a christian. We don't want you back. All that condensing you did, might make you explode.
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 3:18 PM
me is very surprised we haven't had someone play the "No True Christian" card yet....
Oops, guilty ... well, I didn't exactly say "no true xtian" would do this because in nowhere does the Bible explicitly embrace humanism ... it's definitely sin(fantasy)-based morality, rather than practical morality. However, I did accuse a few million people of not being Christians, and damnit, it felt good.
Posted by: IaMoL | November 13, 2009 3:20 PM
PZ, you're proposing "moral relativism" - the fundagelicals favorite catchphrase, as if all the holy books inspired by god(s) universally contain the same rigid codes for morality.
Posted by: awaken | November 13, 2009 3:22 PM
See, this is the type of smug attitude I speak of. But when the endgame comes, you'll be begging that you listen to the bible.
Posted by: truthspeaker | November 13, 2009 3:24 PM
So you agree with Hodge at AIG then?
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 3:27 PM
Actually that wasn't directed at you. Your comment just reminded me of it.
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 3:30 PM
Ah, projection. It never fails to entertain....
Which one?
Posted by: Daniel Edd Bland III | November 13, 2009 3:30 PM
I was raised on Dr. Dobson, and have just sent him a letter requesting his assistance to help me stop loosing faith in the Christian Church. My Mom respects Dr. Dobson as much or more than any other Christian leader, and she is interested to see his response. I only started learning the truth about the 9/11 attacks last fall. It took me an entire year to convince my own parents to listen to me, and begin reviewing the evidence for themselves. Now that they have thoroughly and objectively taken a fresh look into all the available evidence, they too are now aware of how badly we have been deceived. They now fully support my mission to find out what really happened to 2,993 of our fellow countrymen that fateful September morning. My mom is very interested to see if/how Dr. Dobson will respond. Please read my open letter to Dr. Dobson and share your thoughts at.........
http://blandyland.com/?p=459
Does Christ's Church really stand for TRUTH & JUSTICE? That is the question!
Daniel Edd Bland III
www.BlandyLand.com
Posted by: scarshapedstar | November 13, 2009 3:31 PM
If a registered sex offender walked up to you and asked you where he could find some handcuffs and where's the nearest preschool, would it be a sin to lie?
If Satan asks you what would be the best way to burn down your local church, are you obligated to tell him?
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 3:32 PM
With all your condensing, please do not be surprised if you are treated as such, and wiped up with the towel of reason.
I suspect you may mean "condescending": even then the term is incaccurate - but you could hardly expect to know that as a mere mathematician.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 13, 2009 3:33 PM
asleep decreed:
What endgame? Who will we be begging? What good would listening to the bible [Oh-oh, somebody didn't capitalize their asshole's holy shit! Might be in trouble yourself there, Math man] do during this endgame you speak of?Yours in smuggery,
A Condensed Atheist
Posted by: scarshapedstar | November 13, 2009 3:35 PM
If Osama bin Laden asked you to perform a coat-hanger abortion on one of the Bush twins, would you go to hell if you told him you didn't know how?
Posted by: Ramon | November 13, 2009 3:35 PM
I still pray that someday all the occult people will be wipped off the face of the earth (including Dick Cheney, the Bushes etc.)...you atheists 2 by the way :)
Lots of Love (L)(L)(L)
Ramon :)
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 3:37 PM
Oh, good. You had me worried that you were actually going to do something that might make it happen....
Posted by: johnny West | November 13, 2009 3:38 PM
i still hope that all the occultwill be wipped off the face of the earth (including the BIG moloch axis demoniacs like Cheney & the Bushes etc.) and the atheists 2 :)
Lots of love (L)(L)(L)....
Johnny :)
ALERTA!
La estafa automotriz mas grande en el territorio Mexicano…
Para MAS informacion pinche:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwwexpoautoscommx.html
Gracias
Posted by: Andries | November 13, 2009 3:38 PM
Ofcourse my grandfather hided a Jew (in Holland during World War II); he was an atheist!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 13, 2009 3:39 PM
aaaaaaaaaaaand ... nope
NEXT!
Posted by: Teh Merkin | November 13, 2009 3:39 PM
This is what I meant to say, but I don't think I was clear.
Hauser's point is that we understand morality, but can't always articulate why something is right or wrong, in the same way that an average speaker of English knows that "I has" is incorrect*, without being able to explain why.
Linguists can explain why, and they do it in the same way that a Kantian approach to morality (in the broad sense that morality can be explained by reason) can clarify why something is right or wrong, but this level of reasoning is not needed for us just to *know* without being able to explain why.
*Kittehs excepted, of course.
Posted by: raven | November 13, 2009 3:40 PM
They aren't joking.
No. Fundie xians always lie continually about everything. They are among the biggest hypocrits on the planet. How else can you believe that 2 pages of mythology explains a 13.7 billion year old universe?
Posted by: Louise Van Court | November 13, 2009 3:44 PM
When my father-in-law died of pneumonia and complications of Parkinson’s disease my mother-in-law was physically well but had almost no recent memory due to the devastating effects of Alzheimer’s disease on her brain. She grieved greatly during the service for him and at the graveside when they handed her the folded flag and spoke the words to her that are so familiar to military families “On behalf of a grateful nation . . .” In the immediate days and weeks following his death she forgot that he had died. She would often ask about him “Where is “_____”? A few times we reminded her that we had all attended his funeral and burial. She would be shocked and would grieve all over again as if for the very first time. It was so sad, then someone told her “He went fishing” when she asked about his whereabouts. That answer satisfied her because she knew he loved to fish and it seemed so much kinder that the truth. She didn’t need to relive hearing the news of his death over and over. The whole family told that lie on occasion. I have no regrets about it and I am a believer.
Posted by: dNorrisM | November 13, 2009 3:46 PM
Awaken is dilutional.
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 13, 2009 3:46 PM
awaken @164:
I call Poe. The spelling/grammar fails seem to mesh with the brainfarting just a little too well, somehow.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 13, 2009 3:48 PM
You have very bad reading comprehension. Yahweh is one sick dude, like a capricious gang leader, who punishes his own "chosen people". Absolutely not worth worshiping in any form. Then you have the Jebus myth written generations after the alleged events, with no real way to tell the truth from myth. No, there are no fine points. Which is why reading and actually comprehending the bible is a leading cause of atheism. As it was in my case.Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
November 13, 2009 3:51 PM
Hey lyin' jerk, I'm not surprised to see you don't see eye to eye with AiG. Because as we all know, there are as many christianities as there are christians.
By the way if the Nazis knocked on the door they would give you NAMES. So quit thinking a cute answer would get you off the hook.
Posted by: raven | November 13, 2009 3:52 PM
Always nice to have a good example of a lying fundie cultist.
You were never an atheist.
You were never an intellectual. You are clearly too stupid.
You have never read the bible. It is a kludgy book from another time full of genocide, slavery, weird sex, and miscellaneous violence with contradictions all through it. Actually reading the bible is a good pathway to being an ex-xian.
Posted by: Pete | November 13, 2009 3:53 PM
It's not in Genesis, but First Samuel 19:8-18 seems on point.
Posted by: catgirl | November 13, 2009 3:55 PM
In this case, the reason "I has" sounds incorrect is only because we've been taught differently, since "to have" is an irregular verb. It's not the best example to prove your point. A better example is when a kid incorrectly says "I eated the cookie" because "I ate the cookie" doesn't follow the the general pattern.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 3:55 PM
#164
"I used to be condensing smug atheist intellectual like the people here."
Okay I appeal to all atheist intellectuals here...stop 'condensing' folks...it is disturbing the jeebus clone!
"It's really easy to do if you ignore the factual evidence of the world."
Yes we know how the fundagelicals operate.
"My advice to atheist is to actually read the Bible and find out its fine points."
Thanks appreciated...but not really relevant and very 'condescending' seeing as no atheist here actually asked for your 'ahem'!...advice.
The Bible has no finer points...it is a load of script cobbled together by irrational thought and ignorant knowledge..it is a waste of paper and bullshite.
"Only then can you truely be wised and have a good arguement."
Like a theist?...like AiG?
"And if you are wondering,"
Nope!
"yes I am a Christian"
Shock horror...well at least the average IQ of the atheism increased with a corresponding diminshment of the average IQ of Christianity when you left rationalism behind.
"now and I have a degree in Math."
Well if your maths is as good as your spelling and sentence construction then the bible degree mill that issued your diploma was obviously not to expensive!...well done!
Posted by: MrFire
|
November 13, 2009 3:59 PM
johnny West:
estas un pocito loco, cabron.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 3:59 PM
-But when the endgame comes, you'll be begging that you listen to the bible.-
Awaken there is an entire world out there who don't need to pray, who don't fear Hell. Who don't need to tithe, or read the bible constantly.
There is no heaven waiting for you. You have been deceived. You are alone, with only the doubts in your head.
Posted by: stinger | November 13, 2009 4:00 PM
The people at AiG make it easy on themselves by posing a question about saving "Jews". The question should be, What if the Nazis were looking for YOUR CHILD? Your 14-year-old son, to conscript him into the army? Would you still feel compelled not only to not lie, but to actively help the Nazis?
What if your 14-year-old son were mentally retarded? When the Nazis get their hands on him, they'll send him straight to the gas chambers. Still insist that you'd tell them the truth?
Posted by: kevin gallagher | November 13, 2009 4:00 PM
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter1.asp
has anyone actually read this stuff? I can't believe it. This guy is serious?!?
Posted by: R. Schauer
|
November 13, 2009 4:01 PM
(Face-Palm)
Another moral contradiction from the babble and AIG.
Oy Vey, these guys are so far off-base it is nothing but sad.
I think that the next time some fundie calls out the moral superiority of the babble and christanity...I'll just send them the link to this page. Morally, they're bankrupt!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 13, 2009 4:02 PM
Ahhh... we forgot to discuss the conundrum in which it's ok to tell THIS lie..
Posted by: John M | November 13, 2009 4:05 PM
awaken #193
Within all your idiotic bluster, you still haven't told us if you'd dob in the Jews to the Nazis.
Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | November 13, 2009 4:12 PM
@Awaken
Why would we care about your degree in math? There is no point in debating with you because in order for anyone to gain any kind of ground in any sort of debate the evidence has to be shown to favour one or the other. Seeing as to people like you (that have no evidence to support their theories), the evidence is inconsequential, nothing can be gained from your point of view. Your here arguing with people that actually have some ground on which to base their ideas on. I'm not going to bother saying whether your right or wrong. You yourself know, that everything you say here, is bullshit, and i know that no matter what you 'believe' will happen to you after death. Right now, you must constantly be made to look very stupid, and that's how your entire life will be spent.
Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 4:12 PM
@awaken 164
"...be a condescending smug..."
"...advice to atheists is ..."
"
find outdiscover its fine points" (probably)"...you truly be wise..."
"... have
/good arguments." (probably)."...wondering: yes, I..."
It's apparent that some things have not changed, though - you're still condescending and smug, without much foundation either. It's ironic tht you use the the term "intellectual" like an insult when you are careful to mention your degree...
Damn. I have a degree in mathematics but you've spoiled it for me now. Quick check, what's the relationship between imaginary exponents and trigonometric functions?
Posted by: Jamie | November 13, 2009 4:13 PM
LIES! If you were truly a condescending smug atheist, you would not have admitted this, right? LOLPosted by: BlueIndependent | November 13, 2009 4:14 PM
Has the old saying "kids say the darndest things!" been changed to "fundagelicals say the darndest things!" yet? And would this "enlightened" piece by Mr. Hodge qualify AiG for a nice cozy blip on the SPLC's radar? For the latter, likely not, but it would be nice to see them squirm publicly for committing gross acts of stupidity and equivocation.
Posted by: dNorrisM | November 13, 2009 4:16 PM
Not to make lampshades, I hope.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 13, 2009 4:18 PM
Hi Richard Eis,
If The Nazis didnt use the word Jew and said are their any theists in this house I would say yes.
I would mangle the language beyond recognition to avoid lying but if it was a point blank - Arent you one of those people who know Jesus? I would say yes quicker than it takes a rooster to crow three times.
One of the best ways to avoid Nazis turning up at your front door is to prevent them from coming to power.
So when they say "either agree with us or remain silent" you know what to do! Right Janine?
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 13, 2009 4:19 PM
OK... I hate myself for it... but I spit-laughed all over the place upon reading #229...
Posted by: Lee | November 13, 2009 4:19 PM
Lying is so obviously the right thing to do in those circumstances. But it's interesting that they totally miss other morally acceptible answers such as using the phrase "I can't say" which is not technically a lie, or just shutting up. Sure these answers would probably lead to a beating, or maybe even death. But they are way better than saying "the jews are in the basement third house on the right".
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 4:20 PM
http://www.fstdt.com
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 4:21 PM
#136:
I thought they were proto-horses, not gazelles. I suppose it doesn't rally matter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 13, 2009 4:21 PM
You do a good job of that anyway.Now, if you would only think through your problem of proving your deity and holy book with physical evidence, and just running away if you can't do it.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 4:23 PM
-Awaken is dilutional.-
In a truly homeopathic way.
I can't help noticing that Awaken has terrible grammar for an intellectual. This is before we discuss his interesting spellings.
-Has the old saying "kids say the darndest things!" been changed to "fundagelicals say the darndest things!" yet?-
www.fstdt.com
Posted by: Yahzi | November 13, 2009 4:24 PM
Louise - that is a very touching story. Thank you.
MrFire - I agree. Awaken smells like Poe to me, too.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Lion -
What if Jesus had said, clearly, according to the bible, that it would be OK to lie to save an innocent life... would you do it then? Why or why not?
And then see if you can figure out why I ask that question...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 13, 2009 4:26 PM
Awaken is another godbot coming in here with regurgitated religious nonsense. Pointing out his having earned a math degree is yet another vain attempt top get us to buy his crap simply because he has a piece of paper from a school. The time-honored tactic of fundagelicals: believe me because I went to a post-secondary school!.
Awaken, we are not pawns for you to buy off so cheaply. You insult us by thinking we are that shallow, yet we are the smug ones? It's funny, Awaken, that you people think that's what happens at universities, that people simply go there to learn nothing and recite nonsense, get a certificate, and go get a job doing whatever. Smug is the word that defines the fool that supposedly examines all the evidence, and concludes a dusty old book full of non-verifiable malarkey must be the truth. The Bible is not a manual for life, it is a manual for DIY self-slavery.
Posted by: Dan Brown | November 13, 2009 4:27 PM
For a supposedly Bible based organization I'm surprised they messed this one up so badly. There's actually a good example of this very conundrum IN THE BIBLE! When the Jews sent spies into Jericho they were hidden by a prostitute named Rahab. When the authorities came to her looking for the spies, the hid them and then lied to the authorities about their whereabouts. The spies escaped safely out her window and then the Jews demolished the city of Jericho (Joshua 2,6).
Rahab, is listed as one of the many hero's of faith in Heb. 11 and is a direct ancestor of Jesus Christ (Matt. 1). She was lauded for lying to protect the Jewish spies. Again, it's all in the Bible. Epic fail on the part of AiG.
Posted by: Akiko | November 13, 2009 4:27 PM
What a gret idea. Piece together a book, embellish it a bit, to get people to believe that their soul is more important than anyones life, even their own. So that way they will turn on each other, turn each other in, even their own families, to please the church and their god. Did the Nazis write this thing?
Posted by: D | November 13, 2009 4:30 PM
This deontological hand-washing bullshit vexes me to no end. Trusting in a magical sky-daddy to make it all work out isn't the path to righteousness, it's not the way to keep people safe, and it's not the way to do good in the world. Trusting in a magical sky-daddy to do anything for you is fucking retarded.
This is the same twisted authoritarian dick-waving that Pope Palpatine displayed when he said godlessness is responsible for environmental issues. We're not trusting in the magical sky-daddy enough, so it's not going our way. If only we'd trust the magical sky-daddy, then things wouldn't be bad, because then the magical sky-daddy would keep us safe.
Fuck that noise.
Posted by: Kristin | November 13, 2009 4:32 PM
Awaken
What you need are the Culottes of Condensation*
*should be worn with the Diaper of Deposition for best results.
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Not the Nazis, but another group trying to control the masses.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Actually, the Christian thing to do should be to lie, risking one's own life to save the hidden Jews as Jesus commanded in John 15:13 (is that a fine enough point for you 'awaken', or are you the sort that glosses over the stuff Jesus said for the homophobia and misogyny of the Old Testament?)
Of course, the real question is what Bodie would do to save his own life. Given the cowardice implicit in his answer which involves selling out others in order to save himself from retribution by both God and--conveniently--the Nazis, I imagine there'd be no shortage of lying, as well as some revealing honesty--hey, I wonder if he looks like Bill Paxton?
Posted by: kermit | November 13, 2009 4:33 PM
Laurie@48 "It does seem to render morality meaningless when harmless, uninentional errors are equated with major sin."
But this is necessary for the whole "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" dynamic.
If sins were simply being evil to other people, well, there are plenty of people, even Christians, to whom this would not apply. No, the very act of breathing must count, so that all are covered under the loving rubric of "worthless sinners". Hence, even just thinking that your neighbor's wife/husband/mom is cute is a sin.
"Grandpa, I don't *think I've done anything wrong..."
"That's arrogance, and *that's a sin! Get down on your knees, boy, and ask Jeeyasus for forgiveness!"
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Yes, you ask YOUR god why he allowed the Nazis into power. Him being all knowing and all i'm sure he has a good answer.
I would rather lie and face eternal damnation than tell the truth and be left worshipping a creature that deserves only to be scraped off my shoe.
Goodnight!
Posted by: SteveM | November 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Re 228:
Has the old saying "kids say the darndest things!" been changed to "fundagelicals say the darndest things!" yet?
Why yes, and ther is a whole website devoted to "Fundies Say the Darndest Things"
Posted by: Leon | November 13, 2009 4:39 PM
And here I'd been thinking all along that God wanted us to be good rather than evil! Showed me, didn't it?
Posted by: Strakh | November 13, 2009 4:39 PM
Actually, there appears to be actual physical proof that 'god' works just the way this nimrod states.
Reference the story of "Brother Andrew, God's Smuggler," (Zondervon Press, natch), which describes how Brother Andrew would tell the Communist border guards to their face that he was smuggling bibles into their country. (Russian translation of the KJV, of course)
I can't remember the exact wording, but Brother Andrew told of how 'god' expected him to tell the truth and always protected him when he did. Brother Andrew felt that since it was a sin to lie, he would be demonstrating a lack of faith in 'god's' protection if he didn't just come right out and say what he was truly doing.
This is, of course, like all religious testimony, completely undocumented by any verification, but hey, we can believe it because Brother Andrew is a man of 'god', right?
(Oh, and by the way, we were always asked to give a little money for Brother Andrew's works, I guess because while 'god' would protect him, 'god' just couldn't manage to fund him.)
Funny how that works....
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 13, 2009 4:44 PM
But did you go to the same high school as J*hn K*wk?
Posted by: AC Skeptic
|
November 13, 2009 4:45 PM
This is batshit insane. Even when I was a fundie, I always knew I would straight out lie.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 13, 2009 4:50 PM
After reading the whole essay, I think I understand the argument a little better. He's saying that Christians are Genre Savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenreSavvy).
If you happen to know that you're a character in a movie, and you know that you're one of the Good Guys, and if you've looked outside the screen and seen the blurb, "A heart-warming tale, suitable for all ages" written on the movie poster, then you don't need to worry if the Nazis show up at your door. You already know in advance: Either they'll ask the wrong question and you'll be able to send them on a wild-goose chase without lying, or else they'll ask the right question, you'll refuse to answer, they'll get suspicious, search your house, and find the hidden Jews, after which somebody will come up with a brilliant plan that will save all of those Jews plus some extra ones.
If you believe that the Universe is running according to some Divine Plan, then this logic makes perfect sense. The only flaw is that (as far as I can tell from the poster) this isn't a heartwarming Universe suitable for all ages. Parts of it are firmly in NC-17 territory.
That said, the question is a bit of an red herring. There are only five or six moral questions that modern conservative Christians are interested in, and that's not one of them.
So the question, "Can I permit a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil? For example, can I tell a lie to prevent a calatastrophe?" is an allegory. Of course the real question is, "Can I allow a woman to have an abortion if she's got a compelling reason for needing one?"
As AIG points out, the answer is "No."
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 4:51 PM
Quick check, what's the relationship between imaginary exponents and trigonometric functions?
e^πi = sin(0)
yeah, I lose.
Posted by: Gus Snarp | November 13, 2009 4:52 PM
OK, sorry if someone has already said this, but I can't bring myself to read 252 comments on this.
Seems to me they should at least advocate the clearly morally superior position of martyring yourself. Tell the Nazis you know where the Jews are hiding, but will never tell them, then let them torture you to death while you hold your tongue. If that wouldn't assure you of a place in heaven, I don't know what would. It is clearly morally superior to the option from the Answers in Genesis folk, and so clearly so that it seems like not thinking of it is akin to saying, hey, sorry about that holocaust thing, but ratting people out to the Nazis was the German people's sacred duty as Christians.
Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 4:55 PM
points for trying, not a gator.
Posted by: BdN | November 13, 2009 5:04 PM
It's kinda strange that they claim that you shouldn't hide anything but at the same time they cry that GAP encourages the war on Christmas because their tag line is "Go Christmas, Go Hanukkah, Go Kwanzaa, Go Solstice.”
http://www.newser.com/story/73995/christian-group-boycotts-gap-over-holiday-ads.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 5:06 PM
@Daniel Ed Blowmybrainsout
Some crazy religious fucks who were really pissed at the US decided to settle their score by killing lots of people, because religious people are self-righteous and think they can do whatever they want. So they flew some planes into some buildings, the buildings caught on fire, the fire suppression/retardation (the engineering, in other words) failed, the steel lost tensile strength (went wobbly) as it got super hot and the whole building collapsed. Oh, also fire escape plan failed because thousands were still in the damn buildings when they fell. EPIC FAIL. *ahem*
Then the Bush administration used the event as an excuse to ram through an authoritarian agenda including the Patriot Act, a totally botched invasion of Afghanistan (of course, the Bush family had too close ties to Bin Laden family to actually detain/question Bin Ladens and even given the Special Forces the opportunity to catch the bastard) and culminating in the bone-headed invasion of Iraq, both wars having cost 10's of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani lives and the lives of more US soldiers than civilians were killed in the WTC, but who's counting? The end.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 13, 2009 5:07 PM
Agreed - theocratic right-wing Christians shouldn't ever be allowed to have the sort of power the Christian Nazis had over the Christian population of Germany.
Another good reason to be an atheist - it makes you far more immune to religious propaganda.
Posted by: Taz | November 13, 2009 5:08 PM
Back when I was a Christian, I would have answered: Of course you lie. You do so knowing full well it's a sin. You confess your sin to god, ask for forgiveness, and take whatever punishment he deems necessary.
How is that so hard?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 13, 2009 5:10 PM
Gee, with that attitude, just kill yourself now and go to your beloved deity!
Posted by: Uncle Glenny
|
November 13, 2009 5:10 PM
Take pity on Daniel Edd Blowmybrainsout. He admitted to having been raised according to Dobson, which means he was physically and emotionally abused, and quite possibly has suffered multiple head injuries.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 5:15 PM
Um....e^iπ = sin(-π/2), surely?
I wonder if mathematics is the only realm of knowledge where conceiving of imaginary entities is useful in the real world....
Posted by: F
|
November 13, 2009 5:20 PM
Pfft. These idiots lie all the time. I'd seriously like to see this swath of Americana and their leaders who tell no lies at all.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 13, 2009 5:22 PM
I used to be condensing smug atheist intellectual like the people here. - awaken
Before that, he was a gaseous smug atheist intellectual.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Ughh. 9/11 bollocks. A good friend of mine made me sit through an utterly bullshit "agit-prop" conspiracy film "Zeitgeist". It started out by attacking Christianity in the most ridiculous manner (yes, this really is possible) went on to show the 9/11 myth as truth, then put it all down to the New World Order. He believed it, he really did. Poor sucker, he got an internet mind virus.
Anyone else seen this contemtible, lying - but evidently effective - piece of shit?
Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 5:25 PM
No, for those still interested, e^iπ = cos(π) so e^iπ = -1 - but that's just an equation, not a relationship.
Posted by: Harry | November 13, 2009 5:27 PM
I thought that it was OK for Christians to tell lies because Jesus died to exonerate them from their sins. Even though I haven't the faintist idea of what they are talking about.
Oh it was supposed to be condescending. That is better than getting denser and losing one's intellectual ability.
Posted by: greg | November 13, 2009 5:27 PM
#229
I hate myself but that's bloody hilarious, you're not Senator David Norris by any chance?
Posted by: Patrick | November 13, 2009 5:27 PM
How much more fail can you produce? Even for the likes of AiG, this should be embarrassing. Last time, I checked, the commandment read: "Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. ". You can lie about the jew in your cellar all day long. Just don't swear an false oath in court in order to harm somebody.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 5:29 PM
Technical heads are so unromantic.Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 5:34 PM
@ Anthony K - tell me about it :-)
Posted by: Ms. Crazy Pants | November 13, 2009 5:35 PM
I thought the Christian thing to do would be to tell the truth, and then kill the Nazis for not promoting Capitalism,right? All good Christians have lots and lots....and lots... of guns and are pro-capitalism, right?
Posted by: greg | November 13, 2009 5:36 PM
@#266
I am amazed at the volume of people that are taken in by that Zeitgeist shite, I was given a copy by my sister in laws boyfriend along with something called "what the BLEEP do we know" (or something like that) I believe both invoke the "quantum" at some stage, I couldn't watch past the five minute mark or I may well have tried to decapitate myself with piano wire.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 5:42 PM
Yes, the Christians (and others) tore apart the first religiousy (astro-theology anyone? No?) bit, but failed to make the connection that if a source lies to you - even once - it is not to be trusted, especially not on the big things.
My friend couldn't understand that.
"Yes but..."
One thing about athiests generally, we don't have to lie.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 5:44 PM
Wowbagger wrote at 259:
"Theocratic right-wing Christians shouldn't ever be allowed to have the sort of power the Christian Nazis had over the Christian population of Germany."
Nazism: right wing certainly; not a theocratic movement, Christian or otherwise. Please see the extended discussion on Myers's "I Wish I Could Have Seen That" posting.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 13, 2009 5:47 PM
Methinks that when push comes to shove...chips being down as opposed to up...when the wind is in the East...and the moon is gibbous..and all things being equally considered.
I hope, to a theists conception of a god, that my fate would not rest in the drool of a fundagelical xian.
On whether he/she/it would make a moral decision based on logic...humanity...compassion or in relation to a delusional fucking hysterical and genocidal git of a stunted figment of a diseased imagination.
Methinks...on balance...I would be screwed.
They seem to have a tenuous grasp of reality at the best of times...it is not encouraging!
Posted by: Randomfactor | November 13, 2009 5:59 PM
I used to be condensing smug atheist
Me too. But then I became a much more efficient high-pressure smug atheist.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 13, 2009 6:04 PM
...and soon he should have an accretion disk of spittle and drool forming.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
November 13, 2009 6:11 PM
Strange. I thought that the sins of Christians were forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ?
So the correct response would be to lie lie lie even at the risk of losing your life, since you're guaranteed a place heaven, since you're already saved.
The Jews though will go to Hell if they die now, but through saving them you give them a chance to accept Christ into their lives. They might even be more inclined to do so through watching your selfless sacrifice.
Man. Theology is easy.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | November 13, 2009 6:13 PM
True, but that wasn't what I implied; I meant the AIG folks, who appear to pretty strongly theocratic - and they're certainly Christians, as were most of the Nazis and the vast majority of Germans at the time.
I suppose I was trying to say that right-wing theocratic Christians, if in power, would be much like the Nazis - not that the Nazis themselves were theocratic.
Posted by: littlejohn | November 13, 2009 6:20 PM
I think it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine s society like ours in every respect except that no one lies about anything.
Everything would simply fall apart.
All our bosses would fire us after we told them what idiots they are. No one would be elected to office. Our spouses would leave us for a variety of reasons too numerous to mention. Our former friends would all feel obliged to punch us in the nose, etc.
The mind reels.
Posted by: F
|
November 13, 2009 6:21 PM
Thanks to daveau @ 77 bringing up this bit again
But we could make a reasonable inference. Hiding your head in the sand does not absolve you of responsibility. I guess if God didn't want those jews killed, he wouldn't have sent the nazis to your door. Or created nazis in the first place.
I had a bit of a re-think: If you wouldn't lie to the Nazis, and also if you can't know if lying wouldn't keep the Nazis from killing the Jews, why the hell were you hiding the Jews from the Nazis in the first place?
This makes no sense at all.
Posted by: Holytape | November 13, 2009 6:31 PM
This was a soft ball question. How the hell could Bodie Hodge mess it up. Whenever someone asked you, "Do you lie to a Nazi?" The answer should be yes, no matter what. Examples:
Nazi - Do you know where the Jews are?
Me - No.
Nazi - Is it raining outside.
Me - (if it is) No. You can leave your umbrella behind. (If it isn't) Yes. You should wear a bright yellow raincoat.
Nazi - Did you wash your hands before touching my food?
Me - Yes, and I most certainly did not piss in your coffee.
It is very simple.
Posted by: sioux laris | November 13, 2009 6:32 PM
I'm sorry, but no matter if it's a direct link to the hideous AiG site I simply can't take seriously such a ridiculous - even by Xian "standards" - "moral lesson" allegedly by someone with the Dickensian, even Pynchonion, name of "Bodie Hodge".
AiG is NOT Nixon's crew at CREEP.
It cannot be.
Posted by: Paul | November 13, 2009 6:33 PM
Being honest is different than being an asshole. You can be honest to your boss without telling him he's an idiot, you can be honest to your spouse without telling them they look old and/or fat, and the main reason politicians lie is because our 2 party system is structured in such a way that they need to convince 50% of the population to vote for them, where it's impossible to get that many people to agree on all the issues that matter most to them.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 13, 2009 6:35 PM
Well, if the soldiers at the door were Wehrmacht they'd hardly ask such a question: the "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles would render it meaningless.
(I apologise in advance for advancing the not-quite-a-Godwin Hitler-was-an-atheist/No-Hitler-was-a-Catholic trope, and I thank Aaron Baker for pointing me to the good discussion on the subject right here on Pharyngula.)
Chaos Engineer asks the right question:
But he gets the answer wrong. The answer is "Yes, if the pregnancy inconveniences me."
@AnthonyK and greg (Are you me, AnthonyK? 'Cause that's my name too.) mentioned Zeitgeist and What the Bleep Do We Know?
I took my on-his-way-to-atheism nephew to see What the Bleep Do We Know? as an example of why even vague spiritual-but-not-religious thinking turns brains to mush. Plus, there was a personal tie-in: my batshit-insane-but-sane-enough-to-marry-rich-multiple-times-aunt got fleeced obscene amounts of her (previous husband's) money by JZ "I Channel 'Ramtha' for Buck$" Knight. She's into the Brazilian faith healer John of God (João Teixeira de Faria) now--or was, last I checked my watch.
My dear friend (and wingnut conspiracy theorist) loved the film Zeitgeist. I attribute this failing to the many long hours we spent discussing such things while smoking copious amounts of pot. Unfortunately, I was the only one who realised we were high.
I'd add my unsolicited two cents (0.019 USD) to more selected comments, but I think I've used up my allotment of hyphens.
Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 6:40 PM
The "whole-truth" society of LittleJohn's imagining would rapidly find a new equilibrium. People would get used to all this undiluted truth (or assholery in Paul's view) and adjust to it. Only the transition would be calamitous - jobs still need doing and we'd all have to grow thicker skins. Which we probably need anyway, although not perhaps to that degree :-D.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 13, 2009 6:47 PM
Oh, no, e^iπ = -1 is never just an equation.
It is so elegant, the way it describes the *relationships* between such fundamental concepts.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 13, 2009 6:49 PM
Now I wonder how Mr (?) Hodge would perform on Ye Olde Abraham Test. When given the choice between being a tepid believer and a baby murderer, where would he go?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 13, 2009 7:05 PM
With apologies in advance to Orac -
The stupid! It transports to the East!
Posted by: windy | November 13, 2009 7:09 PM
You could try to buy time by confusing them with logic puzzles. You, as a Christian, have to always tell the truth, but you invite over an atheist neighbor who always lies. The Nazi has to find out which door the Jews are hiding behind by questioning you and your neighbor. But you have hidden goats behind all the other doors, and once the Nazi picks a door, you reveal one of the goats and ask if he wants to make a switch!
Posted by: tsg | November 13, 2009 7:12 PM
@windy #292
... but it will be an unexpected Nazi.
Posted by: fester60613 | November 13, 2009 7:13 PM
I've always thought it sufficiently evil that Xians express hatred and bigotry and stupidity by hiding behind their faith. I do not know if it's worse that they also abnegate any personal responsibility with the screwed up logic expressed in the posting.
Posted by: Joffan | November 13, 2009 7:17 PM
echidna: elegant, yes, even beautiful. A poster child of an equation.
But I wasn't after the poster - I wanted the movie, and since I doubt "awaken" is returning, here it is:
e^ix = cos(x) + i.sin(x)
Good ol' Euler.
Posted by: windy | November 13, 2009 7:23 PM
... but it will be an unexpected Nazi.
Hm, I assume it won't be completely unexpected, since you are hiding Jews? But, obviously, you would need to prepare the goats in advance.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 13, 2009 7:23 PM
But the Nazi, being well educated and knowing his statistics looks at you and says "you always switch you ignorant xtian!".
Posted by: SteveM | November 13, 2009 7:26 PM
the "imaginary" in "imaginary number" is a label, not a value judgement. That is, they are no more imaginary than the "real" numbers. that is, the "imaginary" numbers are just as real as the "real" numbers.
And the relationship of imaginary exponents to trig functions is: e^ix = cos(x) + i*sin(x)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 13, 2009 7:29 PM
So the Nazi comes and bangs on the door, yelling "are you hiding za Jewc?". Simply answer "No - not at all. We have plenty. Would you like orange juice or grape juice?"
Posted by: David Utidjian | November 13, 2009 7:31 PM
AnthonyK @263
I concur.
Well the mathematics of imaginary numbers is extremely useful in applied electronics and quantum mechanics. It may be useful in other fields but those are the two that came to mind. They are also both "real world" applications.
-DU-
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 13, 2009 7:37 PM
somewhat off topic--
Remember, imaginary numbers are simply a proper subset of the complex numbers, which are just ordered pairs of reals with addition, multiplication, and scalar multiplication defined in such a way as to give "interesting" results. It's the way multiplication is defined, which looks an awful lot like the sin angle addition formula, that brings about the Euler formula.
Posted by: Monado | November 13, 2009 7:59 PM
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In Jewish theology, a person who starves because no kosher food is around is prideful and committing a greater sin than the person who eats non-kosher food and lives.
I'm sure that lying to save lives is the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: cag
|
November 13, 2009 8:02 PM
So does this mean that we can kill all the Xtians who tell their children about Santa (and jebues)?
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | November 13, 2009 8:07 PM
Is there some sort of dyslexia that happens when someone becomes a believer? Or the sudden inability to use a spellchecker? Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they're not stupid.Posted by: jimmiraybob | November 13, 2009 8:23 PM
@awaken #193 - But when the endgame comes, you'll be begging that you listen to the bible.
Wow, how did you know I have a talking Bible*? Do you have one too? This is just sooooo way cool. Maybe we could be Face Book BFFs. We could stay up late making smores and texting endgame** scenarios (or wcudstuplte mkgsmrs n tlk egses, as the kids say). It would be so groovy. Would me being a bourbon swilling heathen be a distraction?
xxxooo in FSM
* note to aspiring Christians: capitalize Bible or some brethren could mistake you for a Heretic....or, - shudder - pagan/heathen/Catholic and/or Protestant (depending on starting position)
** by "endgame" are we referring to Superbowl? World Series? Other?
Posted by: Carlie | November 13, 2009 8:31 PM
Why would a Nazi banging on the door looking for hidden Jews even ask in the first place? Wouldn't they just, you know, burst in and look around for themselves? "Oh, excuse me, Ma'am, just looking for any hidden Jews. You wouldn't happen to have any, would you?"
Posted by: Annie M | November 13, 2009 8:34 PM
To Lose The Woo @299
Boom Tish.
I seriously wanted to cry when I read PZ's post. I am immediately glad to not identify myself as a Christian anymore. I am so bloody relieved that we are raising our children to lead a good life by not adhering to any faith.
I have a very good ability (tripled when I had kids) to imagine myself in these situations. (I had to get my husband to stop the DVD of Schindler's List so I could literally throw up. Twice.)
This is absolute fucking insanity. This question breathed out loud, let alone written in teh internets for the whole WWW to see shows what a batshit crazy dribbler this 'man' is.
Bodie, you would LIE you miserable shitstain.
You would lie through your fucking miserable teeth. How dare you trivialise such a thing as the Holocaust for your dumb-arsed little morality poser.
Vile little dickless man. Even when I was a card carrying Christian, even when I was undertaking my first year of a BA in Theology, I would have called him out in the worst way for this.
Sorry. Can't vent this one anywhere on the Arseholes in Genesis site...
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 13, 2009 8:37 PM
Damn. Step away from the computer for eight grueling hours and look what happens. I didn't get to read much of this thread, but there was some scriptural type stuff. Interesting fact the word "piss" appears eight times in the KJV (I count "pisseth" among these).
The more you know...
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 13, 2009 8:38 PM
Isn't that all numbers? Of which "imaginary" numbers are merely a subset? Re: goats, doors and Nazis...I think we can confidently predict that our Nazi, being hampered by a hideous mindset, will be unaware of the Monty Hall paradox. Thus, being shown a goat behind another door, will be unlikely to switch doors - as logic and statistics suggest, and thus miss out on the hiding Jews more often. A more balanced and subtle intellect would switch doors and free the prisoners more often on average. Hence, gradually, the Nazis and their mindset would die out through lack of success at this important task. Comforting, no?Posted by: DrBrydon | November 13, 2009 8:43 PM
I have to agree with Paul Burnett. While it might not be pure antisemitism, I think there is a point to asking whether the certainty here exists because the victim isn't a Christian.
What if the victim was a Christian being chased by Romans under Nero (who didn't know the subject was also a Christian)?
Or, ignoring groups labels, what if the person being chased was a child, and the person chasing them clearly meant to do them injury?
I expect some Christians would find it easier not to lie to help a Jew, than they would not to lie about trivial matters.
Posted by: echidna
|
November 13, 2009 8:53 PM
Joffan,
You are right, the formulation you gave was indeed what you asked for, and not the one I was praising to the skies.
Praise Euler (and de Moivre).
I'm just a sucker for the beauty of that equation.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | November 13, 2009 8:59 PM
Now tell me, are condensed smugged atheists good on shaved iced? I've been meaning to replace the condensed milk that I've been using.
lol
You're still smug! As smug as a bug under the rug with an ugly mug!
Posted by: samuel black | November 13, 2009 9:01 PM
An apt illustration of Steven Weinberg's famous words: ...for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 13, 2009 9:03 PM
awaken @ # 164: ... I am a Christian now and I have a degree in Math.
Which answers at last a burning question for all those who've lain insomniac wondering what W*ll**m * D*mbsk*'s middle initial stands for.
Or maybe one of W*D's students is hustling for a little credit.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 13, 2009 9:05 PM
I see that my iron maiden of imbecility has involfed my name again. Go ahead, fuckface, keep doing it. The only reason why I know of this is because someone quoted you. Your missives are blocked on my screen, your responses are blocked.
But just so you know, it is not because you are religious. It is because you are a delusional bad man. You make a front of being civil but you are oh so quick and willing to slime people. I could laugh when it was just me, having a buffoon calling me a Nazi made me laugh. I also know that many people can read that for what it is, and idiot throwing shit at the wall. But what you sad to Patricia was unforgivable.
I know Sastra thinks that what you said is not as insulting as it sounds, that you took Patricia's joke seriously. She is right about that but I lack her patience. I do not take such blatant stupidity well. But keep this in mind, while Sastra will not insult you like I do, you are still just a chew toy for her. I look forward to reading her responses to your gibberish.
As for you getting banned, it is not a question of if. It is when. I have seen other similar blathering fools wear out there welcome. From your demanding that PZ Myers changes how he runs his blog; your inability to give direct answers to direct questions; your smugness; your glad handling of people, especially those who have shown no support for your position; your anti-funny humor; your saccharin good cheer. I have seen this over and over again. Those people either get tired of being laughed at and leave or they just got under PZ's skin after he gave them warning to back off. You will get plonked and there will be much celebrating.
So, please, keep invoking my name. I will not be reading. But it will serve as just an other reminder that you are not a decent person. You are just an other petty and stupid asshole.
Go forth and enjoy life. Nobody else can find enjoyment in it.
Posted by: Joreth | November 13, 2009 9:07 PM
And this is why I'm proud to say my ethics do not come from the Bible.
When it comes to the question of "when is a lie appropriate?", I try to take the path of greatest courage:
http://tacit.livejournal.com/90763.html.
...I came here to talk about courage.
I've generally held a zero-tolerance policy toward people who aren't honest with me or with those around me. I've walked away from a few friendships because the friend in question is dishonest, or shows a pattern of dishonest or untrustworthy behavior.
Yet, at the same time, I don't always believe that honesty of and by itself is a moral virtue. I believe there are times when it is acceptable to lie, and even times when it is unethical not to lie. (Trivial example: It's 1930, Berlin, you're hiding a family of Jewish refugees in your basement, the Gestapo knocks on the door and asks if you know the whereabouts of any Jews.)
So it's not the lie itself that has the moral value; it's the context. Given that, then when, exactly, is it acceptable to lie? What ruler can you use to measure the ethical value of a lie?
I've been spending a great deal of time thinking about that, and I've had something of an epiphany.
It's not actually a lie, per se, that ticks me off. It's what the lie represents. And specifically, it's what the lie reveals about the liar's courage.
Courage is a virtue. In the hypothetical case of a person hiding a family of Jews from the Gestapo, it requires greater courage to lie than it does to tell the truth. The lie is an act by which the person hiding those refugees stands by his principles--that wholesale genocide is wrong. ...
Courage is rare precisely because it is difficult. When it comes right down to it, it's altogether easy to act without courage; and whichever way one chooses--courage or cowardice--tends, over time, to become a habit.
Posted by: kamaka | November 13, 2009 9:08 PM
I had to get my husband to stop the DVD of Schindler's List so I could literally throw up. Twice.
You're tougher than me. No way I would watch that movie. The mini-series "The Holocaust" on TV was my puker, it really messed with my head.
Booger revisits the evil with his "don't lie" nonsense.
Imagine that? A full blown liar giving advice on the immoraliy of lying.
Posted by: samuel black | November 13, 2009 9:13 PM
Did this guy not see the Sound of Music?? Surely those clever nuns were forgiven their transgression, under the circumstances.
Posted by: Joreth | November 13, 2009 9:18 PM
Sorry, everything after the link should have been in italics, since it's a quote from the article I linked to and not my words.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 9:23 PM
Re: #307, #317
My film-buff father showed me a 16mm print of Alain Renais's NIGHT AND FOG when I was about 10 years old. I think I'd made the mistake of describing German soldiers as "cool" in his hearing.
After that traumatic event, I can watch just about anything without flinching; but SCHINDLER'S LIST did have its moments.
Posted by: Felix | November 13, 2009 9:27 PM
Submission to absolutes begets atrocity.
Thanks for the demonstration Bodie. Proving why dogma is wrong in one neat, breathtakingly compelling stroke. Most atheists could not do better.
Posted by: flashbazzbo | November 13, 2009 9:35 PM
I would simply lie like a sumnabitch,then ask JesusChristMyLordAndSaviorForeverAndEverAmen for forgiveness.Fixed.
Posted by: Susan | November 13, 2009 9:37 PM
They are Monsters, Wankers of the Day and The Worst People in the World, all wrapped up in one big hypocritical bundle of sanctimonious self-righteousness, aren't they? It's so very special.
Posted by: not a gator | November 13, 2009 9:39 PM
@257 BdN
That's sort of ironic, seeing as the American consumer has been boycotting GAP nonstop for the last 5 years, for sucking.
Posted by: Tom M | November 13, 2009 9:40 PM
Well, in Bodie Hodge's defense (well, not really, there is no defense), he knows the type of neighbors he has. If he lies to save Jews hidden nearby, he's positive his next door neighbor will rat them out and then the Nazis will get them and him, too.
OTOH, what are the chances that anyone hiding Jews anywhere near this guy would be so dumb as to tell him. It's not just this situation that exposes him as a massive tool.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 13, 2009 9:44 PM
Agree with kamaka, that's one movie I won't be watching until I really feel the need to jump in front of a train.
It's actually much more interesting to see that this fucker like so many of his ilk, doesn't know his own holy book, as pointed out @ 240.
Posted by: Tim | November 13, 2009 9:52 PM
Less Kant, and more Confucius.
ANALECTS 13.18:
The Duke of She informed Confucius, saying, "Among us here there are those who may be styled upright in their conduct. If their father have stolen a sheep, they will bear witness to the fact." Confucius said, "Among us, in our part of the country, those who are upright are different from this. The father conceals the misconduct of the son, and the son conceals the misconduct of the father. Uprightness is to be found in this."
Elsewhere (ANALECTS 18.8) Confucius says that he has no "thou shalt" or "thou shalt not," meaning that he is against any morally absolute commandments, but instead in favor of adjusting oneself to whatever the particular situation requires. Uprightness is not clinging rigidly to predetermined laws, a la Kant, but rather being able to see what is at stake in the particular case. It's a shame that lots of people in this thread have read Kant but none seem to know about Confucius.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 13, 2009 9:53 PM
Joreth/tacit @ # 316: It's 1930, Berlin, you're hiding a family of Jewish refugees in your basement, the Gestapo knocks on the door ...
In which case you're in even deeper scheiss than you imagined, since Hermann Goering won't launch the Gestapo for another three years, and time-traveling Nazis are the hardest kind to get rid of.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 9:53 PM
#287
You're welcome, Brownian.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | November 13, 2009 10:00 PM
“Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.” (ANALECTS XII.2)
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 13, 2009 10:27 PM
Hi Janine,
You are doing a great job ignoring my posts.
Keep it up.
I dont think PZ Myers regards anything I say as a "demand" upon him.
The exchange between me and Patricia is on the record.
I offered her my genuine condolences and admiration. In return she demonstrated hostility to me and the intent to cause personal harm. I acknowledged this by saying that unlike her I have no hatred towards anyone.
I think you have wished some harm come upon me also.
Stop drinking poison and hoping the other person will die from it.
Lion (IRC)
http://www.rainbowbody.net/Ongwhehonwhe/cherokee.htm
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | November 13, 2009 10:31 PM
There's a scene very similar to this in Schindler's List at about 1 hour and 30 minutes into the movie:
The Nazis have several Jewish men and a young boy lined up and are questioning them about a stolen chicken. The officer in charge of the camp, Amon Goeth, takes a soldier's rifle and shoots one of the men at random, then another soldier shoots the man again through the head. As the man lies dead on the ground, Goeth says "Still, nobody knows" and takes aim at another man. The young boy then starts crying and steps forward.
Goeth: "It was you. You committed this crime."
Boy: "No sir."
Goeth: "But you know who though."
Boy: "Yes."
Goeth: "Who?"
The boy, still sobbing, then points to the dead man laying on the ground and says, "Him!"
Wouldn't you just love to show that scene to this Bodie Hodge character in front of a live audience and then ask him if what the boy did was wrong?
Posted by: sozo
|
November 13, 2009 10:34 PM
Isn't there a THIRD OPTION consistent with Christian morals of NOT LYING?
You AGREE you know the whereabouts of the Jewish family(i.e. you DON'T lie) but would not tell the Nazis where they are hiding. (If the family is hiding in your own home, bad luck the Nazis will search, but if they are hiding elsewhere they might be saved.)
But this assumes you abide by other "christian values" like you know "self sacrifice", which would mean you could be executed by the Nazis for your dissent and protection of Jews.
I am surprised Bodie Hodge of AiG didn't have this thought.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 13, 2009 10:36 PM
You need to stop drinking the poison of religion. It has already fucked up your mind and thinking. You need to see the clarity of a non-existent deity and fictional babble. But then, that requires an intelligence and self-honesty you don't have.Posted by: sozo
|
November 13, 2009 10:44 PM
....You refuse to tell the whereabouts after agreeing that you do have the info, or there is another option: Non co-operation (the Mahatma Gandhi way)--you refuse to answer the Nazi police question. The question of lying/not lying doesn't arise. (of course this too involves self sacrifice on you part.)
Posted by: Tom Rhoads | November 13, 2009 10:45 PM
Unbelievable. That pretty well shoots down any argument that you can get morality from the bible.
Posted by: sozo
|
November 13, 2009 10:49 PM
Oops that is Hindu philosophy... wonder if it is consistent with Christian morals? If it is, how did Bodie Hodge miss these other two options? If not, what's wrong with your religion?!
Posted by: Ganf17 | November 13, 2009 10:54 PM
Far more interesting to me, is Bodie's final paragraphs regarding birthing:
"Naturally, their fear of God led them to refuse the order to murder. It makes more sense to me that they could have informed the Hebrew wives what the Pharaoh had commanded, and, thus, many of the Israelite women were giving birth before the midwives would arrive so they would not be in a position of killing the child. Perhaps the midwives took their time to arrive as well. That would allow the children to survive and the midwives to speak the truth to Pharaoh.
What would make pregnant mothers more vigorous or lively to have the child born? Make them aware that if they do not give birth quickly their child’s life may be in danger. There are any number of ways the mothers and midwives could have avoided it."
Okay, so women can just pop out a baby whenever they will it so? Can't wait to see that in the Lancet.
Posted by: Davey | November 13, 2009 10:59 PM
"So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life--keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically."
They're gonna die anyway, so what's the difference if they lead a long, happy, productive life, or are slowly tortured to death by the Nazis? After all, Nazis are people, too.
We're supposed to reject moral relativism in favor of THIS attitude? Shit, count me out.
Posted by: JHS
|
November 13, 2009 11:03 PM
Disregarding the appalling (il)logic with which this person glibly sentences innocent people to death hypothetically...is it any surprise? It's very similar to the mentality of a suicide bomber. So long as you believe that god/allah/whatever is up there pulling the strings, or dictating what is right or who is a "true" xtian/muslim/believer/etc, it's all good. So long as you commit X horrendous act because god said to, or you gleaned from whatever holy book or preacher or whatever that it's what god would *really* want, anything is possible and "morally" justifiable.
(Isn't it amazing how people can, on the one hand, commit such horrible acts -- or at least approve of them -- because it's what their god ordains and turn around and think they know what their almighty god is *really* thinking or *really* wants? How the fuck does that work? Oh right, it doesn't.)
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 13, 2009 11:05 PM
Lion IRC @331 belched flatulently:
You are doing a great job ignoring my posts.
I'm doing everything I can to resist the urge to find out where the little shit lives and explosively puke down its obnoxious, useless throat.
Yeah, I know. It just spooged with its miniature penis for having endured verbal abuse, persecuted because it's a Christain. That's not why it deserves a punch in the face. It's because Lion IRC wanks to the object of its infantile death cult, and would happily help any random human being die if it thought the monster it worships expected it to, justifying its traitorous behavior with bronze-age bullshit. Lion IRC is not on the side of the human race. Where's the nearest airlock when you need one?
Posted by: John Vreeland | November 13, 2009 11:21 PM
"What wrong can there be in telling a downright good lie for a good cause and for the advancement of the Christian Church?"---Martin Luther, to the councillor sof the Landgrave of Hesse.
"Seest thou not how not only God but man too accepts the principle that regard should be had not to the nature of an action but its purpose?"---Chrysostom
"Everywhere the aim of the actor is taken into consideration, and this aim either aquits him of guilt or condemns him."---the patriarch Germanus
"The intention justifies the deed, but faith prompts the intention. Pay no heed to what a man does, but to what he has in mind in doing.... One and the same matter, measured by the varying purpose behind it, becomes a subject for approbation or abhorence, merit or condemnation"---St. Augustine
"The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics"---L. Ron Hubbard
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2009 11:22 PM
Re: Lion's curious obsession with Janine:
It's always the women they pick on, isn't it? The ones that don't fit into their little pigeonholes?
Posted by: Tulse | November 13, 2009 11:22 PM
Don't be silly -- they were Catholic and so according to Hodge were already condemned to hell.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | November 13, 2009 11:28 PM
AoG's folk need to check their commandments again. "Thou shalt not lie" is not one of them.
Posted by: Ben in Texas | November 13, 2009 11:28 PM
@343
Instead of "pick on," maybe that should say "attempt to pick on."
Posted by: Yubal
|
November 13, 2009 11:41 PM
@ Topic
That is the most disgusting AiG article I've ever read.
*vomit*
Posted by: Celeste | November 14, 2009 12:10 AM
So what he's saying is that the central message of Christianity is "Every man for himself." That story was funnier when Kevin Klein was telling us that about Buddhism.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 14, 2009 12:59 AM
No you didn't. How do I know this? Because you're using the word intellectual as a condensing[sic] term. This is a symptom of religious conditioning. If you truly were a "converted" atheist, you would not use the word intellectual in a condescending manner. Also, you would have been able to spell condescending correctly. Of course it is. Being a Christian is a wet dream for people who truly believe that ignorance is bliss. So it is much easier to be a Christian and not have to think for yourself (if at all), than to be an atheist, and have to consider the consequences of your actions. Christians don't have that. Their God died for their sins, eternally absolving them for any and all sins, so long as they simply believe. Terribly convenient not having to look yourself in the mirror each morning and see the face of a Nazi enabler. That's stupid advice and demonstrates exactly how clueless you are. I'm betting everyone here has already read the bible. Cover to cover, not just the bits the priests read at a service. Some of use even have select passages memorized, because it helps us identify stupid clueless morons like you. If you've seriously read the Bible, and discovered its fine points about sanctioning pedophilia, rape, genocide, human blood sacrifices, cannibalism, torture, misogyny, dismemberment and slavery, yet still think that's a idealism you agree with, there is something WRONG with you. Try reading something more recent, like the Malleus Maleficarum, if you still think Christianity is a force for good in this world. First of all, there is no more wisdom (or truth) in the bible than in any other fairy tales. It's not even as coherent, consistent or relevant a fairy tale as those written by the Grimm Brothers or H.C. Andersen. You don't even have to go further than the two first books of Genesis, before you find conflicting creation myths. But I suspect you got bored of reading by then. And who can blame you? The bible really is terribly boring, but if you want to truly become an atheist you absolutely must read it. All of it. Or you will never understand why your religion is so reprehensible. Really? Well FYI I wasn't wandering at all. I was (and remain) rather skeptical of your academic achievements. What kind of degree, and what kind of math? There are more than one of both categories. It typically says which kind on your diploma. What matters isn't that you have a degree, (especially not one that almost everyone has, or can get merit for) what matters is if you understood the material you were being taught. Considering you claim you went from being an atheist to being a Christian, by reading the "wisdom" in the bible, I conclude that you failed science miserably. Is that undergrad stuff in the USA? I was thinking more along the lines of "Explain the Taylor Series, what a Taylor Transformation does, and how it's useful in the real world". See that's where you're wrong, and again it casts doubt on whether you were actually ever an atheist, or for that matter have even thought about why you're a Christian. Here is the catch-22, even if the bible is literally true, and God does exist as a matter-of-fact, he is still what Richard Dawkins characterizes as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction", and why would you want to worship that? The guy makes Darth Vader, Patrick Bateman, Freddy Krüger, Hannibal Lecter and Keyser Söze look like the good guys, by comparison. I'm thinking yes. I'm thoroughly convinced that any "true" Christian would send his only begotten son off to die. After all, that's what God did, and the smug Christian would know his son was with God in heaven. Religious people are enablers of almost everything evil and disturbing in this world. Christianity is no exception. Why would that surprise you? They probably haven't read the bible any more than other "true" Christians, which is to say, not at all. The bible is their tool to attract those who are easily fooled. Like a 419 scammer sending out chain mails around to harvest e-mail addresses, these supposedly religious organizations use the bible to attract the kind of people who are unlikely to see through their particular brand of bullshit, and then milk them dry! While you're technically right, please explain, preferably in 200 words or less, how a theocratic state differs significantly from a fascist one. I think it's a Christian slur for Gay Sex. The bible says it's wrong for a man to lay with another man, as he would with a woman, but says nothing of doing the endgame. Lying by omission is still lying. :) Yes. If only there were some way to convert irony to energy, we would have perpetual energy! It would be the cleanest (environmentally wise) most abundant renewable form of energy on Earth.Posted by: FlameDuck | November 14, 2009 1:04 AM
No. But "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" isn't monosyllabic enough for them to remember. Not that it matters, but most people struggle to go further than "No Kill, No Lie, No Steal".Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 14, 2009 1:20 AM
Dostoevsky wrote a story-within-a-story in The Brothers Karamazov about how Christ returned to earth in the present day. They lynched him again.
He also wrote a novel about a man who always told the truth. It was called The Idiot. (Not kidding, I swear).
Posted by: DLC
|
November 14, 2009 1:39 AM
So . . . going by that guy's logic, I could shoot him in the face, rip his wife's lungs out, and sell their children for organs, because after all, they were all going to die anyway, and Jesus runs everything. Oh, and as Jesse runs everything, then there is no free will and Jesus wanted me to murder that guy and his family. Right, gotcha. If I do it Jesus wanted it to happen and so it is therefore holy. Yay Jesus!
Posted by: maxamillion
|
November 14, 2009 1:41 AM
Let me see if I have this correct.
So if a lie was certain of saving a life then it would be OK then?
So is Hodge Podge blaming jesus for the Holocaust?
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 14, 2009 1:44 AM
L.Ron Hubbard took this process and refined it. Seriously, Scientology was the first thing that came to mind when I read this. I think he did an awesome job of it actually. This is why I say Scientology is indeed a religion, merely an evolved form or new species if you will.
I particularly liked how he dealt competition from "other religions" by claiming they were "R6". R6 is what "body thetans" were "indoctrinated" with before being released upon man to confuse him and keep him from realizing the truth about Xenu, mankinds past, and his own "thetan".
For any who might have missed it in the last blog post concerning Scientology ... Pink Munky: "What's the matter with you, hat?" A delightful musical rendition of LRon's insanity via his audio congresses which have long since been recalled and suppressed by the "Church".
Beware the Obscene Dog. You have been warned.
Posted by: Pareidolius | November 14, 2009 2:52 AM
Thanks for your kind words Darvo, I created What's The Matter With You Hat a couple of years ago, and my pal at Purinton Pictures kindly made the video for me. While the batshit flows aplenty in WTMWYH, it reaches a crescendo in Space Station 33 which I did the video for as well as the music. http://vimeo.com/1227000
But then again, the cult of Scientology is having a very bad century so far. I wish I could say the same for the creationists over at AiG. They might need a little Pink Munky tune just for them . . .
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 14, 2009 2:53 AM
Well he did famously say that "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."Scientology is actually a pretty good case study of what happens to organized religion after the "messiah" dies. If you assume similar things happened after the Death of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (which they obviously did, since the Tanakh, The Bible and The Quran aren't identical), one wonders how people can believe that their holy texts are, literally the word of God.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 3:08 AM
Admission: I have not read any of the above 354(?) comments. As a Bible-believing amoral god-fearing follower of Christ, I agree 100% with PZ: The 'crime' of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.
Jesus openly invited his followers to use their brains, so thumbs down to AiG on this. Now I'll read some above comments..
Posted by: randombloke | November 14, 2009 3:18 AM
penn (#71) wrote:
Depends; is the paedophile wearing a gilded bathrobe and fancy hat?Posted by: DavrosfromSkaro | November 14, 2009 3:18 AM
Valdyr "How very Kantian"
My thought exactly. I have a book that contrasts Kant's Categorical Imperative with Utilitarianism using a similar example of a killer looking for a specific victim and asking you if you knew where they were.
Apparently Kant was asked this question and he stuck to his guns and said you should never lie.
Posted by: Jockaira | November 14, 2009 3:22 AM
Posted by: Sir Eccles | November 13, 2009 11:39 AM (#1)
"Couldn't you just shoot the Nazi, that way you know he won't find the Jews hiding in the attic."
_____________________________________
This would be more moral than lying and violates no Christian doctrine as the killing of the Nazi would be in defense of the lives of the Jews.
Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 3:47 AM
I have a hypothetical situation for Bodie Hodge (Seriously? That really is his name? It sounds like something out of Deliverance)
You're sitting at home, enjoying an evening with your family. You don't want to go out and about right now, because you've heard on the news that four men armed with pick axes are roaming the streets hacking families to death.
You hear a knock on the door. You open it, and there stand four men with pick axes. They say "we'd like your children to come with us. Are they here?"
Well, you can't be absolutely sure that these are the same four men who are out hacking people to death, and lying is a horrible, terrible evil sin, so I guess you'd say "SURE!" and invite them in for punch and cookies.
And don't worry about your children being tortured to death, after all, physical death awaits us all, doesn't it?
What an Asshat.
Posted by: waldteufel | November 14, 2009 4:05 AM
Mack, you evil bastard!
. . ."It sounds like something out of Deliverance" . . . .
I laughed until my keyboard shorted out from the tears streaming down.
The thought of Bodie Hodge as jeebus' bitch is just too perfect!
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 4:21 AM
It never stops amazing me how little grasp xians, and fundagelicals in particular, display in so appalling and abhorrent sense of morality in everything.
Not just dubious, but inhuman and vicious, if not actually criminally insane.
Considering they like to boast as being the arbiters of morality, they do seem to have no actual understanding of the term.
In fact they are fucking morons, and not a people of any god, deity or fairy but selfish , arrogant and bigoted.
Not good neighbours under any circumstance.
They cannot even agree with each other!
They are full of hate and ignorance, and they are so proud of that.
Methinks they are indeed sadistic amoral lying pieces of excrement... or extremely mentally ill!
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 14, 2009 4:30 AM
Obviously, the good Christians at AiG are so honest, so pious, so walking in the light of the Lord praise Jesus that they would never lie about anything, not ever, no way, huh, huh.
And if they would never tell a falsehood — not even to save a person’s life! — then you know you can trust them when they say that evolution has been proven false, praise Jesus amen.
Well, check and mate, evilutionists!
Let us pray.
Posted by: NoFear
|
November 14, 2009 4:31 AM
So when are these AiG nutcases going to start arguing for killing adulterresses and kids who curse their parents?
Posted by: MonkeyBoy | November 14, 2009 5:06 AM
Couldn't the question be easily answered by quoting "render unto Ceasar"?
And here is a 1938 quote from Time magazine:
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 14, 2009 5:09 AM
It’s not Nazis (or men with pickaxes) but a robot, and it’s equipped with a nuclear bomb big enough to destroy the earth, and you know that it has been programmed to detonate the bomb if you reply truthfully to the question “Are you a human?” If you lie and say “no,” you know that the robot will deactivate and become harmless. You get only a yes or no answer and thirty seconds to reply.
We all die because a religious fanatic believes that any form of lying, for any reason, is an abomination unto their Lord. And besides, we’re all going to die, anyway, sooner or later, so there.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 14, 2009 5:12 AM
-this isn't a heartwarming Universe suitable for all ages. Parts of it are firmly in NC-17 territory.-
I'd say its considerably X-rated. And we know how the xtians feel about that. It must be quite horrible sitting in an X-rated movie, waiting until the care-bears and unicorns special starts.
Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 5:29 AM
Can't have unicorns in the special. They have that nasty phallic symbol on their foreheads. Distinctly un-pg.
Posted by: DingoJack
|
November 14, 2009 5:34 AM
So AiG thinks abortion is just peachy. I mean, since the foetus would have grown up, got old and died anyway, what's the difference, right?
If placed in the position of being questioned by the Gestapo about the Jews I were sheltering, I would hope I'd have the wit to simply say something like "They could be hiding in the woods [or some other location I know nobody is hiding]" Not technically a lie, not really an answer to the question asked, and certainly not likely to cause harm.
Guess those 'moral giants' at the AiG didn't think of that. - DJ
Posted by: gerry | November 14, 2009 6:17 AM
There IS a true-to-life story in the Bible just like the hypothetical situation posited above. This is found in Joshua 2, where the pagan Rahab hid 2 Israeli spies. When the Jericho Gestapo came searching, she denied knowing their whereabouts even though she hid them on her roof. She was commended for her faith in doing so. You will find this in Hebrews 11.
The commandment says: You shall not bear false witness AGAINST your neighbor. When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, His reply was: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart...... and your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22.
All laws and all ethical teachings of the prophets hang on these 2 greatest commandments. True love for one's fellowman would take precedence over some rule that requires to tell the truth to someone whose only purpose is to destroy your neighbor.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 6:19 AM
Most if not all people posting on this thread (I don't count the ex-condensing math guy) would agree that lying to save lives is more moral than not lying and getting the Jews killed. This is relative morality. Fundagelicals believe in absolute morality. A lie is immoral under all circumstances. Period. End of discussion.
Fundagelicals live for the afterlife. As long as you believe, you'll be plucking a harp for ever and ever, regardless of how you lived your life on Earth. Atheists live for the present. We've got to live the best life we can because this is it, our only shot. We'd lie because if we were the folks hiding from the Gestapo we'd want other people to lie on our behalf. We don't want to die a horrible death and we don't want others to either.
So fundagelicals would not lie regardless of whether or not people are harmed by the truth. If the harmed people believed, then they get harp lessons. If they don't believe, then it's accordion lessons. But the fundagelicals know they'll be getting harp lessons because they believe.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 14, 2009 6:55 AM
What if the question pertained not to Jews but (to pick at random) to transitional fossils? Surely AiG dude would still tell the truth?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 7:14 AM
There's a difference between lying and "believing differently from reality." Rick Warren has said that given the choice between believing the Bible and believing the real world, he'll take the Bible every time.
Posted by: Thunderbird5 | November 14, 2009 7:21 AM
I read that some hours ago and I've been wondering "What would I do if my kids read it? How could I explain it?" While AiG piss and moan persecution all over the shop when we fight their insistance that the 'choice' of that same thinking is let into the schools.
Have to assume this Hodge article is for real. Oh my. Never knowingly met a Jewish person in its godly life. Its been A-Beka-Books homeschooling, Hyles-Anderson, a shitpaper DDE from Fistula Tracks Bible College and a quiverful all the way, ain't it Bodie boy? But whether you deem it a just reward, prophetic fulfillment, karma, whatever...you'll get yours, don't you worry.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 7:22 AM
So AiG thinks abortion is just peachy. I mean, since the foetus would have grown up, got old and died anyway, what's the difference, right? - DingoJack
Come now, DJ: the point of banning abortion is not to save fetuses, but to punish women for having sex!
Posted by: DingoJack
|
November 14, 2009 7:23 AM
My story of what I call 'ordinary courage' is this:
The grandmother of a friend of mine was a Jew from the Baltic States. She (and her husband and children) fled from the Russian occupied Baltic to Germany thinking they would be safer.
She ran a cabaret in a basement of a building consisting of many rooms separated from each other by partitions made up of scavenged wood and newspapers. A fire death trap, but that was the least of their worries.
One day two young SS officers came to inspect the premises.
She welcomed them into the office area. On a table was set out some schnapps and glasses.
"Oh come in gentlemen" she said, "I have here a little Bavarian Schnapps that has just come in. Please have a small glass before I take into all these dusty rooms." She handed the SS men a large schnapps each, and when she was sure they had drunk them she lead on a tour of the maze of tiny rooms. Until they returned to the office again.
"Oh, I forgot I have just got a consignment of French Champagne from Paris this morning, and here am I serving you inferior schnapps. Oh course you'd like to try real French champagne." She then plied them with the more drinks before saying "But how silly of me! You have official Reich business. Allow me to show you the artistes' rooms." She then lead them through more rooms before returning to office.
"Oh before we inspect my personal apartments let me give you a snifter of genuine Irish Whiskey, straight off a U-Boat. despite the SS officers' feeble protestations, she instited that they finish their four fingers of Whiskey before she led them into a series of tiny rooms.
Finally she said: "Well it's nearly five PM, why not go home and type it up tomorrow, who'll know anyway. And haven't I shown you everything you asked to see?"
The SS men, their ties and hats askew, agreed and went home happy, and, the next day typed up a glowing report.
Of course they never realised they had been shown the same rooms over and over again, certainly not the ones containing downed allied airmen or Jewish refugees.
Was it immoral? She certainly didn't think so, and clearly told her grandchildren that it wasn't, to her dying breath. - DJ
--------------
Is it true? I don't know, her grand daughter's certainly inherited the same fearless spirit, so I guess it could be. That's how she told the story anyway!
Posted by: GarethD | November 14, 2009 7:48 AM
That's the LAST time I follow a link to AiG. PZ- I really dont't know how you do it! I gotta get a shower...
Posted by: T_U_T | November 14, 2009 8:00 AM
No, this is a morality that prioritizes saving human life above telling the truth to nazi. That does not make it relative.
if the morality were to be relative, then for different people in the same situation it would be moral doing different things.
I think that virtually any atheist will say that everyone in such situation ought to lie to the nazi. Hence the atheist morality is as absolute as the AIG version. The difference is, that one is right, and the other is wrong.
Posted by: Dania
|
November 14, 2009 8:03 AM
Night and Fog. That's the film I always want to show to every Holocaust denier I come across.
I watched it at secondary school during a philosophy class. Some of my classmates had to leave the room and couldn't watch the whole thing. I stayed until the end, partly because I was so disturbed by those images that I couldn't move, cry or speak.
Posted by: Maezeppa | November 14, 2009 8:28 AM
Bodie Hodge is wrong because the Bible doesn't admonish people to tell the truth at all times. The Bible has accounts of unpunished lies. One such example was the midwives lying to Pharoah and not killing baby Moses.
There are instances in the Bible in which God instructs the heroes to lie and other cases where even God Himself deceives.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 14, 2009 8:40 AM
I assume that the Christians being addressed are not the filthy, Romish types. Too bad. One of the deuterocanonical works preserved in the Catholic and Eastern Rite scriptures describes how Judith not only deceived Holofernes (an oppressor of the Jews), but actually chopped his head off as he lay drunk from his debauch. Under that paradigm, god-fearing Catholics (but not Jews or Protestants) should lure the Nazi soldiers into the house with the promise of a sexual reward, ply them with strong drink, and then decapitate them.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 14, 2009 8:47 AM
-There are instances in the Bible in which God instructs the heroes to lie and other cases where even God Himself deceives.-
Yes but their morality comes from god (apparently), and he can do what he likes (which also explains their "morality" I think).
"Why" is not an important question to the religious. It is an heretical question in fact.
What I really don't understand though is why all these people who love theocracy are so keen on freedom and democracy. They live in a country which is the exact opposite of what they think they want.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | November 14, 2009 8:59 AM
Most people would call this moral dilemma a no-brainer.
But then you find out what the guy with no brains has to say.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | November 14, 2009 9:05 AM
What some people fail to realize is that "refusing to answer" isn't a real option. Not only will you be arrested, but since you were an uncooperative troublemaker, the Nazis will search your house with the same vigor and completeness as if you actually had told them you were hiding Jews.
Refusing to answer is the functional equivalent of admitting you're hiding Jews.
The only real hope is to lie and either your home won't be searched (unlikely), or it might be searched with less enthusiasm than if you said anything else. Maybe. And even that is a stretch for the sake of letting the moral conundrum logically hang together.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 14, 2009 9:10 AM
It often strikes my how philosophically (and scientifically) challenged I am relative to many frequent fliers here. That's why I read this blog - it is a learning experience. Sincere thanks PZ for the work you put into it.
I think (again I am like a philosophy 101er) our western brands of religion have at least these 3 predicates in some form:
* the imperative of duty which ultimately feeds the notion of hierarchy then obedience thus is advantageous to underlying powers that be and thus propagandized
* the logic that somehow boils down to this: through ignorance or real lack of certainty via physical processes comes certainty via revelation (well why not!? my guess as good as yours!!).
* the notion (and sanctioning) of the "Noble Lie" which has as its raison d'tere that people are forever weak and stupid and need a savior leader
To me the vignette is of Kant as others suggest. It shows again (to my eye at least) that when absolutes are inserted in the places factual certainty fails to fill neatly a kind of perverted logic happens.
As an aside (and I do not mind standing corrected) I think the whole philosophical notion of "dare to know" or some such thing is misapplied grossly in their application to science. To me the motto of science is "dare to be WRONG" with corollaries of "it is fun to be uncertain because it means more to study" and "trust nothing as absolute but it is OK to accept for practical purposes what is proven over time to work in similar context".
To me morality is situational and we (in some sense collectively via naturally selected genes or memes or a Constitution, etc.) supply our imperatives which sit on a continuum of interpretation and contradictions. In other words if you rely on pat answers for every situation you stand more of a chance of missing the right moral answer. Maybe for most situations sympathy and empathy are the best meta-constructs evolutionary selection gave us for being moral beings. And you know they ain't too shabby methinks if one uses them sincerely and purely.
Posted by: KLT
|
November 14, 2009 9:26 AM
Mind letting another Christian have 'a go' at the answer? The group who wrote that post are incorrect in a few scriptural areas, and this scenario is far from 'hypothetical' since members of my religion dealt with this back then, and still do today in lands under ban by the government.
We wore the purple triangle in Nazi concentration camps and we didn't need to compromise Bible principles in order to protect the identity of others by lying. (The few who did end up betraying their principles were usually treated worse by the Nazis because 'to compromise ones beliefs' is considered the ultimate weakness and they despised that)
Triumphing Over Persecution
Courageous In the Face of Nazi Peril
Jesus refused to make a reply to Pontius Pilate or Herod when they asked him certain questions because they weren't deserving of an answer. But he didn't lie...which would've compromised the entire teaching of 'truth' which he stood for. He told his followers:
"I am sending you forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves." (Matthew 10:16) So a true Christian can be cautious and remain innocent at the same time,...refusing to betray others by divulging their names or other information to persecutors.
Posted by: Barb
|
November 14, 2009 9:31 AM
These people are dead inside. No compassion at all.
They are certainly following the true spirit of the bible.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 9:37 AM
KLT,
You are an idiot. As has already been pointed out, refusing to answer would have been equivalent, in its results, to saying "Yes, we are hiding Jews here." Grow up.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 14, 2009 10:16 AM
ELT I really do not relate to your tribe's methods - I did not read your links though (no time) so I grant I may be just ignorant.
My reference is my tribe (RC Italian) who during the war did a hell of a lot of lying to save the Jews among them. I do not know if there is an English version of of this but the book "Tempi Duri, Brava Gente" (Trying Times, Good People) by Walter Wolff chronicals one example of this.
One should do what works to satisfy moral objectives. When moral objectives are in conflict I guess one must just do the least harm. What else can any "god" expect -- or any fair and just human for that matter.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 14, 2009 10:20 AM
wiley @ # 357: Jesus openly invited his followers to use their brains ...
??? [citation needed]
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 14, 2009 10:21 AM
KLT sorry .. and apologies to ELT if there is one!
Old age strikes once every 5 seconds - you may be its next victim! :-)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 10:47 AM
Rob F writes, regarding Kant:
Most of the objection regarding Kant seem to be about moral absolutism rather that duty theory per se. If one is a moral absolutist, it means that there are no exceptions to your duties. Hence, one would be required not to lie in this situation. Moral absolutism makes resolving moral dilemmas/conflicts between duties difficult.
What if one is not an absolutis and finds it impossible to do one's duty because it's too difficult to discern the path of duty?? (By the way, using "duty" instead of "right" and "not doing one's duty" instead of "wrong" shows that the duty/categorical imperative approach is just an attempt to muddy the water; Kant doesn't really have an answer so he just throws words around.
This issue can be resolved by adding a rule that ranks duties. That way, when they come into conflict any dilemmas can be resolved.
How does one add such a ranking, if one is not sure of the path of "duty"? After all, if one already knew which "duty" was the highest in any given situation, one is basically already aware of what is "right" and "wrong" are they not? One is left with either doing what they already believe to be "right" (or "wrong") or coming up with an arbitrary scale - which very arbitrariness is based on, what, the individual's sense of "duty"?
If one remains unconvinced of the individual's ability to know what their duty is in any given situation, their ability to rank their duties must be nonexistent or highly doubtful.
Kant argued that actions were morally good when you did your duty for the sake of duty, morally neutral when you do your duty for the wrong reasons (self-interest or immediate inclination), and morally bad when you don't do your duty.
He's just reifying "duty" the same way a creotard establishes a sense of right and wrong based on "god's will"
If you add a qualifier, "when duties come into conflict, follow the more important one", you can resolve dilemmas.
Well, you can sort of resolve Kant's dilemma, namely that he knows his reasoning falls to even the most basic skeptical challenges but wants to publish anyway. But it's handwaving, not resolution.
If Kant's categorical imperative was so flippin' imperative you'd think he'd know it well enough to have taken the time to write it down, no? After all, such a wonderfully logical system as his would be usable to produce a sorted list of, say, one hundred "duties" that generally apply and, since it's so rational we'd expect everyone to agree with them. Of course in practice that's not possible because people's sense of duty is subjective, tainted or dominated by selfishness, and is processed through our brains and knowledge - neither of which may be working correctly.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 10:54 AM
There is nearly 400 posts on this subject...most by atheists that raise the morality bar a tad and then some over AiG's head...
I see no such debate on xian sites chronicling either moderate or what fundamentalist cults of various hues take on such a dilemma...which as a quite a few here have commented is not a dilemma in fact tis a no-brainer.
It seems morality deserts the religious when it is not convenient...in the meantime they do not even like to discuss such a tenant generated by their own side in faith...
Guilty conscience maybe?...they know at least one xian interpretation is inherently evil...but they all wanna go 'la 'la land... wot ya gonna do?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 10:55 AM
KLT writes:
Mind letting another Christian have 'a go' at the answer? The group who wrote that post are incorrect in a few scriptural areas
In explaining to us how their interpretation of scripture is wrong and yours is not, please don't omit to explain how you're able to know you're right. It's just a little tidbit but it's very important. Thanks!
Posted by: Frank b
|
November 14, 2009 11:09 AM
In the case on Nazis at the door, you use whatever trick you think will work for the short term and long term. If you refuse to answer, they will get suspicious and search the house, the shed, the barn, and the cellar. Then they may do something to you and your family so that you can not longer hide the Jews. Telling them where the Jews are defeats the whole purpose of hiding them in the first place, and is not risk free. The Nazis may wonder why you did it. Lying is not a sin in this case, it is not a moral poser. The Nazis had no right to the truth, they were going to do bad things with it. Thinking that lying in this case is a sin is delusional, giving the wrong answer is insane.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | November 14, 2009 11:13 AM
--"It seems morality deserts the religious when it is not convenient"---
In fact, this whole thought experiment is a great example because it really crystallizes the issues involved and our responses to them.
In fact, the more you would pretend to be pro-Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer when asked this question, the more likely the Jews you are hiding will remain safe. To put it bluntly, the better you are at lying, the better the chances that the lives of innocent people will be spared. If you try to avoid lying outright due to some twisted religious duty, you automatically arouse the suspicions of the Nazis and needlessly put their live in more danger.
That's why the equivocating and too-cute-by-half responses of some religious people in regards to this question is not unexpected but still troubling.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 14, 2009 11:16 AM
I've often argued that creationism acts like a virus or bacterial infection, and it corrupts those afflicted with it increasingly. It's like syphilis a lot in that way.
How in Christ's name this clown can conclude that becoming an accomplice to murder is less sinful than telling a lie and standing up against murder escapes me. Clearly he has tertiary creationist disease.
We've known for a long time we need to keep AiGism out of schools. Keep AiGism out of our Sunday schools, too, please.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 11:18 AM
BTW:
It's a false "dilemma" because it assumes that the person being questioned by the nazis has already chosen, in the past, to shelter Jews. So the deck is already stacked by placing the individual in greater jeopardy for a decision already made, for which they are going to possibly be held responsible.
A hell of a lot of Germans countered this dilemma by saying "No jews here!" - and meaning it - "Go ahead and search the house!" knowing nothing would be found. That was the most common response across the population as a whole, presumably, or things would have turned out quite differently in Germany at that time. The only thing we can conclude from real events, as opposed to contrived thought-experiments, is that 'morality' appears to mostly depend on which end of the gun-barrel you're on.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 14, 2009 11:20 AM
Apparently AiG thinks you should take the Homer Simpson approach to hiding Jews from Nazis.
"I'm not going to lie to you, Marge... Well, goodbye!"
Posted by: windy | November 14, 2009 11:25 AM
Actually, in the end, he just gives the Grand Inquisitor a smooch and skulks off.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | November 14, 2009 11:34 AM
---"It's a false "dilemma" because it assumes that the person being questioned by the nazis has already chosen, in the past, to shelter Jews. So the deck is already stacked by placing the individual in greater jeopardy for a decision already made, for which they are going to possibly be held responsible."---
Well, you can always alter the conditions thusly: You've observed in the past some circumstantial evidence that your next-door neighbor is hiding Jews. The Nazis ask you if you know of any evidence that your neighbor is doing this.
You personally aren't in the same kind of danger as the first example, but if you tell them the truth (or equivocate to avoid outright lying), the chances are excellent they'll be found out and killed.
The question is always "Is it ever right to lie?" and you just come up with the most extreme example you can to see what these fundies actually say. The fact that the experiment might not map on to real-world events at 100% isn't paramount.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 14, 2009 11:39 AM
You know these AiG clowns are charlatans when they say stupid stuff like this. Bodie tries to explain away another case of deception by inventing a scenario not found in scripture in which the lie doesn't get told.
He's forgotten the story of Jacob and Esau, and how Jacob and his mother conpsired to deceive Isaac in order to steal away Esau's birthright (Esau and Jacob were twins, by the way). Jacob got away with the deed, was then blessed by God, took the name Israel, and went on to be the founder of Judaism, the religion Jesus followed and the foundation of Christianity.
To AiG, scripture is just a dusty old book, except when they can twist it to support their bigotry.
Better to become an accomplice to the murder of Jews than to stand up to Nazis? What sort of moral compass is that?
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 12:00 PM
It is true that some small xian groups didn't cooperate with the Nazis. They may not have compromised their principles but god didn't protect them. They ended up in the camps and roughly 15% of the JW's for example, died.
In the case cited above, refusing to answer would be the same as yes, and the result would be the same. More dead bodies. Not so simple is it?
Posted by: Ryk | November 14, 2009 12:11 PM
Apparently this guy didn't bother to actually consult with his Bible.
Joshua 2:4-6
And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.
James 2:25
Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 12:14 PM
Kingasaurus writes:
Well, you can always alter the conditions thusly:
Yeah; I got the basic idea.
The question is always "Is it ever right to lie?" and you just come up with the most extreme example you can to see what these fundies actually say.
Yep. But the example where it's the neighbors is a whole lot less extreme than the first.
How about this:
"The archangel gabriel appears before you with firey sword in hand and commands you to lie. You tell the truth, or lie, and he kills you and sends you to hell. The end." (By the way, that strikes me as exactly the kind of gratuitous exercise yahweh gets off on, so it's probably happened dozens of times already)
It's rather a pointless exercise to engage with such stupid ideas, other than to poke at them and laugh, really.
Posted by: Ryk | November 14, 2009 12:19 PM
Of course in typical Christian fashion the writer said that Rahab was only good for helping the spies and that lying was still wrong. This conveniently ignores that if she had not lied she could not have helped them in the first place and they would have been killed.
I love how these people would rather torture and mangle a pretty straightforward story rather than admit that it says something they don't alike. It is clear that they don't care about what their mythology says. They regard themselves as the "God" and the bible is just their prop.
As someone who has read the bible through a few times I can say it is not some subtle and mysterious document that needs interpretation. It is a very simple and superficial collection of myths and legends. Interpretations are simply tools that the culties use to twist it for their own ends.
Posted by: James HG Redekop | November 14, 2009 12:28 PM
If Jesus is in control of every person's life, and I lie, then it must be because Jesus wanted me to lie -- he's in control, after all. Never mind that Free Will stuff, there's only Jesus's will.
Posted by: Bob | November 14, 2009 12:37 PM
I was put onto this link by my "friends" at the freethinker web site.
It is quite obvious that you are deliberately trying to stir things up against the people of God (evangelical Christians). You must repent of this, and all your other sins, you must ask Jesus to be your personal Saviour. If you do this then you can be assured of Heaven.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Bob writes:
It is quite obvious that you are deliberately trying to stir things up against the people of God (evangelical Christians).
Actually, I think he's trying to stir up trouble with uneducated lying hypocrites. If there happens to be an overlap between that population and the people of god, it's probably just coincidence.
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 12:57 PM
Wow. Another psycho fundie. We don't have to stir things up against the Death Cult kooks. They do that themselves so well. Polls show the majority of the US population, mostly other xians, are sick and tired of the fundies.
"As you sow, so shall your reap." BTW, Bob, people are so sick and tired of the fundies that 1-2 million people leave the xian religion every year.
Who appointed you dictator of the USA? Or are you another of the myriad of False Prophets who the bible says are to be stoned to death.
Probably you are just another fundie cult moron and nutcase. If you take your medication, you won't go to heaven but the voices in your head will quiet right down.
Posted by: Kingasaurus | November 14, 2009 12:58 PM
---"Yep. But the example where it's the neighbors is a whole lot less extreme than the first."---
Yes, but I was taking the idea of personal martyrdom out of the equation. Some of these people fall back on the I-won't-lie-and-die-happy-for-Jesus thing. You're in less personal danger in the second case, but the right thing to do is still obvious to a normal person.
---"It's rather a pointless exercise to engage with such stupid ideas, other than to poke at them and laugh, really."---
The ridiculousness of their responses was kind of obvious. Sad, but obvious (right on cue, "Bob" shows up). Just trying to get something out of the thread besides bald-faced mockery. :)
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 14, 2009 1:08 PM
There's no reason to call an imaginary world "Heaven" if it's populated with numbskulls like Bob, here, eager to godbot at us. If we can trick Bob into saying his name backwards, will he vanish into the fifth dimension and bother those of us who live in the real world no more?
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 1:12 PM
What people of god? Fundie xians are the people of no education, full of hate, who lie a lot, and threaten to kill people often, and occasionally do so. They also occasionally indulge in human child sacrifice by medical neglect.
More accurately, bigoted, ignorant cultists mostly from the south central USA.
Posted by: Mama Radionis | November 14, 2009 1:35 PM
ALERTA!
La estafa automotriz mas grande en el territorio Mexicano…
Para MAS informacion pinche:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwwexpoautoscommx.html
Gracias
Posted by: kiki | November 14, 2009 1:45 PM
keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically.
There's the rub, innit? "Fuck 'em - they're only people."
Posted by: elsombrero | November 14, 2009 1:58 PM
Where in the 10 commandments does it say, 'Thou shalt not lie?' Where does Jesus say no one should lie? He didn't say anything about lying.
Abraham lied his ass off - denied his wife was his wife. The hairy thunderer was cool with that. God lied to Abraham when he told his favorite goat herder to sacrifice his only son, Isaac. 'If you love me, you'll kill the brat, Abe.. . . Never mind. Just kidding. I lied.'
Then there's that Judith chick, who lied to - and with - the bad guy Holophernes so she could get close enough to him to cut his head off and save her people.
The Bible is a lie full of more lies.
This must by why leaders of the flock are so adept at lying themselves. If God and Abraham can do it, so can they. They can even lie about what Jesus didn't say about lying.
Posted by: KLT
|
November 14, 2009 2:03 PM
Marcus- You're right I shouldn't have worded it like that. Let me rephrase by saying "this is what my religion believes to be true from studying the Bible" -vs- just saying "they are incorrect" I wasn't trying to offend anyone...sorry if it came out like that.
But I was trying to offer the perspective that even Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day for being hard-hearted, because they were more concerned about 'sticking to the letter of the law' rather than the more important things such as mercy and justice.
And as far as honesty goes, I think Hebrews 13:18 sums it up pretty well: "...we wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things" however using the term 'we wish' implies that we're not always going to live up to that standard since we aren't perfect. But you try your best.
KnockGoats -it wasn't that cut-n-dry. The Nazis would round up groups of them and place them in different holding cells to have the Gestapo question them seperately, in order to see if their stories matched up. Their record of honesty is what led the Nazis to place them in better working conditions within the camp on many occasions. That helped save alot of them in the long run because the guards wanted them around for doing 'jobs' that they couldn't trust other prisoners with. It sounds crazy but the SS Guards would only let the Bibelforscher (German JW's) 'shave' the officers because they knew they wouldn't use the razor blades to slit their throats (like most other prisoners would have done) due to the fact that we refuse to take up arms in warfare or kill.
So most of the time sticking to their guns is what helped them survive...(with the exception of certain officers like Himmler)-who was notorious for singling out our religion for treatment much worse than what he inflicted on the other prisoners because he was so mad that he couldn't 'break them' like the rest.
Also, there are many real-life accounts I've read and heard from survivors relating their experiences about how being honest in many situations was so ridiculous that the Nazis didn't believe them anyway and would leave. For instance, one brother who was smuggling Bible literature into the camp for the other prisoners to read, was asked flat-out by an SS Guard: "what's in the box?" So he said: "Watchtower magazines and Bible literature" and the SS Guard says: "I'm in no mood for jokes today!" and passes him through! lol,...weird stuff like that happened all the time.
Posted by: RM | November 14, 2009 2:05 PM
That was funny!
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 14, 2009 2:25 PM
Christians, certainly of this ilk, are really just nihilists. Sick fucks like this deserve all the contempt and ridicule they bring on themselves.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 2:29 PM
@Pierce R. Butler#391
Citation suppled: Matthew 16:15
Plus, most of his teachings were in the form of parables (not commandments), for the same reason: he wanted his followers to think. Some don't, of course,like Bodie Hodge for eg.
Posted by: T_U_T | November 14, 2009 2:35 PM
Yeah. Helping the killer is a sure way to make him kill you as the last one. What a blessing.
Man, you are so twisted up there that the hopf fibration looks like an almost straight curve when compared to you.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 2:37 PM
We Are The 801 writes:
Christians, certainly of this ilk, are really just nihilists.
Hey, don't lump them in with nihilists! They're poor deluded saps who have been propagandized into a mush-brained stupor. Nihilism is, at least, intellectually honest. I know it doesn't matter, because nothing does, but "fuckwitted death cultist" and "nihilist" are not interchangeable.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 2:41 PM
Yes, it's true. Pointing out that fundagelicals would rather have people die than lie about their whereabouts certainly gives a bad impression about fundagelicals. The only problem is that fundagelicals condemn themselves out of their own mouths.
So, Bob, are you going to fix the bad impression? Are you going to explain to us how lying to Nazis is worse than getting Jews killed?
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 2:51 PM
#409
`It is quite obvious that you are deliberately trying to stir things up against the people of God (evangelical Christians)´
Are only ´(evangelical Christians)´ worthy enough to be called the people of god...?
Bit arrogant!...what is your justification for that claim...why should only lying ignorant and stupid fools that are evangelicals be the only people of a fictitious sky fairy?
What about Jews? are they not people of god?
What about JW´s are they not people of god?
What about RC´s are they not people of god?
What right do you have to claim what you claim?
Are you lying?...well considering you are pimping for souls like a evangelical could it be that you are lying?
´You must repent of this´
Why? are you feeling threatened in your delusion?
´and all your other sins´
How very dare you!
´you must ask Jesus to be your personal Saviour´
Actually I must ask jeebus nothing other then to fuck off in short sharp jerky jumps!
I am my own personal saviour...figments of a stunted imagination need not apply!
´If you do this then you can be assured of Heaven.´
Prove it...or are you lying again?
Bob you are a pervert...go and play with the that which you should not play with...well according to your delusion!
Arrogant git!...or a very good poe!
Posted by: Bebette | November 14, 2009 3:22 PM
Sadly, this reminds me of a story my (fundy to the bone) mother told me about my great grandmother, who was her role model. My great grandfather was a cruel man, and his 5 children took the brunt of his abuse. He often whipped them with a thick leather shaving strop that he kept hanging by the kitchen door til they were swollen, bruised and bleeding from the welts.
One day the youngest boy did something or other, and she knew Papa was going to hurt him badly when he got in from the field. Her solution? She went into the kitchen walking backwards with her eyes closed, backed up to the strop, took it and threw it into the oven. She told my mother that she did it so that when he came looking for the strop, she could tell him, "I haven't seen it" without lying. Which in her mind was a greater sin than letting an abusive man beat the crap out of 5 little kids.
And yes, this was passed on to me in the form of moral instruction and as an example of laudable behavior.
Posted by: MartinB | November 14, 2009 3:35 PM
@418 Logic fail:
"there are many real-life accounts I've read and heard from survivors relating their experiences "
Obviously, because in those cases where it did not work, people did not survive to tell about it. That's like saying: I've asked hundreds of survivors of the plague and they all told me they did not die of it.
Posted by: Mark | November 14, 2009 3:42 PM
There's no way to tell what would exactly happen. There would be Christians who would indeed lie to keep the Jews safe. There would be atheists who would also buckle and give away the Jews whereabouts if they had a gun to their head. Most likely though, a Nazi officer would search the house anyway. Believe it or not, atheists can also be nihilists, fascists, sadists, murderers, etc. And Christians can live absolutely free of murder, theft, etc. Because some batshit organization says something, doesn't mean the majority of Christians are going to fall for it. You can't throw out labels and paint all religious folk with the same brush. Fundies, death-cult kooks, xtians, most of these people I know aren't really crazy, and I can carry a decent conversation with them about philosophy, literature, etc. They are actually very intelligent and well read, though I disagree with them. But also, not all Christians are moral absolutists, young earth creationists. And on the other hand, a lot of atheists don't think murder is wrong, deny the holocaust, etc. It's bullshit to not tell the whole story, only parts that make Christians look bad.
Posted by: windy | November 14, 2009 3:49 PM
Hey, don't lump them in with nihilists!
"Are these the Nazis, Walter?" "No, Donny, these men are nihilists, there's nothing to be afraid of."
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 14, 2009 3:57 PM
Mark #428 wrote:
Well, yes. I don't think PZ's point was that all Christians reason this way. It was that one can reason this way, as a Christian, and arrive at a horrendous conclusion while sincerely practicing virtue and piety.
The problem isn't that some Christians are "bad" people, and thus they distort a system which is basically good and reasonable. The problem is that the system itself is open to any interpretation, and "ordinary" people can draw immoral lessons just as easily as they can draw ones which are moral -- meaning, moral from the humanist perspective.
If the only reasonable approach to interpreting holy scripture is to draw the same conclusions you'd draw as an atheist of good will, then holy scripture provides no additional benefits; it only adds in the possibility of dangerous perspectives, justified.
Posted by: FlameDuck | November 14, 2009 3:58 PM
So in many ways, a lot like the God of Abraham? Why is it such a surprise that people who worship a genocidal and maniacal god, are genocidal maniacs? You probably shouldn't encourage them. While I of course realize the truth in this, it doesn't explain why these fuckwits don't commit mass suicide more often. I mean you're so anxious to meet your maker, right? Go ahead, drink the kool-aid. Which is why the real answer would be "Of course not officer! I don't associate with filthy Jews and enemies of the state, Heil Hitler!" Wow. There's just so much stupid there. 1) It's not a sin, so there is no reason to repent it. 2) I can't ask Jesus to be my personal saviour, because he was executed for being a false prophet, about 2000 years ago. 3) No you can't. There's only room for 144.000 people in heaven (Revelations 7:4) 12.000 from each of 12 tribes of Jerusalem. Since I'm not ethnically a Jew, and since I'm pretty sure that much more than 144.000 people have already gone to heaven, there is no way anyone else can get into heaven. Tough shit. Next time, read your fucking bible. No. Only Jews are the people of the Jewish god. Most Evangelical Christians are of Germanic descent, so their "true" religion is one of the many forms of Germanic Paganism. Evangelical Christians are the people of Odin, not the people of Yahweh. That they have some delusion that a Semite deity, cares about the Germanic people is just a further testament to the delusions these people entertain.Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 14, 2009 4:04 PM
"Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos."
~
These people HATE existence and all the complexities, unknowns and ambiguities that come with it. That's why only "heaven" matters (at least so they claim).
I guess the fundy would have to say to the Jews being hauled out of his home "Sorry Mr. Friedman, but my track record with Jayzus is more important than your life." Gotta love that Christian humility!
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 4:14 PM
Way to miss the point. And bring up The No True Xian fallacy.
The point isn't that all xians are raving fruitcakes who would look for anything sharp if they saw an exposed back.
The point is that a large percentage of xians belong to some malevolent cults that call themselves variously xians, Real Xians, fundies and so on.
It's the numbers and their sheer evil and ignorance that makes them worth noticing and opposing. If the fundies would just stay under their rocks, no one would care. They want us to join them whether we want to or not. Isn't going to happen.
And there is no such thing as xians. There are a number of religions with the same name that have little or nothing in common. Not surprisingly, these various xian religions all hate each other.
Posted by: kiki | November 14, 2009 4:15 PM
It's funny how everyone is having to come up with non-Nazi scenarios to present analagous examples where it's Christians that are being searched for. Because, y'know, seeing as the Nazis were all totally atheists who worshipped Darwin and stuff, you'd think there'd be an abundant supply of real-life examples of Nazis hunting for Christians to send to the camps.
As it turns out, not so much.
Posted by: Mark | November 14, 2009 4:18 PM
I don't know if people outside of this discussion know any Christians, but I assume that most of them do. And most of the ones I know don't resemble the Jerry Falwell Bible thumping type. Or the ones who believe it's okay to murder in the name of God. I just don't see the fuss. As long as religion can be kept out of science then they are free to preach any insane off the wall shit they want (take that up with the Constitution). It's unfortunate that a small number of people will take to heart this AiG stuff. But realistically it's not even a blip on the radar compared to the real issues.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 4:18 PM
#428
´Because some batshit organization says something, doesn't mean the majority of Christians are going to fall for it.´
But they do nothing ...absolutely naff all to either correct them publicly or chastise them for batshit ideas!
They sit back and say nothing...even try and defend them against nasty atheists who laugh at them.
´You can't throw out labels and paint all religious folk with the same brush.´
When they basically behave in the same manner you can!
Idiots claiming the same delusion as moderate xians are trying to introduce ´batshit´ nonsense into science classes in your country...and moderate xians do zilch ...not a peep...not a word nothing...it is absolutely scandalous especially because the majority of moderate Christians do accept evolution.
But they all stand together bestest of friends against the ravaging atheist horde onslaught.
´Fundies, death-cult kooks, xtians, most of these people I know aren't really crazy´
By definition they are looney tune and if you were honest you would admit that!
´and I can carry a decent conversation with them about philosophy, literature, etc. They are actually very intelligent and well read´
But that is the problem, they have fingers permanently stuck in ears and lah lah as loudly as they can, they ignore the literature, they ignore anything that does not gell with their version.
Completely cherry pick any quote and are proud of it, most admit they are lying but that is okay cos it is for jeebus.
You call it intelligent most call it self inflicted ignorance, maybe your definition of intelligence needs a little work!
´though I disagree with them´
But never loudly and never when anyone else is listening hey?
´But also, not all Christians are moral absolutists, young earth creationists´
So what?
´And on the other hand, a lot of atheists don't think murder is wrong´
´A lot of atheists´?, name one?
Without resorting to political ideology!
´deny the holocaust´
Like certain Roman Catholic Bishops?
´It's bullshit to not tell the whole story, only parts that make Christians look bad´
There are no other parts.
Xians are their own worst enemy and when they get called on it they can only bleat ´intolerance´ and ´hatred towards jeebus´...wasted space really the lot of ´em!
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 4:24 PM
KnockGoats -it wasn't that cut-n-dry. - KLT the idiot
The discussion was about what to do if you were hiding Jews from the Nazis. I'm sure your crowd never did that - anyone who is not one of you is just shit as far as you're concerned. You really think the fact that JWs ended up as the Nazis' trusties reflects well on you, don't you? Excuse me while I vomit.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 14, 2009 4:32 PM
Hey, Bob: Maybe P.Z. is trying to stir up evangelical Christians to take a stand against murder and bigotry, yes?
It's always about you, though, isn't it. More than 6 million Jews died, and you're looking for reasons you shouldn't feel bad about it.
It doesn't matter in the end. No matter how bad you feel, the Jewish dead cannot be brought back. It probably wasn't your fault -- but you could act now to stop future such genocides.
But, yeah, that would require you to grow a spine.
Posted by: raven | November 14, 2009 4:35 PM
If you'd stayed in grade school, you would know how to count.
The fundies make up at least 20% of the population. That is 60 million braindead religious kooks. They control most of the south central USA where they are something between a majority and an overwhelming majority.
They have their own party, the GOP. They controlled the presidency under Bush for 8 years and almost destroyed the USA.
While it would be great if they were a small minority of harmless lunatic fringers, that isn't the case. They are a rather large minority of malevolent, evil lunatic fringers.
And who is opposing them? The other xians don't like them, RCC and Protestants are still the majority and they are MIA, missing in action. It's come down to the areligious who are mostly....ex xians. What keeps them partly in check is that they are bleeding members as people leave the religions in favor of their own personal and national survival.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 14, 2009 4:42 PM
raven observes:
And there is no such thing as xians. There are a number of religions with the same name that have little or nothing in common. Not surprisingly, these various xian religions all hate each other.
Quite correct.
And, if you look even closer, you'll find that between individuals who claim to be "christian" there are disagreements. Isn't that odd? Considering that they all claim to believe the same thing, they actually, none of them, agree 100% on every jot, tittle, action, or interpretation of scripture or doctrine. Perhaps, somewhere, there are two that agree 100% but neither we, nor they, are likely to know it - because who takes the time to itemize and compare every single belief of a complex, interpreted, and contradictory system? So, when someone says "I am a christian" what they mean is that they've adopted the label "christian" for their particular choices on the menu, and they'll wear that label as long as nobody ever actually looks at it closely. And they won't look at it closely, either, because doing so really makes their brains hurt from all the cognitive dissonance. Clearly, nobody actually "is a christian" because nobody actually knows what "christianity" is; everyone believes in their own version and that's why, when they actually try to sort it out, they end up squabbling or killing eachother.
I find that attacking the faithful's basis for believing they understand their own faith to be tremendously rewarding. The smell of burning neurons and rationalization is better than napalm in the morning.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 14, 2009 4:45 PM
Mark #435 wrote:
One of the reasons religion is able to wedge itself into science, government, and other areas where it "doesn't belong" is that there is a widespread cultural assumption that being religious is basic to having a good character, and that religious beliefs of some kind or other are obviously true. Atheism is irrational, or insensitive, or a combination of both.
Thus, there can be no area where religion doesn't legitimately belong. How could there be, if this is generally accepted?
I think the counterarguments need to be out there -- emphasized, pointed out, and made clear. And yes, this will involve attacking not only the "insane off the wall shit," but the basic supernatural beliefs on which they rest. God justifies these people, just as much as it justifies the nice Christians. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that these fundamentalist Christians are generally just as nice, in person, as the nice liberal Christians are as well -- if you can keep them off the topic of religion. Given their assumptions, their conclusions are not off the wall, or insane. They reasonably follow.
Faith justifies their interpretation of how one ought to behave, just as much as it justifies yours.
Of course people have the "right" to believe what they want, legally. But they don't have the right to not be called on account of it. As atheists, we hear, over and over again, that God explains morality. We hear this even from the moderate Christians. God explains where it comes from, and following God gets us to being the best kind of person we can be. Atheists then are just going through the motions, at best.
No. Not so. We reason from principles, and measure against real consequences to people, in this world. Those who confuse morality with obedience -- or transcendence -- do not understand ethics.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 14, 2009 4:58 PM
Mark,
You don’t live in the bible belt, do you?
About half the Christians I know are the Jerry Falwell Bible thumping type, and they really do want America to be a theocracy.
It's unfortunate that a small number of people will take to heart this AiG stuff. But realistically it's not even a blip on the radar compared to the real issues.
And what, pray tell, are the real issues? Because when you subtract the very well-funded effort to maneuver Creationism into the classroom — and all the religious fanaticism that goes with it — what’s left? This brand of Christianity, this uncompromising fundamentalism, is, in fact, causing many of the issues of the day: the gullibility of people in believing that god wants us to invade other countries because the heathens “hate us for our freedom,”; suppression of gay rights; suppression of reproductive freedom, abortion rights, contraception denial; Obama’s a Nazi and a socialist and a communist because he ridiculed the bible and this is a Christian nation, dammit!!!”
Our puritanical/fundamentalist/religious heritage is behind many of the important issues of the day, and I’d say it certainly rates “blip” status.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 4:58 PM
#435
´I just don't see the fuss´
Apologists rarely do!
´As long as religion can be kept out of science then they are free to preach any insane off the wall shit they want (take that up with the Constitution´
Why should we be the ones to take it up with the constitution?
Would it not be more sensible for moderate xians to have a word with these idiots?
Anyway why don´t these fuckwads read the fucking Constitution first before making ridiculous and batshit insane demands and lying outright to the educational boards up and down the USA?
´It's unfortunate that a small number of people will take to heart this AiG stuff.´
What is unfortunate is that naive, vulnerable and highly suggestible folk read the same shit on that site and think it is actually Christianity and that is how it should be practised.
The amount of creationist cretins that quote verbatim from that cess pit is beyond belief and dangerous above and beyond acceptable in the 21st century.
...that is not unfortunate that is a fact.
´But realistically it's not even a blip on the radar compared to the real issues´
Fingers in ears and blinders on do not excuse your inability to accept that AiG is a very evil and twisted organisation...that they praise jeebus is neither here nor there!
They would gladly stab moderate xianity in the back if it meant more profit and power.
Posted by: shonny
|
November 14, 2009 5:00 PM
Tom Lehrer's The Irish Ballad comes to mind!
http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Irish_Ballad.shtml
Posted by: Harry | November 14, 2009 5:11 PM
Thanks Bob @ 409
Your statement that you were "put onto this link by my "friends" at the freethinker web site" made me do a search for freethinkers. This led me to the nobeliefs website where I found the Dark Bible. This just shows what a fucked up bit of writing the Bible really is - full of pornography, atrocities, contradictions, stupidity and immorality.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 14, 2009 5:19 PM
@wiley: "Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude. At least it's an ethos."
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 14, 2009 5:24 PM
Dammit...sorry. 801 beat me to it.
Posted by: Evolution SWAT | November 14, 2009 5:38 PM
Ah man ... now I am gonna be pissed all day ...
Posted by: Fifteen Iguana | November 14, 2009 5:41 PM
John in #82 said:
There is a third option. Don't cooperate. There's nothing that requires a xian to answer the question.
There was a Protestant clergyman (and follower of Kant) in France during WW2 who did exactly that. Andre Trocme. He lived to tell the tale, and so did the Jews he was protecting. His son, however, died during the occupation. Read the book Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed.
Posted by: Samantha
|
November 14, 2009 5:58 PM
Mark @428:
The problem is this, quoted directly out of a psychology textbook written by a Christian: "The usual effect of religiosity is to make war more brutal, not less."
Link to the book, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Evil-Inside-Human-Violence-Cruelty/dp/0805071652/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258239071&sr=1-2
The fact of the matter is that YES atheists can be horrible brutal murderers and psychopaths and YES Christians can be good people. However, in all conflict, there is an "us vs them" mentality with "us" normally being "good" and "them" "evil". Only religion makes it so easy to find justification for perpetrating evil acts in order to overcome the "greater evil". Humans, obviously excluding the mentally ill and psycopaths, need to justify their actions. The average atheist needs to take some time to really come up with an answer as to why they're doing something. The average Christian can just say "it's what God wants" and be done with it. Even worse, people will forgive it by saying "well, he did what he believed was right based on his religion" far too easily.
This article is such an issue because it illustrates just how easy it is for Christians to twist the Bible to excuse evil acts. It's not saying that atheists can't do bad and theists good, just that atheists can't just point to a couple of passages in an old book to excuse the fact that they just send a family to almost certain death and then shrug it off as "doing the right thing".
Posted by: Mark | November 14, 2009 6:13 PM
strangest brew: There will always be naive and vulnerable folk. You take religion from them and they will cling to other things like alternative medicine, anyi-vax bullshit, or communism. Things that might be just as dangerous. You can't change them.
I do have a fondness for Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Hugo, so I guess you can call me an apologist if it makes you feel better, though I'm not a believer.
RamblinDude: No, my parents are ex-preachers, I'm from the northwest. I said this single issue isn't a blip. But if you want to argue blips, than yes there are some pretty big ones.
Sastra, I agree that the counter arguments need to be there. I just don't agree with the mentality of a lot of atheists who attack personally a fellow atheist who disagrees with them on a certain issue. If you can't debate with people on your side, I don't know how you're going to get shit done when it comes to Christians who think that homosexuality is a sin, for example. It's true that we should be fed up with religion bleeding into government and educational policy, but I think there needs to be a mentality change.
Posted by: hgc3 | November 14, 2009 6:19 PM
It takes a sick mind to see this scenario as anything close to a moral conundrum. The moral question in this scenario is not whether one should lie to the Nazi. It is whether one should betray his neighbor in order to comply with the letter of the law. The Bible is quite clear that betraying your neighbor is wrong:
"If you have come to me in friendship to help me, my heart will be joined to you; but if to betray me to my adversaries, although there is no wrong in my hands, then may the God of our fathers see and rebuke you.” -- Chron 12:17
These fundies sound more like Pharisees than followers of Jesus:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." -- Matt 23:23
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 14, 2009 7:10 PM
Mark,
There will always be naive and vulnerable folk. You take religion from them and they will cling to other things like alternative medicine, anyi-vax bullshit, or communism. Things that might be just as dangerous. You can't change them.
I don't agree. You can change them. If you can drag the world down into a morass of superstition and religious fundamentalism, if you can cower populations into submission through centuries of oppression, then you can do the opposite by spreading knowledge and critical thinking skills. Sure, many set in their ways won’t change, but the population overall can change, given time, and more to the point, they have to change or else our species is not going to survive. Technology has rendered the capacity for devastating destructive power to be accessible to almost anyone who’s determined, and it’s only going to get worse in the future. If we don’t all learn how to get along, we will blow ourselves up. That’s the reason that shining a bright light on bad thinking and lies, wherever it comes from, is important. And if you feel you’re being attacked by people on “your side,” over an issue that is “not even a blip on the radar” then it’s because you’re coming across as naïve, and most of us here see this issue—the kind of thinking that goes into the black and white, absolutist mindset of irrational people like Bodie Hodge— as a far more fundamental, deep-seated and alarming problem than you do. Don’t take it personally.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 14, 2009 7:26 PM
#451
`There will always be naive and vulnerable folk´
Yes and this where seemingly your relative morality kicks in!
This problem is a known and you think it is all fine and dandy that these folk are ´allowed´ to absorb stuff which with the best will in the world is totally and completely false and extremely ignorant.
It is a story in a book!
These folk ´believe´ in a allegorical story as a literal truth...they FUCKIN believe it is absolutely true...and they are allowed ...in some cases encouraged...to spout this fairy story as a gospel ´truth´and the constitution allows it.
They miss the point of Genesis by a mile...but that is okay...erm in a relative way that is immoral because it really is not true so no it is not okay!
You think ignorance is an acceptable price to pay other wise they might be communists?
These dumb fucks want kids to reject reality...how safe is that in the world we live in?
´You take religion from them and they will cling to other things like alternative medicine´
anti-vax bullshit, or communism. Things that might be just as dangerous´
What exactly has communism done to so upset...it is a discredited and dying phenomenon anyway...lost its way after Marks went toes up...it is not a threat anymore not since the wall came down...No more so then the political desire that uses communism to rule.
Times are a changin!...
And Anti vax and alternative medicine has a strong support base in xianity anyway!
´ You can't change them.´
They are not the problem...who is the problem is the cynical and parsimonious gits that peddle this crap like snake oil salesmen for money and prestige....and the moderate theists go all happy clappy!
That is the problem...and that can also change...but not if they hide behind the skirts of moderate religion...which they are!
And moderate religion prostitutes its name and its protection to them...very moral...they do not even believe in the same delusion.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 14, 2009 7:32 PM
I started marveling at this wisdom – and then it hit me. Jehovah's Witnesses were sent straight to the gas chambers for the crime of being pacifists. Appearing like one can't have been a good idea.
Surprises me. It
mightmost likely will make you cry, yes, but puke?ROTFL!!!
Posted by: plumberbob | November 14, 2009 8:02 PM
Dear Dr Myers,
I am surprised and disappointed that you've been lead into this silly discussion. The Creationists have artificially limited the answers that they would accept to: 1)Lie, and be guilty of a mortal sin. (They win!),or 2)Be truthful, and get yourself and the others all killed. God's will. (They win!).
I suspect that sometime in years past before you joined us atheists, you too studied Torah and/or Talmud, and you were given a third option. In the Bible, we are directed: Justice, you must pursue justice, צדק צדק תרדוף ,Deut. 16: 20. This, like every other verse taken out of context is meaningless, but we will use it as the Bible Thumpers do.
Any answer that is given that does not advance and promote justice, is an inappropriate answer. In this circumstance, the appropriate answer is the one which protects innocent lives and therefore promotes justice. There can be no blame or sin attached to the use of such an answer.
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 14, 2009 8:04 PM
"Sure, many set in their ways won’t change, but the population overall can change, given time, and more to the point, they have to change or else our species is not going to survive."
I don't have the stats on me, but look at the small percentage of actual religious people in other countries like Norway, Sweden, Canada or New Zealand-- where religion does not have the same sort of voice and influence that it does in the US. It doesn't mean they don't have their nuts there too, but they are far smaller and they are marginalised. If the U.S. can't get its act together, then it will go the way of the Taliban, Christian-style.
Posted by: Wendell | November 14, 2009 8:32 PM
I guess the author of this story is so fixated on finding answers in Genesis, that he never bothered to look as far in the book as Joshua. He needs to read the story of Rahab the harlot and her hiding the Israelite spies. The Apostle Paul uses her actions as a great example of heroic faith in Hebrews chapter 11. The right answer is in every situation, do the right thing. In this situation,the right thing is to lie. The original commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This has been falsely interpreted by this idiot as, "Thou shalt not lie, at any time, even to save humans from monsters" which is a different evil. I am dismayed that anyone calling themselves Christian is so dimwitted as to what the Bible actually says.
Posted by: hgc3 | November 14, 2009 8:46 PM
Exactly. It's a form of idolatry--bibliolatry.
Posted by: KLT
|
November 14, 2009 9:38 PM
KnockGoats wrote: "The discussion was about what to do if you were hiding Jews from the Nazis. I'm sure your crowd never did that - anyone who is not one of you is just shit as far as you're concerned. You really think the fact that JWs ended up as the Nazis' trusties reflects well on you, don't you? Excuse me while I vomit."
-completely untrue. JW's were the only group that could have walked out at anytime by signing a document renouncing their faith and giving allegiance to the Reich. It's been well documented that we refused any allegiance to Hitler or the Nazis. If everyone else had done the same there would never have been a Holocaust.
But why don't I let a Jewish concentration camp survivor who became a Jehovah's Witness after the war answer that for himself?
Joseph Kempler
he also did a PBS documentary regarding his experience.
In the camp where he first met JW's they were housed in a seperate containment area surrounded by barbed wire on the inside to prevent them from coming in contact with the other prisoners. Why? Because they would talk to them about the Bible's hope for the future, and try to encourage and help them. Joseph Kempler said the Jewish prisoners were so demoralized by what the Nazis put them through that many lost the will to live and lost all faith in humanity. But just knowing there were Germans willing to stand up for their rights along with the other prisoners (who were forced to be there) gave many Jews hope and the will to survive. Just like it gives hope to humanity anytime a person or a group stands up for justice and human rights.
This is not an isolated incident or a hypothetical scenario, as I mentioned at the outset. This is a daily reality for JW's since we are an international brotherhood with members all around the world.
And we've hid alot more people than just Jews...During the armed conflicts of the past century we've refused to betray others regardless of nationality or ethnicity. Including right now in Russia, Korea, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. (despite the racial and religious conflict that's been going on)
God isn't responsible for the atrocities of war and genocide. Man is. The message of the Bible is what's helping to transform the lives and personalities of people who were former enemies, by teaching them to overcome racial and ethnic prejudice and hostility. And instructing them how to love their neighbor and put down their weapons.
It's certainly not a worthless 'bronze age' book (despite how people try to twist the contents of it).
"Come, you people, behold the activities of Jehovah,
How he has set astonishing events on the earth. He is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth...Give in, you people, and know that I am God. I will be exalted among the nations," (Psalm 46:8-10)
The sooner people get on board, and stop hating on one another, (including Christians vs Atheists)...the faster the results we'll see. It's already begun.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 9:55 PM
Yeah right!
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon. Joshua 10:40-41 [emphasis added]
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 9:59 PM
According to the Bible, god caused the greatest genocide in history. In Genesis Chapters 6 through 8 is the Noachian Flood, where god itself wiped out the entire world except for one family and an ark-full of animals.
Posted by: Father Anglo-Saxon | November 14, 2009 10:16 PM
I still pray every night that the atheists and those that belong to the occult are wiped-off the face of the earth and HOPEFULLY that will come sooner than later!
WANTING MORE but are too afraid to search? VISIT:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwwexpoautoscommx.html
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 14, 2009 10:19 PM
You'll know they are Christians by their love.
Posted by: Citizen Z | November 14, 2009 10:20 PM
It's certainly not a worthless 'bronze age' book (despite how people try to twist the contents of it).
It discourages a life-saving medical technique (blood transfusion, according to the JWs) for no good reason. That's worse than useless, it's actively harmful.
It may be that JWs have saved more lives by hiding people from authorities. I can only hope that is the case, but there's no reason you can't hide people from bad guys and avoid harmful superstitions.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 14, 2009 10:42 PM
wiley @ # 421: ... Matthew 16:15
To wit: And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
So JC calling Peter a dumbass = "Jesus openly invited his followers to use their brains"?
No wonder so few of them have ever figured it out.
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 14, 2009 10:42 PM
'Tis Himself, Cristians aren't atheists you knob lol,lol,lol....
LEFT WANTING MORE? VISIT:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwwexpoautoscommx.html
Posted by: Dimitri Dafnis | November 14, 2009 10:45 PM
'Tis Himself, Cristians aren't atheists you knob lol,lol,lol....
LEFT WANTING MORE? VISIT:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/2009/10/wwwexpoautoscommx.html
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 10:46 PM
FAS, if you mention your blog every time you post, (you can post the link), you are blogwhoring. That is a plonking offense.
Posted by: Mack | November 14, 2009 10:50 PM
I love the argument that god isn't responsible for war and genocide, because humanity has free will. But good things, no, people can't think up good things on their own, that's god.
The bible telling people to kill each other
Exodus Chapter 21
Whoever strikes a man a mortal blow must be put to death. (okay, fair enough)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (not nice to hit your parents, but death, seriously?)
Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.
Exodus 22 The ever popular "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
(Let's not forget, Exodus is also where it says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery)
Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them
Numbers 31 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Murder and rape, charming little religion you've got going on there)
And while we're on atrocities
Judges 19:22-29
"Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him." And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, till it was light. And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up, let us be going." But there was no answer. Then he put her upon the ass; and the man rose up and went away to his home. And when he entered his house, he took a knife, and laying hold of his concubine, he divided her, limb by limb, into twelve pieces, and sent her throughout all the territory of Israel.
Genesis 19:4-8
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."
You're right KLT - it's not a worthless bronze age book. It's a repulsive piece of filth, filled with abjurations to violence, rationalizations of horrors, and promotion of the worst types of misogyny.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 14, 2009 10:51 PM
Oh, lookie lookie, a fringe loon !
And in related news, a bag of rice has fallen over in China.
Posted by: Strawberry shortcake | November 14, 2009 10:52 PM
Redhead nerd that was the strange kid nobody knew where he came from, you're a tool!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 10:56 PM
I'm the tool? My wife is the Redhead. I'm the science nerd. And your still blogwhoring.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 10:58 PM
Oh, and Father Anglo Saxon/Dmitri Dafnis/Strawberry Shortcake, you appear to be morphing (changing your moniker). That really pisses PZ off. Shall you now try for a trifecta?
Posted by: Lynna | November 14, 2009 11:19 PM
'Tis Himself @461
Love the nice touch of "emphasis added" -- and I'm sure that emphasis not being added in the Holy Babble was just an oversight on god's part, an oversight 'Tis Himself has corrected.
Note, however that LORD is all in caps in my bible, making god the proto fundie.
Posted by: Lynna | November 14, 2009 11:33 PM
If I were you, Father Anglo-Saxon, I'd be worried about my prayers being answered. God has notoriously bad aim. Look how many good christians he wiped out in New Orleans when he was just supposed to dampen the gay pride march. If god answers your prayers, prepare to be collateral damage.And another quibble, some would say that christians should be included in the group "those that belong to the occult" -- six of this superstition and half a dozen of that superstition -- and I'll bet god can't tell the difference. He's not a good detail man, in case you haven't noticed. There's that problem of him apparently taking all sides at once in a war, of getting his tribes mixed up and claiming an exodus from Egypt that never occurred, etc. And you expect him to save your hide in the great Wiping-Off? I wouldn't bet on it.
BTW, are you shouting "HOPEFULLY" because you're damned tired of waiting and you want god to hear you? God's one of those bullies that likes to be the only one with a thundering voice and he's not going to take kindly to you shouting at him.
Posted by: We Are The 801 | November 14, 2009 11:42 PM
"I still pray every night that the atheists and those that belong to the occult are wiped-off the face of the earth and HOPEFULLY that will come sooner than later!"
Well, here you go then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJAR6UZsCk
One more thing before I go,
one more thing I'll ask you Lord:
you may need a murderer,
someone to do your dirty work.
Don't act so innocent:
I've seen you pound your fist into the earth
and I've read your books--
it seems that you could use another fool--
well, I'm cruel
and I look right through.
You must have more important things to do,
so if you need a murderer,
someone to do your dirty work...
Posted by: Satan | November 15, 2009 12:02 AM
I do believe a certain insane follower of a French false prophet has slipped his straitjacket.
Say, what's this?
Blogger Content Policy...
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | November 15, 2009 1:59 AM
Abominations - you can't eat just one:
One of my favorite comebacks to biblical literalists is this set of 10 questions that circulated around the internet in the late 80s. I found a version of it posted here. It's still amusing to read. I like how it's a major sin to eat shellfish. You can't lie - straight to hell. However, somehow the ones thumping us over the head with the old testament never go ape over a lobster dinner.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 15, 2009 2:35 AM
KLT
This is nothing but pure wishful thinking. The bible is whatever you want it to be. If you want it to be full of love and compassion then you’ll cherry pick the parts that make you feel good and you’ll concentrate on them. In any case, it’ll be your choice and gods are not required to explain the decision-making process. And in spite of your assertions of the bible’s wholesomeness, and your tales of bravery and self-sacrifice among your superstitious brotherhood, it doesn’t change the fact that, as 'Tis Himself pointed out, the god of the bible is infamous for being a bloodthirsty tyrant. The book is full of episodes of God killing en masse and committing, and ordering, atrocities right and left with no more regard for human life than a Shepard has for sheep as he slaughters them to cull the herd. To pretend otherwise is to be delusional, and no matter what other qualities you have or aspire to, there is nothing admirable about people who live in la la land and won’t face facts.
Posted by: Annie M | November 15, 2009 2:51 AM
To David Marjanović, OM @455
Surprises me. It might most likely will make you cry, yes, but puke?
It was a very weird experience. I was mildly disconcerted by the novel which I had read. I just got so tense and it was the little girl with the red coat which really, really got to me. These things really happened, it's not just good script writing and acting.
As stated, I have a very VERY vivid imagination when it these horrible scenarios. I wish I didn't. A lot.
No movie before or since has given me this reaction. Well, except maybe for James Cameron's Titanic. The scene with the floating frozen corpses, especially the mother and child, was very upsetting. Not as upsetting as the pissweak 'love story' the real story was based on. ;-) That and the theme song... *gags*
I still cannot believe that AiG put this shite up on teh internets though. Beggars belief.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 15, 2009 4:19 AM
You're welcome but certainly no thanks are required, the work speaks for itself. :) How cool it is that I'd run into you here. There goes Pharyngula, another 'tube making the world an even smaller place. Which reminds me, excuse me for a moment ...
Hey there Ken Ham, I know that you're watching too. I acknowledged Ray last time and didn't want you to feel left out, so Fuck You too. Your days, like Ray's, of infecting my family with your Lies are numbered. I bought two copies of Why Evolution Is True
by Prof. Jerry Coyne. My sister has agreed to read it and I have yet to do so myself. I have this sneaking suspicion she'll soon be seeing right through you. Bye for now.
Ahem ... sorry there Pareidolius. At times I let these troglodytes get the better of my attention.
I had fun dropping a link to WTMWYH into the machinery of the chan-of-which-we-do-not-speak a few times at the peak of their poking a finger in the eye of little Davey Miscavage. They even had a couple of music channels on the IRC server they had set up and I happened to hear it get played once.
Hmmm ... Pink Munky does the AiG ? Please do keep that simmering in the back of your mind. Seriously. I'm very glad to meet you and thank you for your work. It tickles my fancy.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 15, 2009 4:54 AM
Oh, and the Clutch Cargo effect used on Hubbard in Space Station 33 is priceless. Lulz.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 6:12 AM
#463
"Father Anglo-Saxon | November 14, 2009 10:16 PM
I still pray every night that the atheists and those that belong to the occult are wiped-off the face of the earth and HOPEFULLY that will come sooner than later!"
And as they scream piteously, hysterically and barely coherently into that uncaring cosmos...
The stars slowly turn about 'the great attractor' in the ballet of gravitational force, with silence and dignity...and pay no such heed to a singular act of such hatred in a universe that has no time in eternity for such childish rants from such ignorance, intolerance and bigotry.
Father Anglo-Saxon...your god spits on your soul and scratches out your name out on the roll of revelation!
You fail!
Keep you Christian love for your own..
And learn to fucking spell!
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 15, 2009 6:16 AM
I think the same thing about David Koresh's sect of the Branch Davidians. I saw some news clip earlier this year and they were interviewing some of the remaining members who are still teaching their kids that "Vernon" was a divine prophet. Now they have a persecution story to round out the myths that will no doubt grow around that nutcake. I've no doubt that in time the myths will grow large.
You remind me that here was also a huge glaring hole in the official event that announced to scientologists that LRon had died. It was announced that LRon (the Source) had left his body "at cause" to continue his further OT research. The guy checked out on purpose, at will, but leaves no fucking goodbye letter to his followers ? Ya know, like thanks for all the cash or good luck and I'll see you soon or work hard don't give up or yadda yadda, some kind of personal message ? Even suicides leave a damn note for cryin' out loud. Ooops.
I like to think of this as the "grab for a coherent and culturally relevant god" using "holy text", myths, rumours, rituals, and lies that were floating around at the time. Perhaps if god would have set up some equivalent of the DMCA back in the bronze age this could have been avoided. It's a shame most xians haven't sat down and read their bible from cover to cover. It's a further shame they haven't done an honest look at the religions early history and how it splintered into ~38,000 known sects. It speaks for itself IMHO.
One of my favorite scientology stories is told by ex-Scientologist couple Greg and Debra Barnes, they were declared "SP" when they discovered someone was altering
the bible"Source" and spoke up about it. If one knows anything about scientology you know where the story is headed.Posted by: Knockgoats | November 15, 2009 6:41 AM
KLT,
You don't give any specific examples of JWs hiding Jews, or anyone other than JWs, from the Nazis. If you can do so, I will retract and apologise for that part of what I said. Joseph Kempler, in the link you give, gives no such examples, and says he did not talk to JWs until after the liberation (which, let us note, was not carried out by JWs).
It's been well documented that we refused any allegiance to Hitler or the Nazis. If everyone else had done the same there would never have been a Holocaust.
If all non-Nazis had acted like the JWs, the Nazis would have conquered the world.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
November 15, 2009 6:53 AM
I can guess with 95% confidence that they sued them.
Otherwise they killed them.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | November 15, 2009 7:16 AM
Here's the scoop in the real world: I've meet (really!!) many good pleasant caring giving people who are JW's, or devout Jews, or mass going RC's, or atheists, or Buddists, or Hindus, or Muslim, or professed Fundies, or whatever.
And this proves .. da da (drum roll please) .. that people can be good regardless of such beliefs. Yippy - good for the human species there are some evolutionary selected traits like empathy and sympathy heavily sprinkled in the general population that drive us to cooperate and assist regardless.
I've also meet arrogant, mean, bitter funks of those ilks too.. and what does this prove .. well .. da da (drum roll please) .. that beliefs (or non-belief) doesn't absolutely keep people from being shits either. And maybe I'd extent from experience that the factors that drive shit-ism are sometimes complex (psychologically and/or psychically driven over long period) and sometimes simple ("the guy's fucking bat-shit psycho - was that way as a baby one could see").
However, what religion does that almost no other thing does in a sustained fashion is provide the substrate for the mind control, obedience, bigotry, fear-mongering, action justifications, "morality", scape-goats, etc. that tyrants and self-serving powers need to exist. Religion is the convenient way to whip up the 30% (about 70% of those right leaning) of us that are wired RWA so RWA leaders can obtain and maintain power.
It does not take but that minority (30%) of dogma loving, everything black and white, types for the greedy, power-hungry, etc. to come to power. Follow this in US: RWA's - 30% - are hardwired to vote and invariably will - duty etc. - if 21% out of the 30% RWA are right leaning and only 50% of us in general vote that's 42% R to 18% L [say Dems] .. that means that D's would need to pick up 82.5% of swing vote [remaining 20% of the 50% of us voters] to win - will not happen - generally closer to 70% - look at our elections over the last 40 years - the only time L's [say D's] win nationally is when the vote turnout (EV) is around 54%!
Religion isn't bad because all the people who profess belief are bad (heck most of them live rationally and are really social believers anyway). Nor is every aspect of religion in general necessarily bad. The problem with religion is that it is the organized and officially sanctioned medium - the ready substrate - for the things and people that can do really bad things - or worse yet - put really bad people in power.
Face it religion mostly has to be at war with something - in some fashion. Whether it is kill the infidels so to speak - or fight proper human nature or rail against modern science or gays or whatever. This warrior while feeling persecuted mentality of religion is there for the pickings by the RWA leaders - who are truly dangerous to the core and will exploit this defect in many of us to the max and to our general detriment.
Posted by: Tim! | November 15, 2009 7:42 AM
It isn't really that surprising of an answer when you consider that the only reason many fundamentalist Christians accept the existance of Jews is so someone can kill them and cause Jesus to come back. Just watch one of the televangelists on an early Sunday morning (if you can stomach it for more than a minute), they like to go on about how the current unrest in the Middle East is proof of the imminent arrival of the rapture.
Posted by: Dimitri Dafnis | November 15, 2009 10:29 AM
Redhead, i still say that the occult will NOT prevail & the honeycomb kid will stay in jail! Post Honeycomb cereal is a BIG delight & everything will be alright!!!
So do some whorian-tubing-with-your-wifey u tool :)
Love,
Dimitri Dafnis
Ohhhh...and in case u haven't heard as of yet....u can get a FREE brain here amigo Red:
http://pedromillan.blogspot.com/
PS
Mayve "this" is the fresh air u required ALL along but were too AFRAID to ask for????
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 10:36 AM
Dmitri, we don't give a shit what a godbot says, as it is usually, insipid, stupid, idiotic, and wrong. Starting with delusional imaginary deities and mythical holy books. You are still blogwhoring, but if you stick with one moniker, you won't be banned so quickly.
Come back when you have something intelligent to offer us.
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 10:45 AM
Strange Brew, maybe it's you that needs to learn how to spell (check your post) you angry fool! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
And there sure are a lot of angry folks posting on this blog. Good topics typically lead to interesting converastions. To the blog owner....Sir, you sure do know how to hit on hot topics. Some good content in here too. Always interesting to read up on how some hate religion, some love religion, some doubt God while others do not doubt him one single iota.
All of this detracts from the fact that in the Western Nations all the leaders are controlled by the moloch axis demoniacs who are currently passing laws that rob us of our civil liberties whilst we just sit back like fluoride drinking clowns and watch futbol, nhl hockey etc. Now that's gay!
Instead of wasting time on this blog, maybe all you good folk should get up and slap these moloch axis demoniacs in the face and replace them with something better! Maybe yourselves? Strawberry Shortcake, Redhead fool, Lynna and Willemina - Filipina all you kids.
EVIL ALWAYS WINS WHEN GOOD SITS BACK AND SMOKES A BIG STOGGEY!
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 10:49 AM
In other words, in the Year of the Porcupine, which is never.So, are we to assume that Father Pedro Spammer would hide Jews from Nazis, only to happily turn them over to the Nazis if asked so as to avoid the conundrum of lying?
Or, is he just engaging in penis-waving to attract visitors to his god-awful blog?
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 10:55 AM
Father Anglo Spammer, can you please show me where in the Bible Jesus said it was okay to insult people and spout inane conspiracy theories while spamming for your blog?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 10:57 AM
FAS, get some professional help. You are insipid, stupid, and insane.
That was his penis? I thought it was a wet piece of spaghetti.Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 11:01 AM
Stanton, sti-fi pok just called and he want you to let him in.
By the way Stanton, my website is light years ahead of your tremendously goofy one so as Dave Chapelle once said, " I am not Chinese, I am Korean!!"
No offence friend (L)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 11:04 AM
FAS, you latest post proved my point. You are insipid, boring, inane, and insane. If you were intelligent and sane, you would just stop posting here.
PZ clean-up of verbal salad in aisle 7.
Posted by: Lynna | November 15, 2009 11:05 AM
Thank you, Father Anglo-Saxon, for including me in the fools who are controlled by the moloch axis demoniacs. I don't like being left out. But... I couldn't help but notice that you must love others more than you love me. You handed out nicknames, like "Strawberry Shortcake" and "Redhead fool" -- admittedly not creative nicknames, but nicknames nonetheless. Once again, I'm being treated like a second-class citizen. No nickname, no damning, passive-aggressive love from a christian man. I am devastated.Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 11:09 AM
Nerd of Redhead & Stanton (in-in-the-same) you two clowns also proved several of my points as well as those of others.
To repeat, instead of clowning around in your parents basement watching porno movies & eating cheesies, go and do something constructive with your gay lives. Like perhaps running for office and dethroning the moloch axis demoniacs you soooo lovingly cherish. Of course, this would pose a REAL-DEAL conundrum for you kids since you are paid promoters of the moloch axis demoniacs to begin with!
Ohhhh well, as this one Chinese lady once stated, " Wy don yu stay fo supah?? Yu stay fo supah! Okay, okay jajajajaja!"
Loving you 2 kids even more (L)(L)(L)(L)
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Redhead, Lynna, Stanton WHO are you trying to fool you single-minded teenager in your parents basement? You're a little kid for petes sake and you're the same person too! Them's some nice nick's as well :)
Go upstairs, wake up your mom & pop and ask them for a big shinny quarter dollar and go to TOMMY'S KOREAN CORNER STORE and buy a nice bag of chips, ok?
Loving you more & more as time goes on,
Father Anglo Saxon (L)(K)(L)(K)
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 15, 2009 11:18 AM
If that's really you, Pilty, fuck off. You're not wanted here.
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 11:20 AM
So Father Anglo Spammer can't provide the Bible passage that said that it's okay for His Followers to slander other people with racist slurs?
So, why the hell isn't this ass plonked already?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 11:20 AM
Yawn, still insane, aren't you. Care to see my AARP card, and I mentioned earlier I was married to the Redhead, for 35+ years. You are the childish one. If you have a cogent point, get to it, with the appropriate evidence. Otherwise, quit embarrassing yourself with your insane posts.Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 11:22 AM
That, and he's not supposed to be here, anyhow, what with him being banned by Professor Myers for being annoying, and all.Posted by: Dania
|
November 15, 2009 11:23 AM
Lynna, I note this is not the first time you're called a teenager on this blog. Just sayin'...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 11:23 AM
PZ's in the air transport system. Probably won't do anything until he gets to Minneapolis for the night.Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 11:24 AM
Ain't gonna happen, Nerd'of. You might as well demand Father Spammer stop using ATP as an energy source.Posted by: Kittenstew | November 15, 2009 11:28 AM
Personally I wouldn't hesitate a moment lying my face off to nazis that were looking to kill Jews. What makes it laughable is that the "fundies" first impulse is to blurt out where the Jews are so the Nazis can kill them. They aren't smart enough to come up with the following solution:
Um, how about just not telling the Nazis anything...
"Sorry, I can't help you." Would not be a lie. Everyone wins.
OR how about this you fundamentalist douche-bag:
Stand up to the Nazis and tell them "I will not help you because what you are doing is wrong"
But no, because then they would be the ones catching the wrath of the Nazis.
BUT WAIT!
"It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning."
By his own argument he can't know what the nazis will do and should just trust in God's plan. After all, who is he to deny God's authority.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 11:32 AM
I know Stanton, sometimes when the trolls aren't hearing me, I tend to play for the non-regulars stopping by. The paranoia is great in this one...Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 11:45 AM
Good point Hard to tell, actually, what with the screaming stupidity and casual racism yodeling about.Posted by: caseywollberg | November 15, 2009 11:48 AM
Lying for Jesus is a moral imperative; lying to save human lives is a sin. Got it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 15, 2009 11:53 AM
caseywollberg #551
You win the thread.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Sorry, that should have been caseywollberg #511
Posted by: Lynna | November 15, 2009 12:15 PM
Posted by: Lynna | November 15, 2009 12:19 PM
@514 Not for the first time, I messed up my blockquote tags. Apologies to Dania.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 1:12 PM
#492
"Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 10:45 AM
Strange Brew, maybe it's you that needs to learn how to spell (check your post) you angry fool! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Spelling is fine, but if wrong I have the excuse of atheism...
Father Anglo Saxon you being a bible whore has no such luxury, a supposed Christian that spells Christians as Cristians...deserves all the scorn his god sends him.
You are not so much a disgrace to yourself, more an abomination to humanity.
Suck it up big boy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did you see that?,did you see what I did there?, did you see it huh?, I used more exclamation marks then you did, that means I win! you angry fool! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | November 15, 2009 1:48 PM
Bob #409:
*Sigh*
Pharyngula, meet Bob. Bob Hutton, well-known evangelical loon.
He's actually banned from freethinker.co.uk for being such a monumental arse. Doesn't stop him reading it, though.
So, any bets on whether he'll answer the already-posed question of why lying to Nazis is worse that saving the lives of Bog's chosen people?
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 4:12 PM
Gee whiz...there sure are a LOT of angry, middle aged folks on this blog, and this is not the only blog where i find angry, middle aged folks still "trying" to pretend and somehow "magically" fool themselves in a manner that makes them appear as being wise & witty; utilizing the talk-of-the-ages, and snappy come-backs of yesteryear....it's actually quite funny listening to all of this.
You have Asians talking out of their arse whilst convincing themselves that they actually are correct in their tone - hyperneeding to be correct as a middle aged man who gardens, drinks Jasmine tea and plays Mah Jong etc. You also have middle aged men who are GLUED to their PC because, really, they have NO other life than to make fun of others and why? Because they themselves are NOT happy, and once this has been made known to them by other happier folks (like myself) they get angry, and that anger grows & grows & grows and the negative posts continue & continue & continue.
Ahhhhh middle age....this Ph.D. is not middle aged (surprised yet you angry middle aged folks??) but based on what i have seen here today within the framework of my GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS SERIES i can wisely say - since wisdom isn't the exclusive domain of you middle aged angry posters within - that being middle aged must be seriously lonely.
A loneliness, that compels you to insult others, prejudge, comment-out-of-your-arse all the while thinking with an absolute assurance that WHAT it is you are posting is 100% correct and NOBODY better dare defy you in any way, shape or form or else the claws shall come forth and the angry middle aged person trapped within a small confined space and wielding a pc will start to make comments of an unsavoury nature.
And why? Because you are middle aged and what you say must be true and correct not just some of the time but ALL of the time. And to you, everybody else is "retarded" except you of course. No, why.....why would the middle aged person suffer from any form of dementia or mental problem or be medicated in any manner...NO, NO...it is the young according to you that has THESE problems, not the middle aged...of course not.
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 4:18 PM
Gee whiz...there sure are a LOT of angry, middle aged folks on this blog, and this is not the only blog where i find angry, middle aged folks still "trying" to pretend and somehow "magically" fool themselves in a manner that makes them appear as being wise & witty; utilizing the talk-of-the-ages, and snappy come-backs of yesteryear....it's actually quite funny listening to all of this.
You have Asians talking out of their arse whilst convincing themselves that they actually are correct in their tone - hyperneeding to be correct as a middle aged man who gardens, drinks Jasmine tea and plays Mah Jong etc. You also have middle aged men who are GLUED to their PC because, really, they have NO other life than to make fun of others and why? Because they themselves are NOT happy, and once this has been made known to them by other happier folks (like myself) they get angry, and that anger grows & grows & grows and the negative posts continue & continue & continue.
Ahhhhh middle age....this Ph.D. is not middle aged (surprised yet you angry middle aged folks??) but based on what i have seen here today within the framework of my GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS SERIES i can wisely say - since wisdom isn't the exclusive domain of you middle aged angry posters within - that being middle aged must be seriously lonely.
A loneliness, that compels you to insult others, prejudge, comment-out-of-your-arse all the while thinking with an absolute assurance that WHAT it is you are posting is 100% correct and NOBODY better dare defy you in any way, shape or form or else the claws shall come forth and the angry middle aged person trapped within a small confined space and wielding a pc will start to make comments of an unsavoury nature.
And why? Because you are middle aged and what you say must be true and correct not just some of the time but ALL of the time. And to you, everybody else is "retarded" except you of course. No, why.....why would the middle aged person suffer from any form of dementia or mental problem or be medicated in any manner...NO, NO...it is the young according to you that has THESE problems, not the middle aged...of course not.
Fear not for there is still hope. Hope that someday you will leave the confines of your small and unhappy world where you firmly believe there exists happiness but really there is none to be found. Hope that someday scientists in Japan will be able to tenderly pull your brain that has been trapped deep within your anal womb. Whatever happens don't give up HOPE for HOPE is what appears to be your secret saviour not anger and negativity that you so lovingly nurture day after day after hour after minute....
Loving you middle aged kids EVEN MORE BY THE SECOND :)
Kisses & hugs from a non-middle aged Ph.D. doing some wonderful research here at the local university. And what research would that be you may enquire? Well.....research on YOU (the angry, lonely middle aged person in America and around the globe!). Maybe someday, if you can handle the truth and wish to be liberated from your loneliness, you can read up on my work in a Sociological journal :)
Posted by: Mama Anglo Saxon | November 15, 2009 4:21 PM
Gee whiz...there sure are a LOT of angry, middle aged folks on this blog, and this is not the only blog where i find angry, middle aged folks still "trying" to pretend and somehow "magically" fool themselves in a manner that makes them appear as being wise & witty; utilizing the talk-of-the-ages, and snappy come-backs of yesteryear....it's actually quite funny listening to all of this.
You have Asians talking out of their arse whilst convincing themselves that they actually are correct in their tone - hyperneeding to be correct as a middle aged man who gardens, drinks Jasmine tea and plays Mah Jong etc. You also have middle aged men who are GLUED to their PC because, really, they have NO other life than to make fun of others and why? Because they themselves are NOT happy, and once this has been made known to them by other happier folks (like myself) they get angry, and that anger grows & grows & grows and the negative posts continue & continue & continue.
Ahhhhh middle age....this Ph.D. is not middle aged (surprised yet you angry middle aged folks??) but based on what i have seen here today within the framework of my GREAT SOCIAL EXPERIMENTS SERIES i can wisely say - since wisdom isn't the exclusive domain of you middle aged angry posters within - that being middle aged must be seriously lonely.
A loneliness, that compels you to insult others, prejudge, comment-out-of-your-arse all the while thinking with an absolute assurance that WHAT it is you are posting is 100% correct and NOBODY better dare defy you in any way, shape or form or else the claws shall come forth and the angry middle aged person trapped within a small confined space and wielding a pc will start to make comments of an unsavoury nature.
And why? Because you are middle aged and what you say must be true and correct not just some of the time but ALL of the time. And to you, everybody else is "retarded" except you of course. No, why.....why would the middle aged person suffer from any form of dementia or mental problem or be medicated in any manner...NO, NO...it is the young according to you that has THESE problems, not the middle aged...of course not.
Fear not for there is still hope. Hope that someday you will leave the confines of your small and unhappy world where you firmly believe there exists happiness but really there is none to be found. Hope that someday scientists in Japan will be able to tenderly pull your brain that has been trapped deep within your anal womb. Whatever happens don't give up HOPE for HOPE is what appears to be your secret saviour not anger and negativity that you so lovingly nurture day after day after hour after minute....
Loving you middle aged kids EVEN MORE BY THE SECOND :)
Kisses & hugs from a non-middle aged Ph.D. doing some wonderful research here at the local university. And what research would that be you may enquire? Well.....research on YOU (the angry, lonely middle aged person in America and around the globe!). Maybe someday, if you can handle the truth and wish to be liberated from your loneliness, you can read up on my work in a Sociological journal :)
Posted by: T_U_T | November 15, 2009 4:21 PM
FAX, you are the most pathetic troll I've seen on this blog since kwok.
Posted by: Baby happy meal Saxon | November 15, 2009 4:25 PM
Yes, the ENTIRE family is UNITED at last and to ALL a good night (K)(K)(K)
Posted by: Tim_Danaher | November 15, 2009 4:25 PM
Yet another *sigh*
I shall leave it to people who are more patient, more erudite, more educated and more... middle-aged... than than I to deal with the above inane ramblings.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 15, 2009 4:26 PM
Three in a row. tl'dr. Anything longer than three sentences will not be read, as you are a deadly stupid, insipid, moronic troll. Why don't you get a life, preferably elsewhere.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 15, 2009 4:27 PM
SO let me get this straight, "Father": you're a PhD sociologist (NOT middle-aged!), and your wonderful sociological research is on "the angry, middle aged person in America and around the globe!," and your attitude toward your putative research subjects is one of sneering condescension. Nice.
Why are you fixated on the "middle aged"?
So glad to hear you're so happy, btw.
And thanks for posting twice posting twice.
gross anatomy fail
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 4:48 PM
Ahh a renegade from one of those famous biblically inspired places of ignorance and lies...a degree mill by any other name.
Sociological research..hmm surprised you knew how to spell it...well done!
Having a breakdown also...hard luck...guess your delusion has deserted you in your time of insanity!
Got a problem with ethnic members of society I read...well what god botherer never had?
So Father time what actually is your point?...
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 4:49 PM
And Father Spammer thinks he's a loving Cristian (sic) because he's racist?
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 4:52 PM
That he's a racist prick filled with hate against Asians and atheists so as to be incoherent, and yet, is hoping that we're gullible enough to visit his stupid blog?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 15, 2009 4:52 PM
I know online amateur diagnosis is risky, but do you think "Father Anglo Saxon" is a thought-disordered schizophrenic? The rambling, barely coherent sentences, strange obsessions and repeated catchphrases remind me of someone I met in a psychiatric hospital while visiting a friend many years ago.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 15, 2009 5:03 PM
Very safe to assume that father 'middle age' is not the full cracker.
Waiting for the rapture and what with the dates getting very difficult to pin down, well makes a bunny nervous so it does, A couple of years of that and tis enough to fry any brain cell in an afflicted.
Probably the fault of the Asians, or Atheists, shame is it not?.
I am sure his fairy will sort him out...eventually!
Posted by: Carlie | November 15, 2009 6:01 PM
Funny how he chides everyone for being teenagers in their parents' basements, and then when he's informed otherwise he acts as if everyone were giving off pathetic middle-aged vibes the whole time and reinterprets everything by this model like he knew it all along. What would happen if we now tell him that we're all elderly nuns?
Posted by: Stanton | November 15, 2009 6:15 PM
Armed with rulers, no less. *brandishes Prince Charles menacingly*Posted by: Frenchie | November 15, 2009 7:35 PM
DO you see HOW nicely all you angry middle aged clowns make the case for Father Anglo Saxon??????
NO offence, but you are all basically doing time & time again what he said you would be doing so he's right! And sadly, you angry little people are indeed the Clowns in the Puccini opera :(
Score one for the Father Anglo Saxon.
BTW mr. Anglo Saxon, i have visited your website and i find it a delight. However, i don't think it's actually yours but perhaps one of your students link perhaps? And it seems to be based out of Mexico. I really like the music and the links are very good as well. I particularly liked the PRISON PLANET link because in today's mixed up society ONLY Alex Jones can guide us clear from the moloch axis demoniacs. Unlike the angry likes of big red & platipus face stanton (no offence guys but Father Anglo Saxon is rubbing off on me and his tell it like it is attitude is catchy).
Cheers
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 15, 2009 7:36 PM
So, despite being a 28 year old Brit I am in actuality, according to Father Anglo Saxon anyway, a middle aged American?
*Gasp!*
*Has existential freakout*
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 15, 2009 7:40 PM
So, our new slightly-trollish friend has a problem with Asians? It had to be either rascism, misogyny or homophobia (from the track record of most trolls, preferably all three).
I am beginning to think that vitriolic bigotry is an entry requirement to troll schools everywhere.
Posted by: Wayfarer | November 15, 2009 7:46 PM
This comment on morality by AIG is ironic because AIG's mission is to lie for Jesus.Go figure
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 15, 2009 7:49 PM
ditto; well, except that I'm 27 and German, but you get the point.
also, if frenchie is the first of a flood from prisonplanet, everybody get ready for a flood of undiluted Crazeh
Posted by: Frenchie | November 15, 2009 7:52 PM
Greg, "vitriolic" HILLARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am so scared of Papa Anglo Saxon. In fact i am so glad that fine & stern men like Alex Jones are ready, willing and able to set me straight and protect me from the moloch axis demoniacs. I feel so safe now, and i think tonight i'll be able to sleep well for the first time in decades.
Oh and i almost forgot, i have to go change my depends undergarment since i am prone to urinating myself due to my middle age. Thank you Father Anglo Saxon (and family) for setting me straight as well.
Cheers
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 15, 2009 8:07 PM
"Greg, "vitriolic" HILLARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Ok. Maybe he is a bit too unfocussed and rambling to be properly vitriolic.
I see that either you really like exclamation marks, or your keyboard is broken.
You should be careful. You are but one small step short of the dreaded 'AllCaps' syndrome. 'Tis hard to cure. They say that the afflicted come out on the full moon and can only be killed with silver bullets . . or something.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 15, 2009 8:18 PM
Jadehawk, OM @ 538;
"everybody get ready for a flood of undiluted Crazeh"
Imagine, if you will, the bridge of the USS enterprise (the original series with William shatner as a rugged captain Kirk siring illegitimate half-humans all over the galaxy . . damn but I am showing my geek off today).
Suddenly on the viewscreen a strange anomaly is spotted by Sulu.
Kirk furrows his brow, wondering if it is a lifeform, and if it is if he can have sex with it.
Uhura fiddles with her comm board but generally just seems to be there to pretty up the place in a ludicrously short uniform skirt.
A redshirt gets vapourised by a plasma conduit malfunction, but no one notices.
Scotty laments his inability to act because he just doesn't have the 'pooower'.
Bones continues to get legless on the moonshine booze he keeps in the medbay.
Finally, Spock raises one quizical eyebrow and utters the immortal words;
"It's Crazeh, captain, but not as we know it."
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.
Posted by: Mack | November 15, 2009 10:51 PM
"moloch axis demoniacs"
So, we're all demonic lizards?
moloch |ˈmälək; ˈmōˌläk|
noun
a harmless spiny lizard of grotesque appearance that feeds chiefly on ants and is found in arid inland Australia. • Moloch horridus, family Agamidae.
I can get behind that. I like lizards.
Also, while I am american, I'm 25, so I'm, what, quarter-aged?
Posted by: KLT
|
November 16, 2009 12:39 AM
KnockGoats...let me ask you a question.
Do you believe a person is doing any service to humanity by hiding one Jewish family, but then voting and supporting a government which is at liberty to bomb an entire nation of them? or any nationality for that matter?
That's exactly what getting involved in politics entails. A person bears responsibility for the actions of their elected officials. Apprx 90% of the people who die during war are CIVILIANS. That's called MURDER.
And if everyone had been JW's the Nazi's would never have rose to power in the first place. When society cowers to the demands of a political power that wants full control of the populace, they are completely at their mercy. Being a law-abiding citizen is a positive thing...but not when man-made laws conflict with God's laws -by violating the rights of other human beings or causing them bodily harm.
If people spent as much time teaching the gospel (which helps solve the ROOT cause behind the problems society faces today) as they do preparing and engaging in political warfare, and spending trillions of dollars for a military to design weapons of mass destruction (which about 50% of the world's SCIENTISTS are employed doing) this world would be an entirely different place.
***Now*** lets change the original scenario to a more modern-day equivalent and see how YOU would act.
The armed forces representing a strong political entity...(like, oh lets say, the United Nations)...decides to suddenly wipe out all the Christians and 'believers' in general, because they feel that religion is having an adverse effect on society and they want complete political control over the nations without religious interference.
So in a completely swift political manuever that catches everyone off guard, the armed forces representing the U.N. begin seizing religious properties such as churches, synagogues, temples and mosques and closing them down. They then begin arresting the religious clergy, taking control of their financial accounts, confiscating all religious literature and Bibles.
They then pass a law prohibiting religious freedom or even belief in God (similar to what ACTUALLY happens when communist regimes take over, such as in China, N Korea, and the former USSR)
Only the most faithful and loyal religious believers fail to comply with this new law, because the rest of the population is in far too much fear of the new government at this point, to admit to believing anything other than what they are 'told to believe.'
So to make sure they haven't 'missed anyone' the officials representing the UN start tracking down all the confirmed atheists and agnostics and want to know the names and locations of anyone (both online and in person) who is actively associated with any religious organization so they can be taken into custody and 'reeducated'
The safety and freedom of you and your family rests on your response to their request. If you don't comply you will be charged with conspiracy and harboring 'a believer' and you may be taken to jail yourself. But you also know they are going to search your computer files and your home and will know if you are lying.
What will the average atheist do? What will you do? (notice that I didn't say *what if* I said *what will* you do.)
Posted by: Stanton | November 16, 2009 12:40 AM
Father Spammer is referring to "Moloch," the alleged Phonecian god to whom the Phonecians' numerous enemies, including the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews, alleged children were sacrified to. New archaeological finds and discussions suggest that "Moloch" or "MLK" may have been a kind of ritual sacrifice where human children were offered.
Posted by: Stanton | November 16, 2009 12:47 AM
KLT, that is an utterly absurd and ridiculous scenario: a truly pathetic and hamhanded attempt to manipulate Knockgoats or any other atheist into spouting something monstrous just so you can demonize him with.
I mean, honestly, a) the United Nations does not rule over its members, b) the United Nations seeks to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity, not perpetrate them, and c) how on God's bloody green earth do you expect the United Nations to enforce this, and why would any government comply with the mass murder of its citizens?
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 1:21 AM
KLT, your example is even more unlikely to happen than the Nazi achieving power.
Besides, if the JW's ran a country, it is a country that will fall into ruins within a couple of generation. Also, one hardly needed a population full of JW's to keep the Nazi's from coming to power. All that was needed was for Germany not having both the right wing and left wing fighting to destroy the Wiemar Republic.
Posted by: KLT
|
November 16, 2009 2:22 AM
In regard to RamblinDude's comment: "...the god of the bible is infamous for being a bloodthirsty tyrant. The book is full of episodes of God killing en masse and committing, and ordering, atrocities right and left with no more regard for human life than a Shepard has for sheep as he slaughters them to cull the herd." ...and to anyone else who mentioned this topic...
There were many accounts in the Old Testament that bothered me so much that I didn't understand the reason at first either. - until I researched it more thoroughly.
There's 4 important things to remember.
1. In Biblical accounts God NEVER kills indiscriminately, he ALWAYS gives advance warning, and ALWAYS spares righteous individuals. (such as the case with Lot and his family, and Rehab when Jericho was destroyed, etc)
2. The Bible is a historical record of events. (the actions of every person who is mentioned, aren't necessarily approved by God simply because they were recorded)
The Bible doesn't hide the serious mistakes of those represented in it - which in many instances were Israelites not acting in harmony with God's laws (such as idolatry or polygamy, which was only *tolerated* in some cases during that time period)
What makes the Bible unique is it's candor and honesty in that regard. The records of most ancient cultures are full of 'rewritten' history that presents a very 'peachy' one-sided view of events. -Not so with the Bible...it doesn't cover up the blunders of individuals, or the failings of the Israelite nation as a whole.
3. Y'all need to do a little research about the Canaanites. They practiced some seriously sick things including child sacrifice and incest. If you read Chapter 18 of Leviticus you'll wonder: "why did the Israelites need such specific laws on this gross stuff?" It's because all the surrounding nations practiced that and didn't think there was anything wrong with things which would be considered illegal or taboo in our society today.
So based on the fact that the Canaanites had some seriously gross and immoral practices such as pedophilia, incest, and bestiality, (among other things), you can see why the Israelites would need to be given such forceful, clear-cut regulations...so that those 'new laws' regarding clean moral conduct, would be firmly implanted in their minds PRIOR to entering the land of Canaan.
Think about it...If something carried the death penalty...how many people do you imagine actually broke that law? And as mentioned previously, the Israelites didn't have prisons. (only the 'cities of Refuge' for accidental killing)
4. Why did some of the Israelite laws seem so restrictive and harsh?
-Because the Israelites escaping from Egypt were a brand new nation...the didn't have a written constitution established, they didn't have prisons, they didn't have a police force to maintain law and order. They were starting from scratch.
So obviously if your traveling with a huge congregation of several million people you need a very detailed and strict law code and written record to look to for advice, which covers every aspect of life and worship, because they had spent their entire lives growing up in Egypt...where idolatry and incest were commonplace. So the living standards of Egypt as well as its religious practices were still fresh in mind at this point in time. And now this huge group of several million people are heading toward Canaan, where life and religious practices were even more degrading.
Plus, the Israelites weren't traveling alone...there were Egyptians who went with them during the Exodus and were now a part of the new Israelite nation. But those Egyptians had been raised and schooled in the customs, religion, and patriotism of Egypt. So without a strict law code (the majority of which applied only during that specific time period anyway...not to Christians today)...the situation would have been complete and utter chaos.
When it comes to the almost 'fussy' standards of cleanliness you have to remember that what may seem 'excessive' to us, was needed for that particular time period since they were traveling in the wilderness, and it's not like there were physicians and hospitals to go to if you came down with some serious illness. They had to take 'preventative health measures' to a degree which is unneccesary today. Even historians have acknowledged that "the statutes regarding diet, disease, quarantine, and treatment of dead bodies reveal a knowledge of facts not appreciated by worldly men of medicine until thousands of years later."
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 4:22 AM
#547
Posted by: KLT Author Profile Page | November 16, 2009 2:22 AM
"1. In Biblical accounts God NEVER kills indiscriminately, he ALWAYS gives advance warning"
Well that's okay then!
So if I give a warning to a load of jeebus clones that I was about to eradicate them like the cockroaches they are, I get a free pass from god, cos after all I am doing it like god?
That is a disgusting and puerile bit of crap and tripe I have ever seen, no wonder xians like the bloodlust, they have a get out cause!
"2. The Bible is a historical record of events."
No it is not...it used historical settings and previous myths and was not written all at once, most gospels are contradictory and all subject to revisionism.
It developed over a 1000years beginning 150 years after they apparently nailed a small time political terrorist to some wood!
There are no first hand accounts of the execution,it is not documented in any Roman account, which is a damning indictment because they registered everything and in detail, and certainly every single execution committed by the state, but not jeebus, maybe cos it never happened!
All is hearsay...i.e. legend!
It is inaccurate fiction with a few real places mentioned and a few personages fixed in the racial memory....like any work of fiction.
There is no evidence of jeebus...no Moses and very few clues as to the authenticity on any point in the tacky little pamphlet that incredulous fools wet themselves over!
That the Islamic Judaic and Christian versions share some aspects only means that they were all based on the same set of tales from way back before Canaanites were a twinkle in Yahweh's incredibly complex eye!
"3.Think about it...If something carried the death penalty...how many people do you imagine actually broke that law?"
Think about it... how successful is that strategy in the USA!
"4. So obviously if your traveling with a huge congregation of several million people"
Which is mentioned where?
and what evidence for that claim?
Exodus was written around the mid 5th century BC..some part were 9th or 10th century!
There is no archaeological evidence for a massed exodus, and a few million folks tramping living and farming in what was a desert is not a likely scenario anyway.
They would have to farm for so many...do you not think?
So bollocks sums up the points you made...try again!
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 4:31 AM
#547
"the statutes regarding diet, disease, quarantine, and treatment of dead bodies reveal a knowledge of facts not appreciated by worldly men of medicine until thousands of years later."
Again unfortunately bollocks the Egyptians were there a thousand years before...they were even doing brain surgery in the European Neolithic...so at least 8000 years before
beach bums were roaming around the middle east!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 5:06 AM
and then the "good" father asks us to join him and learn more?
No thanks, you aren't even evil. You are just another moron. I have piles of those already wanting to be my friend.
Posted by: Walton | November 16, 2009 5:16 AM
KLT,
I appreciate your attempt to offer a sensible and reasoned defence of the Bible, but I would criticise your remarks on several counts.
Firstly, there is no empirical evidence that the events in the Torah narrative actually happened in anything like their biblical form. The mass exodus of the Israelites from Egypt has not been verified with archaeological evidence, and is, indeed, thought by most archaeologists today to be improbable. Likewise, the "battle of Jericho" and the destruction of the Canaanite cities is unlikely to have happened in the manner described; the chronology just doesn't stack up against the archaeological record. Most historians are of the opinion that the Torah narrative was recorded in its present form, from several different oral traditions and sources, around 900 BC - many centuries after the events it purports to recount - so it is not surprising that it offers a distorted, mythologised account of actual events. It's rather like the Iliad and Odyssey in that regard. That certainly doesn't mean there's no historical truth in it, but we can't rely on it as an accurate and detailed account of events, and it certainly isn't evidence for the truth of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
As to the Mosaic law, I agree that it has to be judged by the standards of its time; while violent and barbaric, it was no harsher than most legal codes of the ancient world, and, as you say, the lack of effective enforcement machinery made barbaric punishments necessary. And the rules which seem arbitrary or morally offensive today reflected the widespread cultural mores of an ancient patriarchal society. That's fine, if we're studying it from a historical perspective. But what we find objectionable is when modern fundamentalist Christians point to these anachronistic provisions in the Mosaic code regarding homosexuality, as a justification for modern public policy on gay marriage and the like. It's as absurd as trying to copy provisions of the Roman Twelve Tables or the Code of Hammurabi into modern law. So if you're annoyed about people taking the Torah's prescriptions too literally, it's not atheists you need to be arguing with - it's the fundies.
Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 5:17 AM
god never kills indiscriminately? What was the Great Flood then?
Genesis Chapter 6 So YHWH said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."
Wiping out almost every single living being on the face of the planet doesn't rate as indiscriminate? Yeesh.
And the bible as a historical record? Above and beyond the fact that many of the stories have been categorically refuted by science (universe in 6 days, Adam and Eve, the flood, guy surviving inside a whale, etc and so forth) most of the stories found in the bible are bastardizations of other popular myths of various religions and beliefs.
A Sumerian creation myth, with a similar destruction of all living things, predated the bible by quite a few years. In this, Ea, god of the waters, warns a hero, Atra-hasis, and gives him instructions on building an ark. Hmm, sounds familiar somehow. The Greeks and the Mesopotamians also jumped on this bandwagon.
As for the Jesus myth - straight stolen from the Egyptian myths. The god Horus (who had the epithet "Savior") was born to the virgin Isis-Meri. He was the only sun of Osiris, his birth was heralded by the morning star, Sirius, ancient Egyptians used to parade a child representing Horus through the streets during the time of the winter solstice (does this sound familiar yet?), Horus was tempted by his rival, Sut, in the desert of Amenta, on a mountain, but he resists. After he died (by crucifixion), he was resurrected three days later.
Yes, yes, I see how teh bible is historical record, and not at all a cobbled together piece of junk which liberally usurps previous stories and incorporates them into its own doctrine.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 16, 2009 6:27 AM
Do you believe a person is doing any service to humanity by hiding one Jewish family, but then voting and supporting a government which is at liberty to bomb an entire nation of them? or any nationality for that matter? - KLT
I have always voted for parties supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament. I consider that although war is a great evil, it is sometimes the lesser evil. All your sophistry will not change the fact that if all non-Nazis - or even many of them - had behaved like the JWs, Hitler would have conquered the world. Your dishonesty will not allow you to admit this obvious truth.
Your "United Nations" scenario confirms that you are, literally, insane. The UN does not have any troops at its disposal, other than those lent - and recallable at any time - by its member states. Nonetheless I will answer your question:
What will the average atheist do? What will you do? (notice that I didn't say *what if* I said *what will* you do.)
Yes, I do note that - it further confirms that you are insane. Do you really not know of all the failed predictions your lunatic sect has promulgated?
There is no such creature as the "average atheist". I would consider the consequences of each possible course of action in the specific circumstances, and I hope have the courage to act to maximise the possibility of resistance to this tyranny and to protect those it seeks to persecute. While you, moron that you are, would follow your stupid rulebook.
BTW, I'm still waiting for your specific examples of JWs hising Jews from the Nazis.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 6:56 AM
It is a no-brainer it really is!
I would lie my ass off, and then some, to protect anyone that a totalitarian and vicious regime were looking for!
(Although I might have to dob in a few xians who tend to irritate rather then illuminate ;-))
But in all honesty, I would lie, whatever the religious or ethnic description would be...tis only the vacuous and immoral theists that would not lie apparently, which is strange considering all the lies they do perpetrate in the name of jeebus!
In fact AiG are exactly what they pretend they are not, intolerant cowards and racist bigoted bullies hiding behind biblical scripture.
So no change there then!
Posted by: Holydust | November 16, 2009 7:39 AM
I'm sure it's been said already, but remember:
even the truly good-hearted Christian would believe they were sending those people off to an eternity in Heaven with God.
....wait. some of them actually ignore the whole "the Jews are God's chosen people" thing, but. You know there's a chunk of them out there that would think that they were doing the family a favor by sending the Nazis after them.
and that's just tragic. Every day, people throw their one life away because they think there's something that comes after.
I know I sound mighty cynical saying that, but my comfort with the "we only get one life" notion is a whole 'nother can of beans, so...
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 16, 2009 8:12 AM
Images of Jesus and Mary flash before my eyes... Seriously sick things indeed.Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 16, 2009 8:15 AM
KLT,
How comforting to know that God spares righteous people like Lot, a man who was willing to toss his own daughters to the horde to “do with them whatever you like.”
And of course, it goes without saying that every single man, woman, child, and animal in Jericho deserved to be massacred by the sword until no living thing was left. Well, except, of course, for Rahab who made the massacre possible, and her family, who were all righteous, too.
And if you’re willing to take a knife and kill your own son on an alter like a sacrificial goat, like Abraham was, then that means your really righteous, praise the lord amen.
And I feel so much better knowing that when King David was so unrighteous as take a census of his people, the 70,000 god killed with a pestilence were all warned in advance and deserved it.
And how convenient that all those young nubile virgins were all so righteous that god wanted them saved when he ordered the slaughter of everyone else in so many of those other biblical massacres. Praise the Lord!
And too bad about all those babies who had their brains dashed out against rocks by God’s chosen people. I guess the little tots just weren’t righteous enough. Oh, well.
A word of advice KLT, many of us here grew up brainwashed and subjugated with this deathcult crap, and it was a willingness to face facts, a determination to get to the truth, that set us free. No one here is going to go back into that insane asylum of religion, and with every illogical—albeit heartfelt—post you write, defending the indefensible, you remind us why. You do not need to believe in the supernatural to be a moral, compassionate, happy person. (And do you really think that a nation of rational atheists would stand by complacently while any group tried to dominate and enslave the world? That a bunch of rabble-rousing skeptics—who resent and resist any form of mind-control—would cower in fear of authority, afraid to admit anything other than what they are “told to believe”? Really?)
Posted by: Willie Smokehouse Brown | November 16, 2009 9:14 AM
Stanton (moron) wrote:
"KLT, that is an utterly absurd and ridiculous scenario: a truly pathetic and hamhanded attempt to manipulate Knockgoats or any other atheist into spouting something monstrous just so you can demonize him with.
I mean, honestly, a) the United Nations does not rule over its members, b) the United Nations seeks to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity, not perpetrate them, and c) how on God's bloody green earth do you expect the United Nations to enforce this, and why would any government comply with the mass murder of its citizens?"
Funny HOW Papa Anglo Saxon was right all along about your 1/2 witts; an apology should be given forth to him for your rhetorical verbose you spouted above. (1)The United Nations are a puppet of the USA and what the US says goes.(2) If the UN prevented war crimes why the hell hasn't Kissinger ever been brought forth before a tribunal for his Vietnam antics; did you know he has a team of lawyers that check-up ahead of time to any country he may visit to make sure a stenographer and judge do not hold his behind to the fire and interrogate him for his war crimes participation?? Of course not Stanton, you're too bussy with your head up your arse to know that. Even George Bush Jr.'s planning of the 911 terror attacks; he'll NEVER see the inside of a courtroom in his lifetime. You, Stanton, on the other hand even talk out loud as a joke on the phone to your uncle jim in Phili about blowing something up and 2 squad cars full of moustachiod cops would be braking your door down and slapping you silly until you confessed to the Lindburg Kidnappings, 911 terror attacks and the JFK assasination. You revel in ignorance don't you Stanton? All the while pretending to be knowledgeable of course.(3) The US already has FEMA camps set up in all major cities to make sure that those morons (like yourself) who finally wish to overthrow the Tyranny that is Obama & the Fed and the rest of the moloch axis demoniacs they represent will be taken care of. You make 911 happen, blame it on some Arabs (7 of which are still walking ALIVE on the globe despite the US saying they were blown up in aeroplanes hitting the tower) and then pass the Patriot Act which is the most restrictive of human rights violations on the planet.
Stanton, you may be an old geezer but i firmly believe it's never too late to pull your brains from your arse!
Good luck with the rest of your sorry-life. These links will help clear up the cobb-webbs of your mind:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
http://www.infowars.com/
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 16, 2009 9:24 AM
Hey, FAX! Do you know what the difference between "atheists" and "followers of the occult" is?
Dance, trollboy! Dance!
The names of certain banned people are themselves banned (they trigger moderation). Just write some HTML into the middle of the word to get it through the filter.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Old joke among politologists: "Hey, let's pool our money and buy the UN!" The annual UN budget is a few million dollars. "Strong political entity"? I wish. They weren't even able to stop Captain Unelected from illegally invading Iraq.
Moron. :-D
Ah, so you've been trying to interpret the Revelation to John again? Dirty little secret: it cannot be interpreted, because there's nothing there to interpret. It's a mushroom trip. There is no "there" there.
Hey, and why the Revelation to John and not the Revelation to Thomas, the Revelation to Baruch (you know, the prophet Baruch is supposed to come back), or the Revelation to Pseudo-Methodius?
Nothing before 2 Kings is even supposed to be one.
There's archaeological evidence against a massed exodus.
Come on! Trepanation isn't brain surgery. It's merely skull surgery.
In its present form, with the Yahwist-Elohist and the Priestly texts interwoven? After the return from the Babylonian captivity. Perhaps by Ezra himself.
…or rather led people to think that, maybe, barbaric punishments might help.
First Dumuzi (Sumerian), then Atrahasis (older Babylonian), then Utnapishtim (later Babylonian).
Posted by: strangest brew | November 16, 2009 9:26 AM
High time a serial troll was incarcerated...preferably in shit...but an internet dungeon will do!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 16, 2009 9:37 AM
(Wow. It got through despite its four links.)
He's too stupid to do that.
Look, you might be able to convince me that he let it happen so he could be War President® already, as opposed to simply being too stupid to do anything about the notes lying around on his desk, but planning? Anything? That guy?
The real scandal lies elsewhere entirely: the heat-protective foam layer around the steel in the WTC was much thinner than allowed in NYC (because, you see, it was technically not in NYC, but on the territory of the harbor authority) and was missing entirely in some places. Never assume malice where stupidity would suffice.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
There's so much so obviously ridiculously wrong with that sentence, I don't even know where to start!
So you believe in demons? :-D :-D :-D Show us one. We're waiting.
So you've been stealing all the apostrophes from the English language! I was wondering!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 9:58 AM
Frenchie/WSB, you have a load of paranoia which we have no interest in sharing. Morphing is not approved here. Why don't you seek professional help for your mental health problems and conspiracy delusions?
Posted by: strangest brewn | November 16, 2009 9:59 AM
#599
"Come on! Trepanation isn't brain surgery. It's merely skull surgery."
But still involved a delicate...ish touch...7000years ago and most trepanation victims that are identified by the skulls excavated seem to have survived!
And there is nothing to say that damaged brain tissue from an accident or pissed off Mammoth... was not removed during such endeavours!
You say's tomayto... I say's tomaato!
Add to that Inca and Egyptian knowledge and later Greek and Roman know how...things look decidedly different then has been claimed.
Point is that medical procedures were fairly well advanced certainly at the time beach babes and bums were apparently gallivanting around the desert eating the mescaline soaked cacti or licking the toads even eating what mushrooms they found....just saying!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 16, 2009 10:09 AM
BWAHAHAHHAHA.....
This is more realistic scenario:
Ambassador Stages Coup at UN, Issues List of Non-Binding Resolutions
Posted by: Willie Smokehouse Brown | November 16, 2009 11:05 AM
NerdofRedder019er, why such anger?
You appear to have a fixation on mental illness. They say that those who continue to accuse others of being mentally ill are ill themselves.
Maybe you shoulg seek treatment because i hear they are doing woderful things in Mental facilities that could help you. I would be more than happy to arrange an appointment on your bahalf.
Papa Anglo Saxon, your student(s) have a great websit with even better links and music. Keep up the good work.
Have you heard of Alex Jones? This is the only reporter i have seen that cuts trought the bs and gets to the hart of the matter:
http://www.infowars.com/
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 11:14 AM
WSB, your misspelled and incoherent post tells us all we need to know about you. You are off your meds. You are very paranoid, and see the enemy everywhere. Don't worry, there is a nice basement, lined with tin foil, you can inhabit, and it has no internet connection to keep you safe from those internet viruses that seek to control your mind through your computer. You need to get there before the black helicopters touch down outside of your door...
Posted by: Willie Smokehouse Brown | November 16, 2009 11:26 AM
NerdofRedder019er, again, you are proving the point a few of us have made now for a few days, you are the mentally ill person here.
From what the specialists say, the sooner you seek treatment the better off you will be; from a lifestyle perspective at any rate, and you can get government checks for lodging as well so it would go a long way in helping you heal from within.
If it's any consolation NerdofRedder019er, i gave a dollar to the mental health association of America tin yesterday to do my part.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 11:34 AM
Willie, who is this we you are talking about? You and a bunch of sock puppets?
Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 11:40 AM
Janine does this look familiar?
Visitor c-98-206-107-19.hsd1.il.comcast.net
IP Address 98.206.107.19
Date 16 Nov, Mon, 09:31:52 Net Speed Cable/DSL
Organization Comcast Cable Browser Firefox 3
Continent North America Operating System Windows Vista
Country United States Screen Resolution 1280x1024
State / Region Illinois Screen Color 32 Bit (16.7M)
City Harvey
Javascript Enabled
The government knows all. Be afraid, be cery afraid.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 16, 2009 11:45 AM
google-ize "dura mater"
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 11:54 AM
What is your point, Mack?
Posted by: Shelly | November 16, 2009 11:56 AM
Janine if you are an OM, why are you making fun of the mentally ill? Does it make you feel superior? And that goes 4 the rest of you children in here 2.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 12:01 PM
?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 12:05 PM
Looks like our paranoid is morphing. If the case, I foresee the PZ hammer in the near future.
Shelley my child (you aren't an adult), if people decide to spew their illness all over this blog, it is public record, and they will be mocked. They can always stop posting. Or better yet, never post in the first place. But if they post, they will be challenged and mocked. If you don't like it, then you get them to stop posting. We are not going to change our response.
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 16, 2009 12:06 PM
Everybody loves the Father Anglo Saxon and his wisdom. I am genuinelytouched by your love (L)(L)(L).
Loving you all more & more (K)
Janine, call me at my University office & Sheila will set up lunch for us both. Hope you like Chinese :)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 12:13 PM
Ah, someone who believes a pile of shit is wisdom. As if this group would be taken in by that. Sounds like someone needs his teddy bear and a good nap.Posted by: Shelly | November 16, 2009 12:14 PM
Nerd of Redhead, you are just being silly. Moreover you are mocking people and saying that its fun? You are nuts man and that goes 4 the other goofs in here 2.
Making fun of people is wrong and you cant excuse it on any grounds. Maybe you should tale WSB advice and check yourself in, it may be your last hope for normalcy.
PS
You cant be an OM and mock people you silly rabbit. Excomunication is inevitable nes't pas?
Posted by: Father Anglo Saxon | November 16, 2009 12:23 PM
Red, that's not a bad idea. In fact, you can join me and we can cozy up together in my fluffy beard and join Janine for luch afterward. I hope you like Chinese :)
Loving you even more as each second clicks by (L)(L)(L)
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 16, 2009 1:03 PM
Damn those are some creepy trolls. And what the hell does (L)(L)(L) and (K) stand for anyway? Love and kisses? Creepy...
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 16, 2009 1:31 PM
Shelly. Shut up. You are an irritating little fool.
If we want your opinion on how to act we will ask for it... and we won't use numbers instead of words when we do so.
We do not molly coddle. They don't like it, they can leave.
Saxon, the topic is scripture and its interpretation. Dating sites are 10 a penny. This place is for the grown ups.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 1:36 PM
Richard, the fake father is not using this as a dating site. Who ever these fools are (Or it could be one fool.) is trying to needle the Nerd and me. I do not feel like playing this game.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | November 16, 2009 2:20 PM
So according to the psychotic, murderous, creepy, frantically morphing troll, we're not allowed to mock idiots?
Fuck that.
I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries!
Now go away, before I taunt you a second time!
Posted by: CJO | November 16, 2009 2:31 PM
2. The Bible is a historical record of events.
No it isn't. Not even remotely. The Bible is a massively composite collection of stories, set in a mythical past distant from its authors, that purports to be an account of the activities of a literary character named Yahweh derived from old polytheistic and henotheistic Canaanite myths. The perspective it is written from is an early universalist monotheism, and the old stories are merely the vernacular in which the authors chose to talk about God. Stories are stories. What is wrong with you that you can't see a story for what it is?
You might take note of all the contortions apologists need to go through to prop up the misguided contention that the Biblical texts relate even a self-consistent history, much less one that is consistent with empirical evidence. Leaving the obviously mythical events of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers aside for now, let me illustrate. If you really think the bible is a record of factual, historical events, tell me: when does Saul first meet David and under what circumstances does he find out that he is a son of Jesse? Do some contortions of your own if you like, but realize that in innumerable places in the texts, it is trivial to show that the best explanation for the contradictions and duplications is that we're dealing with a very different beast that any kind of record of historical events.
What makes the Bible unique is it's candor and honesty in that regard. The records of most ancient cultures are full of 'rewritten' history that presents a very 'peachy' one-sided view of events. -Not so with the Bible...it doesn't cover up the blunders of individuals, or the failings of the Israelite nation as a whole.
So it violates a universal of ancient "historical" writing, and that's evidence that that is in fact what it is? Sorry, that's a lousy argument. You've identified features of a literary tradition, one that spanned centuries, and so contains diverse voices, sometimes ones that are critical of other texts in the tradition and of the polytheistic traditions predating it.
3. Y'all need to do a little research about the Canaanites.
Where would you suggest we start? The Bible? What information do you have about them from anywhere else? Essentially nothing is known. From the perspective of Archaeology, Israelites were Canaanites, that is, we can talk about late Bronze Age settlement patterns or political organization and economic activity in the Levant, and there is no distinction to be made between "Canaanite" and "proto-Israelite," and from the perspective of ancient history the term is utterly vague. There was no such ethnic or political unit in the Late Bronze Age as far as is known. "A little research" is your problem in a nutshell. You need to do a lot.
Posted by: KLT
|
November 16, 2009 6:15 PM
The level of callousness and cruelty from some of the commentors on this message board is astonishing.
KnockGoats -If this is your criteria for how 'sane' people act...than count me 100% 'insane' because there is no hope for humanity if 'educated' & 'civilized' people believe it's ok to lash out with such hostile, verbal aggression at someone they don't even know. Or to show such a lack of regard and disrespect for the beliefs of another human being whose views differ from their own.
If that's the type of behavior you think would be acceptable in an 'ideal' society...than I'm afraid your idea of civilization looks more like a savage 'Lord of the Flies' reality to me.
If you study up on how communist/totalitarian/socialist societies rise to power, you'll find that removal of God and religion is the first step. So maybe you should show a little more respect for the people who've actually lived through it and know what they're talking about -because they've experienced the harsh reality of it.
And since you don't believe in Biblical 'myth' anyway, I'll fill in this one last detail about the prophecy I was refering to. The sudden rise in the trend towards atheism and hatred of God and religion isn't just 'coincidence'
One of the most significant prophecies for our time period is that the governments of the world DO turn on religion. (Revelation 17&18) why?
Payback. -For all the centuries of meddling in politics, sanctioning holy wars, bloodshed of the innocent, violent persecution, and the economic oppression, & exploitation of the people,...all while hypocritically claiming to represent God. You don't have to believe that, but that's what is written in 'the book' -which has accurately foretold the downfall of nations, and the details of other major events in ancient history, hundreds of years in advance.
And BTW...the UN has been 'promising' disarmament and peace from it's founding in 1945. No, even longer than that...from the time it was initially established as the League of Nations 90 years ago.
***All promises. No delivery***
Why is it, that the worlds most powerful nations and rulers, along with the backing and support of the secular world, and the leaders of all the 'major' religious denominations, haven't been able to accomplish what one little minority 'sect' (as you would refer to it) has managed to? Eradication of nationalism & ethnic prejudice, and a well-established international peace and unity among it's members (with a history of loyalty to that stand, even in the face of death, imprisonment, and the most severe persecution).
So whose the failure??? We must be doing something right.
I'm way off topic now, and I never meant this to turn into an informercial for my religion, so back to the original point I was trying to make...It's wrong to make harsh, judgemental assumptions about all Christians, or how they would act in a certain situation, based on reading something about one Christian group (as if it represents all of us) Some of us 'fundies' have quite differing beliefs...some of us don't believe in pagan doctrines like the Trinity, or Hellfire & Damnation, don't believe the earth was created in 6 literal days, and actually try to practice what we preach.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 16, 2009 6:21 PM
KLT,
You don't appear to be interested in considering atheism, so you have become somewhat of a chew toy. We don't respect proselytizers here and that should encourage you to take your proselytizing elsewhere.Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 16, 2009 6:28 PM
If you don't like our tone, leave. Our tone won't change. Idiocy, like yours, will be called out.Here is an example of your idiocy. How can atheists hate something they don't believe in. Indifference is the worst you can say. But then, you haven't shown evidence for your deity, which means you shouldn't be using it in an argument.Bull Fucking Shit. We know godbots. And why they are stoopid.Then you need to get control of the Xians that are appropriately receiving the harsh judgmental treatment, and rein them in. Until you do so, you will be inadvertently lumped with them. Your choice.You deity doesn't exist, and your babble is fiction/myth, and you are a delusional fool. If you don't like my attitude, you are free to quit posting.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 16, 2009 6:45 PM
Some fucking dolt cried:
That sounds familiar for some reason. Oh, yeah:
90 years is one thing, but ~2000? What, is he still trying to scrape up bus fare?
No matter. At any rate, I'd like to draw your attention to a quote attributed to Jesus Christians such as yourself always seem to miss:
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM
|
November 16, 2009 6:51 PM
Is pointing out the fact that you believe in things for which there are no evidence - because of your emotions - and then try to concoct intellectual-sounding arguments to defend that emotional decision 'harsh and judgemental'? Because doing so seems fair, accurate and intellectually honest to me.
Don't want to be ridiculed? Stop holding ridiculous beliefs.
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 16, 2009 6:53 PM
You mean like how we have a spamming, racist lunatic-cum-moron who posts word salads intended to be insults, or how you're trying to unsubtly coach people into giving you responses that will enable you damn them as anti-theist monsters?Posted by: Knockgoats
|
November 16, 2009 7:05 PM
KnockGoats -If this is your criteria for how 'sane' people act...than count me 100% 'insane' - KLT
Oh, I do, KLT, I do. Batshit insane, as people say around here. Completely Finchley (i.e., two stops beyond Barking) as I generally prefer. A loon. A nutter. A fruitcake. A psycho. Stark staring bonkers. Bats in the belfry. Shit-for-brains. A screw loose. Away with the fairies. Several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Have I made myself clear?
Posted by: CJO
|
November 16, 2009 7:09 PM
Is Barking a London underground stop? That's awesome. I saw when you called someone else Finchley, and I confess I had no idea what you meant (well, I knew what you meant, but I didn't get the reference).
Posted by: Stanton
|
November 16, 2009 8:14 PM
Then tell us, KLT, why are you so hesitant to practice what you're preaching on and on and on and on about?Why should we give you any respect if you have no desire to earn it, nor do you seem interested that Bodie Hodge freely admits that he would not dare contaminate his relationship with God with things so vulgar like human compassion or common sense? We get the impression that you're not only a similarly callous Christian, but, you're also a conspiracy nut who can't make up his mind whether he hates the UN for being a bunch of sad sacks who can't accomplish anything because they're not Christian enough, or whether he hates them for being the implacable cat's paws of the Antichrist.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
November 16, 2009 8:55 PM
KLT,
If you study up on how
communist/totalitarian/socialisttheocratic/totalitarian/ hierocratic societies rise to power, you'll find thatremovalthe addition of God and religion is the first step.Posted by: Mack | November 16, 2009 9:53 PM
I just wanted to say sorry to Janine, regarding post 569. I started posting here recently, and I didn't realize that other people, like the morphing father, could hijack the fucking name I use. Wasn't me, it was the fucked up jebus wack a doodle, FAX.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 16, 2009 10:13 PM
Thank you, Mack. That is one of the problems with using a common name as a moniker. For example, for a while there was a Barb who was this silly fundamentalist. She was banned a while back. Now there is an other Barb who is much more sensible. But I am sure it through some people off at first.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
November 16, 2009 10:22 PM
someone is talking about things she quite evidently has no clue about.Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 4:48 AM
-The level of callousness and cruelty from some of the commentors on this message board is astonishing.-
It is callous to call someone out when they spew complete bollocks? Well, i suppose no-one likes being told they are wrong.
Let us know when you leave "petulant child" mode. We may take you more seriously.
Posted by: yiab.pip.verisignlabs.com
|
November 17, 2009 11:28 AM
I am astonished that neither PZ nor the imbecile writing for AiG noticed the perfectly obvious evasion of both "sins":
Tell the Nazi patrol that you do know where there are some Jews, but that you're not going to give away their location. "I don't want to tell you" is neither lying nor aiding murder.
It could, however, be considered a form of suicide, as the next likely action of the Nazi patrol would be to beat you, take you into custody, beat you some more, and eventually kill you.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 1:15 PM
Since it gets you tortured and killed, and since your admission will make them search even harder for said jews they probably decided it wasn't exactly a brilliant plan.
You are easily astonished it seems.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | November 17, 2009 3:32 PM
Wow. That has got to be the most evil example of Christian "morality" I've seen since, well, yesterday, when I saw this on another forum:
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=49144&page=3
(Not an atheist forum, but a Warhammer 40k one).
In an off-topic discussion about Christianity, someone pointed out the inconsistency (and moral bankruptcy) of God giving the commandment "Thou shalt not Kill", and then having Moses kill thousands of Israelites after the Goldn Calf incident.
The Xian who had started the thread responded with this:
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 5:48 PM
That reminded me of something I had heard before. It was a woman talking about how her husband beat her when she did something wrong. Everything had to be perfect otherwise it was her fault that he hit her. Always her fault.
But he loved her lots and lots.
Posted by: Kraynium
|
November 18, 2009 1:23 AM
Obvious sign of defective thinking.
Also, the overwhelming majority of Nazi's were either Catholic or Protestant.
The 'Answers in Genesis' moral lesson seems more like anti-Semitic rhetoric than a study in good christian behavior.
Free thinking really is free, costs nothing.
Posted by: Sherman | November 18, 2009 4:39 PM
So the gist of the moral lesson is to shove responsibility onto Jesus, plug your ears and go lalala while the Jew dies. Very moral argument.
I wonder what my mom would say (She's a fundie... I'll have to ask her!)
Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2009 6:59 PM
As a christian the answer should be obvious. Telling the truth and telling where this hypothetical Jewish family are don't need to be synonymous. Consider this, when asked where the are hiding the reply could just as easily be, I know where they are but I won't tell you. Morally speaking this is the obvious choice for any non-christian but the means of achieving the result are uniquely christian when the truth is applied. I understand that the hypothetical christian would possibly be tortured and killed but that is the calling of a servant of Jesus. Life is fleeting, heaven is eternal.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 23, 2009 7:05 PM
Matt #603 wrote, "Life is fleeting, heaven is eternal." So why not end it right now? I mean, that is obviously a fatuous statement of you to make. It only serves suffering and death.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 7:11 PM
"Everyone wants to go to heaven, nobody's in a hurry to get there." -Old Irish proverb
Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2009 7:17 PM
The question in #604 assumes life is meaningless. That is completely against christian perspective.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 23, 2009 7:20 PM
Dear Brother Matt,
Yes!
Yes, yes, yes!
You are so right.
This earthly toil is but a poor waiting room before we embark on our eternal odyssey with Jesus, throwing off the shackles of time to spend forever and ever and ever amen worshiping at the knee of the old bloke with the long beard.
What care I for the suffering of myself, my fellow men and women, other animals, yea even the planet itself when Christ awaits me around the corner of the grave?
Let the globe overcook and destroy life, it is as Jesus would have it!
Let people suffer and die of curable conditions, my goal is paradise!
Let ignorance abound and discrimination rule, God's law is just and I don't give a fuck if 99.9% of humanity burns eternally in hell as long as I am OK!
Bring on Armageddon, give us more plagues Lord we pray, destroy the earth in your Holy and wonderful name Jesus!
Just one problem, Matty. I have a direct line to God and He told me in no uncertain terms that you and your deluded ilk have got the wrong end of the religious stick and now you're going to get beaten with it.
Sad to say, you're going to hanker after this terrible present with all its imperfections when your testicles are slow roasting on Hell's eternal griddle. You'll think back to this fallen world with its oceans, mountains, rivers, lakes, fields, and flowers and discover that the only taste of paradise you'll ever have was back here right now. Then you'll wish you'd paid more attention to the smiles of friends, the laughter of children, the smell of cut grass and the sound of birdsong, and much less to a silly version of the afterlife invented by bronze age people frightened of death.
See the short straw, Matty? It's the one you're wasting your life praying to.
Yours in Christian concern for your foolishness
Smoggy
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 23, 2009 7:29 PM
Matt wrote,
You said it was. You called life "fleeting" and compared it to "eternity". Are you proposing that a fleeting moment is worth more than an eternity?
Smoggy has already schooled you on this, but I would like to add that your final comment in #603 belies the fact that Christians know life is all there is and fear meeting their maker (a euphemism for dying, not literal). It is why taking a bullet for Jesus is not something done on a whim by Christians, and also why they have no real qualms about telling the Nazis where the Jews are hidden (once life is over, it's over; there is no sky daddy awaiting).Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2009 7:56 PM
You have both assumed based on your own previous ideas of christianity what a christian life must look like. I am sorry Smoggy but for all your insults you only show your lack of understanding. The world is an incredibly beautiful place and should be cherished and protected, that is christian perspective. Everyone should be going out into the world and improving the lives of those who are downtrodden, that is christian perspective.
Assume for a minute you are both right and Christians are way off track with the whole God thing. Well you should both be supportive of the good deeds done in the name of God at the very least.
I am sorry if you have some sort of horrible Christian image in your mind, that is probably because someone calling themselves Christian hurt you in some way. I'd love to set any other misconceptions you have straight. Or, if you are open minded enough, you can read for yourself of the perfect christian example of Jesus in Matthew Mark Luke and John in the new testament of the Bible. I know you probably hate the bible and consider it all lies, but even atheists agree the principles of the bible are worth consideration.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
November 23, 2009 8:26 PM
Matt #609,
Then explain proselytizing. Explain why Christians more often than not attempt to force people into joining in the faith rather than simply helping improve people's lives (note: the assumption is that people's lives do not extend past death).
Thank you for allowing that assumption. Many Christians are completely unable to give that much for sake of argument. Likewise, I do support good deeds that Christians do and I think it would be fair to say that most atheists do too. But slapping a contract of faith on a good deed can render it neutral or even turn it evil. So let's qualify a good deed done in the name of the Christian god as one that is given freely with no strings attached and no expectation of belief modification on the beneficiary's part, then we can all be supportive.
Christian religions often demand (by authority of scripture, divinity, or revelation) that followers commit evil deeds (evil in that they cause suffering in recipients or have negligible to negative efficacy but are falsely claimed to work wonders). So we get horrible things like Christians saying that Jews should be ratted out to death squads because lying is forbidden. Such inanity doesn't just hurt non-Christians, it hurts humanity.
I hate how the Bible is used by Christians to support evil actions, but I consider it to be a collection of fictional stories — not lies. Some parts are moving and worth reading, but there is no core principle in the Bible of any greater value for humanity than you can find in most other works of fiction.Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2009 8:41 PM
To address your first and second comments I would like to say I agree, most Christians do try to force faith into their good deeds. To understand that you must understand our perspective. We believe we have truth and everyone needs to hear it, wrong or right, we feel we have something incredibly valuable to share. Thus we try our best to get other people in on it so they can share what we have experienced. This can be misguided but to be honest it is because we care. Most if not all christians feel God's presence in their life, and its an amazing thing, perhaps it is some biological reaction, but perhaps it is something more and I am obviously for the latter.
For the final two points I would like to say that I agree with what your saying, I also hate it when the bible is used by so-called christians for evil, or by religious groups saying they are christian to incite acts of evil. To be honest, it just makes my life a whole lot harder. I try to follow the life of Jesus, religion doesn't cut it. To truly understand my faith, you have to know who Jesus is and was.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 8:48 PM
Lie 1.Lie 2.Lie 3, you have presented no physical evidence for a deity. Just presupposition. You have nothing cogent to say.Perfect example, when can we schedule your crucifixion?Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 9:05 PM
How utterly arrogant. You folk have The Truth™ and you insist on inflicting it on the rest of us.
One thing you and other Christians don't understand and certainly don't accept is most of the rest of us don't need your Jebus. We don't have a god-shaped hole in us that needs filling.
When you witness to an atheist, the person whom you are addressing does not believe there is a God. Therefore, any information about God, Jesus, the trinity, redemption, Heaven, Hell and all the other stuff you believe falls on deaf ears. To put this in other terms, you're attempting to sell a concept for which there is no proof other than the beliefs of people who have spread the word before you.
Whether you like it or not, whether you accept it or not, the fact remains you're attempting to convince someone that something they cannot see, feel, hear, or otherwise partake of any empirical evidence of its existence, exists. Regardless of how much you believe in the story and how much it has affected your life, we do not.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 9:09 PM
Oh yes we can.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 9:10 PM
The problem is that no-one knows who Jesus was, or even if he actually existed. All you can do is make up a story about him, and claim that it's true, despite lacking evidence.
This is the problem that every Christian has, and has had, going back to before Paul of Tarsus came around and started telling everyone else that he knew who Jesus was. Except he was making it up too.
And the really sad thing is that if Christianity were true, there would be no argument whatsoever. A benevolent God that existed could easily tell every person on Earth exactly who Jesus was, all the time, in every age.
The silence has been deafening.
The religious arguments and wars have been horrific.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 23, 2009 9:12 PM
Oh goody, a live one !!
Fixed that right up for ya Matty.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
November 23, 2009 9:13 PM
I mock people a lot. I got my OM in part for my mockery.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 23, 2009 9:16 PM
Dear Brother Matt,
Don't come the liberal Christian with me. I'm God's anointed missionary on this blog and I've got it direct from the big guy that your distorted reading of His holy book is a sad tissue of wishy washy fabrications. True Christians hate gay people, they think women should be subject to male needs and male desires, that slaves are condoned in scripture, and that only sinners don't burn fossil fuels.
We all know that when the end times cometh God is going to punish the wicked, and there's no reason to try and sugar coat that. I'll be getting through the fires with my coat tails singed, but most of the rest of you won't. It might suit you to say that God is love, but you clearly haven't read much of the TRUE Bible. Yahweh is old and angry and divine wrath trumps asinine beatitudes any day.
My ideas are based on a present day experience of present day Christianity. I believe, as the great Sarah Palin does, that we are just counting down to Armageddon, and while we're waiting we should do our best to persecute witches. You think it's clever trying to deny the truth of my divine revelation, but Jesus died to save me, God is my rock, and the Holy Spirit comes in my heart on a regular basis. So take your lukewarm faith and shove it up your arse and see whether that doesn't stifen your spine a bit.
Be warned Mattpuke, you lukewarm believers will know all about it when the day of judgement comes! This is God's earth and we True Christians (tm) can destroy it in His holy name if we want to. Don't you dare tell people good deeds were done in the name of God! Burning, torture, inquisition, pogrom, crusade and Billy Graham were all perpetrated on the suffering earth in the name of God. Any good that accidentally occurred was simply an unfortunate side effect. The present is hell and should be treated as such, it's Paradise we look forward to with anticipation.
Call yourself a Christian! Go fuck yourself in the name of our Lord and Savior you lukewarm pile of cherub-vomit
Smoggy Batzrubble
DIVINELY APPOINTED MISSIONARY TO THE ATHEISTS
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2009 9:16 PM
Poor Matt, he doesn't seem to understand that many of us grew up xian, but then we did the dastardly deed of reading the babble cover to cover, and saw what a capricious amoral gang lord Yahweh was. Then we looked for other evidence, and it wasn't there. The whole xian religion rests upon fables, including Jebus.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 23, 2009 9:21 PM
Like buggery you can't. I certainly didn't get mine for my wealth of esoteric scientific knowledge; my weapon is snark, snark and logic. Er, my two weapons are snark and logic, logic and snark and an almost fanatical...
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 9:24 PM
I like how you're playing down the whole "hell" thing. Like it's way down there on the priority list. You would think it would be #1 on the list, since it involves eternal torture and agony and stuff, like forever dude. I think maybe you just feel stupid about it because you can't pray for Jesus to abolish hell, lest you might end up there yourself. :D Otherwise, why wouldn't anybody pray for Jesus to abolish hell? I can't think of a good reason why not.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 9:35 PM
Wowbagger - You got your OM on cuteness. Don't be bashful!
Works for me, I got mine for brass bosoms.
It's all good until the BigDumbChimp chimes in for show and tell... Moccus only knows what sort of bacon he'll pull out.
Posted by: Matt | November 23, 2009 9:53 PM
#615
A lot was said but I would like to address one or two things in particular. Historians agree Jesus was real. The Bible is not the only ancient text that speaks of him and his works. The controversy isn't in his existence it's in his significance.
#613
It is pretty arrogant, I don't deny that I believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven. However, I don't try to force it on anyone. It's my belief, you can hear it but you don't have to believe it.
As a concluding note I am surprised at the hostility to discussion on this forum. I understand you disagree but please try to be respectful. Ill try to answer questions you have as best I can.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 23, 2009 10:06 PM
Wrong - some historians believe otherwise. Don't believe the hype.
Actually, it is. No reliable document outside the bible mentions Jesus existing - and even the bible itself is inconsistent on the issue.
Perhaps you should look at how you've presented yourself here. Many of the posters are ex-Christians who know far more about the topic than you ever will, yet you assume that the reason we don't share your beliefs is ignorance when it's not; we reject your arguments because we know and understand them, not because we've never encountered them.
Repeating the same tired and oft-debunked excuses isn't going to cut it here. If you can come up with something novel then maybe you won't face the same wall of disdain.
Posted by: Rick R | November 23, 2009 10:08 PM
"We believe we have truth and everyone needs to hear it, wrong or right, we feel we have something incredibly valuable to share."
This never fails to crack me up. You god botherers feel we heathen have never heard the One True Word of the Lawd™ even though we live in a god-soaked culture where christianity is a prerequisite in many social situations (and try to get elected to public office without beating your chest over how much you follow the lawd). Seriously, we are inundated with your myth 24/7/ 365.
We've HEARD it. Really. You can stop now, OK?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 23, 2009 10:10 PM
Which historians agree that jezus was real? That's horse pucky. Matt we've heard all this crap before. It's old.
Hostility? This is Pharyngula bub, we suffer no fools gladly.
Put up or shut up. Show us your god.
Posted by: Ken Cope | November 23, 2009 10:14 PM
I understand you disagree but please try to be respectful.
Are you daft? Did you sincerely expect atheists to be respectful of Christianity's crock of lies? A fair number of us were never brainwashed into one flavor or other of that idiotic over-sized cult, but a great many more of us became apostates after learning enough to question it, and are all much happier for having rejected it.
As for being respectful, while you appear to subscribe to some watered-down flavor of Xtian Kool-Aid that de-emphasizes the icky parts, your beliefs are worthy of nothing better than mockery. In the same sense that I respect your right to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that belief, or point of view, is in no way entitled to our respect; it is a measure of our respect for you that we believe you would want us to correct you if we heard you saying things out loud that aren't true; if you found out we hadn't tried to correct you, you'd have to infer that we didn't respect you.
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 23, 2009 10:24 PM
They do not. I am not sure that those who think he was not real are correct; indeed, I can think of some good reasons why he probably was real -- but you won't like them.
There's a couple of mentions in Josephus -- one of which most historians agree was faked by much later Christian copyists. There's also Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny.
I think that's about it, in the first century AD. None of the writers were actually contemporary with Jesus' alleged lifespan.
It is indeed both. But the arguments (that I thought of) in favor of existence are very much against significance.
I'm afraid you will find that many have seen far too many Christian apologists come and go, and their patience wears thin after seeing such familiar arguments repeated.
You might try thinking of it as your cross to bear, as it were. Address arguments rather than language or tone, and you should be fine.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus | November 23, 2009 10:46 PM
Dear Brother Matt,
Perhaps if I use an analogy that might resonate with you, you will understand where atheists are coming from.
The sort of respect they are giving you is the same sort of respect Jesus gave the moneychangers in the temple when he overturned their tables and threw them out. To atheists, religious believers are cluttering up the foyer of this wonderful temple of a world, peddling their nasty little wares and acting as petty gatekeepers. If they were all thrown out the world would be a cleaner, freer, happier place.
And what do the religious money changers gate keep against? The right of every person to enter into marriage with someone they love; the right of every person to be treated equally regardless of gender; the right of consenting adults to determine their own mode of sexual relations; the right of children to be educated rationally, with an emphasis on thought and discovery; the right of all to participate equally in the democratic process without irrational belief in a supernatural deity for which there is no true evidence being a criteria for holding public office, and so on.
You come here, Matt, cloaked in the insulting certainties of your assumptions about the atheists—how we have been 'hurt' by someone who wasn't really a Christian, how we don't really understand the Bible, how we have never been blessed with your degree of revelation and illumination—and you expect civility?
You arrogantly assume you've sat through more sermons than we have, that you've read more of the bible than we have, that we haven't grappled with issues of faith and belief as you have. Ex-preachers comment here, ex-churchgoers comment here, people who have read and re-read the bible comment here, graduates of Bible colleges comment here, people who have been religious for decades before freeing themselves from those mind forged manacles comment here.
You have no monopoly on religious experience, in fact yours seems shallow by comparison with many people who comment here. The difference between you and many of us is that we have gone that step further than you: you don't believe in any God except your one true god; we don't believe in your god either. As far as we're concerned your God is no different to Thor, Re, Zeus or Hermes.
It's time to put away childish things Matt. Let go of your culturally conditioned beliefs. Look at the map and wonder for a moment why you weren't born a Hindu in India or a Moslem in Iran. Your religion is a cultural manifestation, it dates back to the bronze age, and in this modern world it is irrelevant and redundant. We don't need it to be moral; in fact we all believe that without the distortions of Christianity the world would be more moral.
At least, that's what I'd tell you if I wasn't completely convinced that for some bizarre, logic-defying reason Jesus was crucified for my sins and that one day I'm going to be with him in heaven while most everyone else suffers eternal torment.
Smoggy
AMEN
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 11:15 PM
Of all the things Matt would like to address, he would like to address one or two things that go down an irrelevant rabbit hole.
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 11:23 PM
Matt is still downplaying the "hell" thing, as if it shouldn't be the #1 thing at the top of the list of things to worry about, and as if wouldn't be an act of kindness to pray for Jesus to abolish hell.
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 11:29 PM
Hey Matt, do you think the Devil would be happy if you prayed for Jesus to abolish hell? Or do you think he would be sad?
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 11:33 PM
How about Jesus. If Matt prayed for Jesus to abolish hell, would Jesus be happy? Or would it make Jesus cry?
Posted by: 386sx | November 23, 2009 11:37 PM
If the Devil and Jesus are both anti hell abolitionists, then hey at least they agree on something! They don't agree on very much at all, you know. At least they can agree on eternal torment and pain.
Ergo, eternal punishment is neither good, nor evil. It's entirely morality neutral.
Posted by: Bahamude | November 30, 2009 2:28 PM
It is an evil man who commits an act to clear his conscience while enabling an act of murder. This kind of justification is exactly how the devil would want the bible used: Without conscience and without morals.