An atheist group put up the billboard in a racially diverse neighborhood in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, angering Civil Rights activists who called for its removal. Rev. Joe Watkins discusses.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Unfortunately, if you go to the atheist.org website or many other strong atheist sites, they are just as filled with hate-mongering and twisted viewpoints as most religions, and a lot of incorrect assumptions about what many of the holy bible scriptures actually mean.
Regarding the bible, which the atheists quote in their billboard, unfortunately there is way too much misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and other issues with most who believe or argue its passages.
The bible even states that some of the ideologies and rules within it are not from “God” (whoever that specifically refers to), but were allowed/put in place due to the hardness of men’s hearts.
It’s not hate mongering. It’s pointing out how atrocious and vile the bible is.
Those hate mongers are the people that first got slavery outlawed in Europe for Christians. It was the we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and you don’t make a slave of your brother or sister thing.
Then they got it outlawed over most of the planet for everybody.
It’s the do unto others as you would have them do unto you thing.
Unfortunately as Christianity wains it kind of looks like slavery may be making a come back and of course it never got completely stopped.
But don’t feel bad atheist did introduce Communism. Okay that was supposed to improve things but….somehow it just never seems to work out that way.
who decides which parts mean what?
The fact of the matter is that monotheistic religions have caused great suffering and loss of life, regardless of their “good” intentions. By exposing the negative aspects of organized religion, some atheists, and people of other beliefs, [I can assume] hope to change religion for the better, not destroy it. If people like the Westburro Baptist Church, did not exist, and did not create rules that impede the freedom of people outside their group for no damn reason besides vindicating themselves, then there would be no need to occasionally put down religion.
A perfect world may very well include religion, but it would have to change. Change is not bad. Let me say that again: CHANGE IS NOT BAD.
I think there are several million dead people that would argue that Communism wasn’t very good for their health. -The fact of the matter is- People will always find a reason to kill one another in large quantaties. Blaming religion for historical woes only shows how much sleep you got in history class.
Well, yeah sure, that is true. The Nazi regime is another example for your argument. But trying to change religion to something that promotes acceptance of others, rather than oppression, is a much more obtainable goal than changing human nature. If religion can become more tolerant, that means that those who follow it will likely BE more tolerant. Blaming human nature is just shifting the blame onto something we can’t control, rather than taking responsibility for our, and our peers actions.
My point is that Communists, according to Marx, are atheists. Maybe your time is better served striving toward the obtainable goal of helping Communists accept others, embrace tollerance, etc.
@thatsmychin Wait… what? That has nothing to do with this. That’s like saying that everyone who has a car has run someone over. You are making VERY loose connections that just don’t make sense. Besides: Communists have nothing to do with this to begin with Mr. RedScare.
*sigh* well I can’t stay angry, and I’m not going to insult you. You spent the time to read my post, thanks. But I can’t help but feel that you’re not grasping the same picture I am. Communists aren’t a part of this argument, but sure, I’ll go there:
Communism works [in my experience] on a small scale with a group of people who trust each other, and will not wrong each other. But tends to fall apart on larger scales. So I don’t support it as a governmental system, but that doesn’t mean that all Communists are bloodthirsty bandits who just want to conquer everything… at least no more than the res of us. Sure, North Korea is anything but a role model, but China seems to be doing pretty damn well right now besides overpopulation. But the overpopulation issue is due to part of Chinese culture, not Communist culture. Shall I go on..?
You said: “monotheistic religions have caused great suffering and loss of life”
I am saying: Atheist states have caused great suffering and loss of life of the religious.
Atheists in power have been as intolerant as anyone else in power. A perfect world had better include religion, because if it doesn’t…it means the religious were all killed off.
(I don’t know what you thought I was arguing, but I was attempting to punch holes in your initial ‘Big Picture’ premise: Religion has been bad and needs to change). If Atheism has been just as bad, do we really want to move in that direction? Does anyone really believe that organized atheism really just wants to make organized religion more tolerant? ‘Cause the movement over the last 50 years has faith literally contained within the walls of the home and church.
The most vocal and intolerant group on the internet is by far the atheists. So many random discussion forums, comment sections, blogs out there where the subject is on faith, or even as innocent as someone mentioning church in passing….it soon becomes difficult to classify atheists as tolerant.
Well, alright, it’s true that organized atheist groups are not tolerant… of intolerance. They may be rude at times, and to someone who is religious, they certainly would seem spiteful, rude, and intolerant. And they are. But not entirely without reason. I’m not a part of them, so I can’t speak for them, but I don’t hate religion- I hate what people occasionally does in the name of a god, who if exists would have nothing but disappointment and scorn in his heart for people like the Westburro Baptist Church.
I’m not even totally atheist, I’m agnostic. Basically I plan to act morally, and try to prevent suffering/inequality/poverty/etc. and just hope for the best when I die. I think that the all these arguments on God, and what the bible really means, are pointless when you can’t possibly expect to understand the true intentions of a being like Yahweh (god).
“it’s true that organized atheist groups are not tolerant… of intolerance”
If you believe this, then it seems you have alread picked your side. You and millions of other sheeple have fallen for the few organized atheists that mounted a crafty campaign to portray anyone other than them that believes in something as intolereant. To believe in something means that you would disapprove of something else. The left qualifies this a intelerance.
In reality disapproval is not intolerance, I dissaprove of my son’s behaviour on a daily basis, I not only tolerate him, I love him. I do set boundaries, punishment, and reward. Similarly, people of faith love those they dissaprove of. They don’t drive them away, they embrace anyone outside the community. It’s the basis of their faith for pete’s sake!
You may be able to point to an aberration here and there on our side (the Amish and Mennonites can be very skeptical of outsiders), and WBB consitsts of one family…..if you want to lay the cards on the table, Communists are responisble for tens of millions of deaths in the name of Marxism. Atheism being a core belief. They are very real, very fresh events that have taken place in only the last 100 years.
When your world view is ‘survival of the fittest’ what will the fit do? Survive at all costs. Kill the faithful, kill the subversive, kill the weak, imprision the non-producer to encourage production.
Taking all of that in, along with current laws and litigation against people of faith, is it intolerant Communists or intolerant atheists?
What will happen in the US when atheists have the majority rule? Do you really think a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality will result in compasion for those that get under their skin?
Wow, sounds like you really don’t like atheists, or at least organized atheists. In any case let me just make this clear: not all atheists are communists, and not all communists are atheists.
Meh, that’s still not what I’m trying to say… Hmm. Well in any case, I have absolutely no problem with your faith, so long as you really do just disapprove with love still in your heart. That’s my own line of thought for the most part. And my point earlier was that I just wish that all people of faith were like that. But they aren’t.
I know that people of faith are not like this for the most part, but they can have tendencies like this sometimes without realizing it. Anyone could, of course, but the bible has several self-contradictions, and the language doesn’t always make perfect sense, so there is room for misinterpretation. But let me just put this out for the record: Jesus was awesome, I do believe he existed, not that he was the son of god, but that he was a spiritual visionary much like Gandhi, and that the world is better because he existed.
However: “holy” wars have been started in the name of God, and killed, and although I know they just tacked on the “holy” part to get the citizens aboard. More people have been killed because a difference in religion, religions that both claimed that what they taught was the absolute truth, and that if someone said otherwise, then they were wrong, and worth less as a person. I know that for the most part, this kind of thing is itself disapproved of in third-world countries. And that you surely don’t believe that people who are gay, or bi aren’t going to hell because of that, but some do. But many still do, and spur, or justify the bullying of those people who have a different sexuality.
So although many spiritual people promote acceptance, and understanding, there are also many who do the opposite. That is what I believe the atheist groups are attacking, not people like you.
But I don’t think you are giving humans the credit they deserve. We are capable of understanding right and wrong without religion guiding us. You seem to think that all Atheists have stock in the survival of the fittest as a factor in how we live our lives. We don’t. We have a very similar concept of compassion. We’re not robots, or beasts who take whatever we want and think that the weak shouldn’t get in the way. We don’t worship Darwinism, that’s kind of the point- we don’t worship ANYTHING.
The difference is that we have more freedom to come to our own conclusions as to right, wrong, and how to structure society. We find both better and worse ways to do things. That’s how democracy AND communism came to be. We all have to accept that anyone, no matter their backgrounds, or beliefs, have the possibility of becoming a murderer, or a hero.
If America does become a primarily Atheist community, it won’t because we shot Christians in the street. It will be because children of religious people decide to forgo religion in favor of making their own decisions. Until religious people become a more and more of a minority. If this happens, we won’t become Communist state, and kill off all our neighbors.
Let me take this space here to just say that I’ve found this conversation an enjoyable challenge. Thanks for continuing to read my posts.
… Wow, that was a freakishly long post, sorry about that.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
— Neil deGrasse Tyson
Well this should be amusing for a bit.
Here we go. It has to be right, the Bible says it is.
Why are the religious nuts upset?
Thats EXACTLY what their holy book says. How can they object when the billboard is literally spreading THEIR message?
The same for the civil rights activists, they all seem to use religion’s messages to prop up their “everyone is equal” messages but get their panties all soiled when that bullshit is exposed as a pile of rubbish.
I wonder if Bill Mauer also contributed one million dollars to this offensive group like he did to the other offensive group.
I find the mindset of the Reverend Joe Watkins to be whacky; his ideas shows what is wrong with any religion that claims to stake the moral high ground — it lays the blame and guilt at the feet of anyone who does not agree with the “right” view.
The image is offensive, and the attempt to draw a connection between slavery and religion is misleading, but to try and re-cast the message as a slur against minorities is hijacking a sensitive issue to try and cast himself as the poor innocent.
The billboard is in poor taste, and is more about shock and awe instead of highlighting the hypocrisy of having a “year of the bible” — a celebration that is exclusive to the true believer and means little to anyone else.
What’s the saying, nothing hurts more than the truth?
It is ironic that a group that claims they don’t want someone else’s viewpoints crammed down their throats would do something along the same lines.
Seriously, if you don’t want to be religious or spiritual, then don’t be religious or spiritual.
And then let it end there.
I actually find it funny as hell, and accurate. Why not make the point? That group has every right to make a statement or more so than any superpac.
I say Amen and So mote it be.
Christians frequently protest things they consider immoral, then they get butthurt when the tables are turned.
We all know religion is made up. The bible is not a good source of moral guidance. You don’t get to live forever just because someone ripped off your foreskin and sprinkled some water on your head. Truth hurts.
If we are having a year of the bible can we have a year of the “very hungry caterpillar”?
I think this will invite critical thinking.
According to a quick Google: “There are approximately 38000 Christian denominations in the world”
Each with some specific flavor of beliefs.
I don’t God or Jesus granting permission for oddball interpretations of the Bible like denominations where women cannot wear pants or the ones where they think Jesus turned water into … well … Grape Juice because that little flavor thinks alcohol is evil.
Maybe the problems with religions isn’t anything written in the various holybooks but how shitty most of the “fan clubs” are, turn deep and sophisticated believes from the time into lowball flat earth thinking.
man did the americanaetheist.org get bang for their buck out of this one
I have been seeing this story pop up here and there for almost a week now.
best hwy god story since giant jesus in Ohio was struck by lighting and burnt to the ground.
#1
deegee>>
“twisted viewpoints as most religions, and a lot of incorrect assumptions about what many of the holy bible scriptures actually mean”
ha! thats the whole point this bible book gets reinterpreted by every group that uses it well deegee i’m glad you find this verse out on context “filled with hate-mongering and twisted viewpoints” please give us your interoperation Colossians 3:22, because thats what we all need more up to the minute interoperation’s of the good old never changing word of the lord
I do not classify myself as a “religious Christian”, so if you think you are attacking my “faith” you are mistaken. I am simply a scholar of many things including 30+ years of study in ancient scripture language and history.
“God” did not start or condone slavery in the bible, actually the opposite. Go read it yourself.
And quote the rest of my original post when you attempt to attack what I say re: these things were allowed because of the “hardness of men’s hearts” <- and that is a statement right from Jesus.
This includes divorce, slavery, polygamy, etc. These things were NEVER meant to be part of mankind's social structure. Their presence is man's doing.
MAN is the one who chose to do these things, they were NEVER commandments from "God", and they were NOT part of true Christianity. A Christian is a person who believes AND practices the teachings of Christ, who as I mentioned before stated that these types of things are NOT from "God".
That scripture in Col. is not condoning slavery, just like "spare the rod or spoil the child" (common) has NOTHING to do with beating your child with a stick. The "rod" refers to a shepherd's staff that is used to GUIDE the sheep where he wants them to go.
The word used in Col. 3:22 can also be translated as bondservant, and years ago many people, especially younger teenagers worked as bondservants until a certain age in order to obtain land etc. Go read up on the settling of the USA if you are not familiar with this.
Many of the bondservants in the early US were WHITE europeans, who freely of their own will entered into the agreement.
MAN chose to impose these types of relationships, Col. 3:22 is simply asking those who are in bond to another to treat their "master" in accordance with "God's" acceptable rules for social behaviour.
This billboard is simply uninformed and totally false intent.
I would have more to say but this is already tldr… 🙂
“they were NEVER commandments from “God”, and they were NOT part of true Christianity.”
Why don’t most christians follow this then? Instead they cherry pick parts of the bible to push their own agenda and preach that their own message. That is why there is so many christian sects, lots of people with agendas and a book with enough in it to give them ammunition. If the bible was reduced to one paragraph of what was important at least the racist, hate-mongering couldn’t be put down to religion. But it is too late, the ship has sailed.
>> “Why don’t most christians follow this then? …”
I agree with you completely. Well said.
Matt. 15:8
These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Unfortunately the vast majority of quote-christian-unquote religions are so far separated from “God” and His ways that they would find themselves on the other side of the aisle during His judgement.
Matt. 7:14
For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Many of the different bible versions do not contain very good translations and transliterations. I never use the KJV for study, only for reference when others quote it, I always use the original language or literals rendered to the context of the time and place.
>> “If the bible was reduced to one paragraph …”
It essentially already has been.
Matt.22:36-40, also see Rom.5:12 and 1Cor.2:2
If everyone (who claims to be a christian) understood and practiced these three short verses, esp. Matt., we wouldn’t have the false christian religions of today. But just like the temple priests and religious leaders of Jesus’ time, many of the people involved in christian religion are not there for the “godly” reasons.
P.S. In my post above it should read “spare the rod and spoil the child” … typo.
P.P.S. Also in case anyone wondered, I am not offended by the billboard, I just believe that it is incorrect in its belief of what that scripture is saying.
Just so long as the billboard didn’t say: “That piece of halibut was good enough for … “. 🙂
As in agnostic I have no reason to attack your faith, just pointing out that these are YOUR interpretations of what the bible means. Your stated expertise in ancient scripture, language and history is just the kind of thing we always here from those claiming to know what the bible means. Although your interpretations seem more benign is your subconscious motive to defend and sell a kinder and gentler god?
Could you please point out where it is made clear in Colossians (not that I believe Paul wrote Colossians or that Paul’s buddy Jesus was divine but it would be nice if that were so) that these “slaves” (King James scholars used the word “Servants” but hey its all Greek to me. As a Falling Lutheran my Nelson Revised Standard Version copyright 1971 with what Jesus said in red letters presented to me in Sunday School uses the word “slaves”) were freely of their own will entered into the labor agreement and not forced into slavery? Sense slavery was common then I find it hard to imagine Paul? was talking about voluntary bondservants.
“MAN chose to impose these types of relationships, Col. 3:22 is simply asking those who are in bond to another to treat their “master” in accordance with “God’s” acceptable rules for social behavior.”
Is this the set my people free god or some other god?
Yes I’m trying to be contrary here somewhat for sport(as a rambling dyslectic you have me out classed) but mostly because candidates using religion tend to piss me off durning election seasons and I just need to vent somewhere and the web is a safer place than family or coworkers. If I were to hear you speak on the topic I bet I’d enjoy it and learn a lot.
over zealous Atheist can piss me off too.
deowll in mabye the most insightful post he has ever made says:
3/18/2012 at 6:19 pm
Those hate mongers are the people that first got slavery outlawed in Europe for Christians. It was the we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and you don’t make a slave of your brother or sister thing. //// or is this just a very convenient rewrite???
I don’t have it “in mind” what drove the early movements against slavery. Was it the reformed Christians who followed the teaching of Jebus the Son rather than God the Father and why didn’t the Holy Spirit break the seeming tie? ((I think another blog asserted this slavery quote is in the New Testatment and supposed to be under Jebus’s good rewrite of everything he did earlier??))
-or- was the equality of man pushed by enlightenment figures/ideas who pushed for the FREEEEEEEDOM of Man not only from other men, but also from the binding restraints of Gawd???
-0r- regardless of the complicated layered who caused what truth, lets assume it was Christians showing the world the Golden Rule. Wouldn’t the issue then still be how to make sense of this passage?
deegee did not deegoo his assertion that bibble passages are misunderstood. How so? Now I know it is often said that Gawd All Mighty gave his minions bad science on the notion that that was all the poor sheepherders could understand in their Bronze Age ((sic to Scotty)) primitiveness, but can/should the same be said of MORALS?
Heh, heh. I do wonder if Christianity will have a general break with the bibble as a final reform before it forms the dustbin of history? Probably just my own fond thought. What religion does not have an inherent authority that cannot be denied AS it is denied in every respect? Ha, ha. Stoopid Hoomans. Still arguing about the big guy in the sky.
Well, logically==no one/Science cannot dispprove the fact of Gawd, but the bibble being his word is certainly on its face a demonstrable falsehood. Can I get an Amen on that?
Its a repeat, but it fits so well. Note how Slavery fits into the Epicurus Challenge:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
I’ll leave it for another thread to rehash the Defense of Religion argument that Atheists are no better for another day. Imagine that? Religion actually thinking equating itself with atheism is a “defense?”======Silly Hoomans.
BOO GAH BOO GAH!!!!!
((Sorry, that was mean of me.))
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
This leaves other possibilities out. It ignores the possibility that God is willing and able, but some higher moral code constrains the matter. For example: Free will.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
If a god were malevolent what would the world be like? Why would their be any good at all?
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Human Choice. People are free to be evil, as is google.
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Duh.
Nice reply.
Bobbo is wrong. Not in his questions, but the way he reaches final conclusions.
A “perfect universe” would be a boring place with nothing to do. Hence a “perfect universe” is not actually perfect, but rather this one we live in is the perfect one.
This is the one where we can strive to break free of our limits, to seek enlightenment and knowledge.
Maybe there is some “creator” or maybe there isn’t: either way we have this great imperfect world we live and struggle to find the right means to improve it.
>>“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>>Then he is not omnipotent.
>This leaves other possibilities out. It ignores the possibility that God is willing and able, but some higher moral code constrains the matter. For example: Free will.
First, the existence of Free will requires that omniscience **not** exist. (i.e., it is impossible for omniscience and free will to coexist). Second, your hypothesis presumes that God is unable to change the circumstances underwhich it is forced to make a short term immoral decision for the long term moral good.
>>Is he able, but not willing?
>>Then he is malevolent.
>If a god were malevolent what would the world be like? Why would their be any good at all?
This is a serious rabbit hole. First, many religions define god as the very definition of “good”. Thus, we end up in NewSpeak where good is evil and evil is good.
>>Is he both able and willing?
>>Then whence cometh evil?
>Human Choice. People are free to be evil, as is google.
Human choice (as in real free will) requires that god is not omniscient which is a contradiction. If god is not omniscient, then it isn’t all powerful.
deegee humorously says:
3/18/2012 at 6:36 pm
I do not classify myself as a “religious Christian”, so if you think you are attacking my “faith” you are mistaken. I am simply a scholar of many things including 30+ years of study in ancient scripture language and history. /// When do you plan on taking up English?
“God” did not start or condone slavery in the bible, actually the opposite. Go read it yourself. /// Ok. Can you explain the quote for us all? I could go to several of the bible explaining websites. They often DO provide an interesting original contextualization. My most favorite is really quite recent ((if true, I always caution myself)) that the passage that says “Thou shalt not have any gods before me.” uses the Hebrew plural for gods rather than the singular form all to the point of intimating that Christianity comes from a belief that there were indeed many gods in the sky above and earth below and that God was jealous wanting to be the head mofo in charge. God is not the only god. He’s just the most powerful one in those things that decides such issues? Why does the Devil exist? God is strong enough to “control” but not strong enough to vanquish so he just lies to the rest of us? Ha, ha. Good topic for a comic book.
So deegee–again: deconstruct/reconstruct/contextualize for us just what “Slaves obey your Masters” means?
Should be fun.
Sorry bobbo, no offense, but I tend to find many of your posts a bit… hmmm… odd, making it difficult to determine context, questions, etc.
These forums are the wrong place to get into a total philosophical and religious discussion as it would take too much time and space.
Strictly from a position of language, vernacular, transliteration, etc., my personal experience in discussing matters of YHWH, Jesus, Sin, Salvation, Death, etc. have shown me that most people tend to simply parrot what they heard from their preacher or the sunday morning gospel hour, which usually has a lot of inconcise, dogmatic, misunderstood, misapplied, or downright false assumptions or beliefs about what is written.
The truth of the matter of what the scriptures are saying in complete context, when all of the chaff is burned away, is simple enough that even a child can understand it.
Unfortunately, many churches have used false doctrines or made additions in order to control. Many words have had their meanings changed over time in order to further agendas. One simple example I will give you is the word “sin”, which now has a religious connotation of equaling evil, bad, reprehensible, etc., when in scriptural context it typically means to have missed the mark or to have not made the best or proper choice (from YHWH’s perspective and His desire for our life and mankind’s best social interest).
Even most modern dictionaries (and also Wikipedia) lean to the extreme side of the meaning, my guess is they believe in some angry God of the old testament, which is so far from the truth about YHWH as a being.
Well, thanks deegee, and I mean that for the confusion/uncertainty as well.
We should be/must be on opposite sides. But still men of good will?
An original thought? Hard to find. People don’t agree on what words mean today, its a false claim to say that words of antiquity mean one and only one thing. Sin may have the etymology you suggest or not and usually on an extended analysis that is a distinction without difference.
How to justify hell, or gods absence, because one has “missed the mark?” See how that worked? You can spend a lifetime in labored, honest, intellectual examination of the bible and totally miss the relevant question.
FREEEEEEEDOM–allowing other people to do what you choose not to do. God does not grant freedom to us. He is a tyrant.
Why the worship regardless of the slice and dice?
Darn–I must apologize to deegee. My browser opened up only the top half of his post and I failed to scroll down to find his excellent explanation.
So the word slave has two meanings? Why wouldn’t it apply to both groups of slaves? The slave-slaves, and the bonded indenture -slaves? Which type of slavery were disobedient children children supposed to be turned into?
As all the translations of the bibble were also inspired by gawd, why wasn’t the correct type of slave identified? Should be a no brainer if a different word was used for the different types of slaves. The check on this for me would be what “word” was used with what to do with the surviving losers of a conquered army or city? “Destroy their land and houses, kill their animals, and turn the survivors into bonded servents like they will do in America 1500 years from now! Yea verily–thus have I commanded you. ‘Make it So.'”
Must be true though, gawb being all kind and just and helping us hoomans out with every thought and care he has.
Can you help me out just a bit deegee?
You say: “The word used in Col. 3:22 can also be translated as bondservant,….” //// Can be? “Can be” can be thought to mean: anyone can make up any BS they want to about the words in the bible. Is that your meaning? Or do you have actual TEXTUAL ANALYSIS to back this claim up. Such as that found at sites like this:
http://biblos.com/colossians/3-22.htm
Wherein slave is slave.
While looking for the various meanings of “douloi” the truth as it so often does, starts to reveal itself as worse than the common perception. From the 3-4 apologetic websites I’ve been reading it seems Christ wants to be head of everyone’s household and all family members are simply the SLAVES TO CHRIST and we all should obey? Not just slave-slaves, bonded slaves, but Mommy and Daddy too.
And thats always been my central contempt for all Christers: they try to make slavery and obedience to god a good thing instead of seeing it for what it is: slavery. Slavery to a conquering God who has no other gods before him and everything in the Universe on bended knee.
At least, thats what god made me to say. I can’t make any sense of his mysterious ways. I’m just his tool.
Here’s the genius behind it. David Silverman
dsilverman@atheists.org
He doesn’t have a website?
So easy to forget the details. A longer article, for Wiki, provides a worthwhile background. My fair read of this derivative source is that anti-slavery grew out of the common law of England, that common law born of the common man wanting to be free of rule by King, but its very “legalistic” as oppossed to moralistic.
Religion being part of “everything” certainly had its role and the anti-slavery role is mentioned but in the USA at least the religions were as divided as the politics on the issue.
Has any religion really gone out on the line for making a case for individual FREEEEEEEDOM? Yes, maybe the Quakers.
Anyway, I caught myself thinking of the French Revolution around 1789? as occuring a few years after the Civil War?===ha, ha. NO!!–occurring a few years after the Revolutionary War and MANY YEARS before our Civil War. I was subconsciously swayed by reading here before going to the web.
What evil we do to one another without government to moderate our worst impulses? Well, Best and Worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism
There is still a horrible level of slavery on our planet. Seems to me instead of hammering Christians of the meaning of a verse quoted out of its context, culture, and language, we might better spend our efforts ending slavery in every form. Something all Christians would support – and I suspect many atheists as well. 😉
I agree. It really should be part of the UN mandate==but so should clean water, access to birth control, etc.
But to do that, one would need a concerted dedication to such rights rather than a simply a place to talk.
Would an ending of slavery everywhere in the world be “worth” Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney being in jail as War Criminals? And thats why slavery will continue.
Why didn’t msnbc invite a representative from the atheist organization to explain their side of the issue?
Sure some people found the billboard offensive. Tough. Atheists put up with having religion forced on them everywhere and every day. If fundamentalist zealots would stop trying to convert and control everyone, you’d never even notice atheists.
Wow if that doesn’t catch your attention driving and then rear ending the car in front of you then I don’t know what will. Hmm…..maybe Linsey Lohan going down denouncing her lesbian ways?
Hey, March Madness is down to the sweet 16?
Doesn’t that look like a bit like an AMEX gold card ?
Friendly_ear4u not understanding the construct says:
3/18/2012 at 10:05 pm
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
This leaves other possibilities out. It ignores the possibility that God is willing and able, but some higher moral code constrains the matter. For example: Free will. /// There is nothing higher than god. He “should be” able to create a universe without evil. In such a world, the exercise of what we call free will would not create evil. A poor analogy: in this universe, humans cannot fly or go underwater without augmentation. That is not evil in any sense. Likewise in an all just universe, our free will would not be able to make certain choices resulting in evil “but” we would not see that inability as a limitation. A mother has the free will to eat her newborn, but she always (sic) choose to show love instead. Would that god would/could do likewise?
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
If a god were malevolent what would the world be like? /// Anything from very much better than what we see today, to very much worse. All kinds of possibilities.
Why would their be any good at all? /// Because malevolent does not imply totally malevolent in all things. Its a continuum.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Human Choice. People are free to be evil, as is google. /// All as perfectly designed by god and the source of this challenge.
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
Duh. /// Indeed.
Hmeyers2 says:
3/18/2012 at 10:49 pm
Nice reply.
Bobbo is wrong. Not in his questions, but the way he reaches final conclusions. /// Well, I can’t take credit. Blame Epicurus showing that the core challenges to being human have been written for at least the last 2000 + years. Nothing New.
A “perfect universe” would be a boring place with nothing to do. Hence a “perfect universe” is not actually perfect, but rather this one we live in is the perfect one. /// but that is the very challenge/requirement of an all powerful god. I don’t think you are getting with the gravamen of the issue. You and I may not be able to imagine a “heaven on earth” but if in Heaven, why not on Earth===or are you saying Heaven is a boring place not worth the eternity?
This is the one where we can strive to break free of our limits, to seek enlightenment and knowledge.
Maybe there is some “creator” or maybe there isn’t: either way we have this great imperfect world we live and struggle to find the right means to improve it. /// Thats correct with emphasis on that being our struggle EVEN IF there was a god, hence the anti-thesis I regularly resort to.
Imagine that? >>>>> Even if.
Even if, yea–verily.
What if we aren’t even the most intelligent life form on Earth?
What if some higher intelligence exists deep in the sub-atomic level seeking to slowly engineer large scale “machinery” with limited self-direction and due to scale this higher intelligence operates on a different time scale (like how time slows down for high speed particles, like neutrinos and cosmic rates) … clumsily making more and more adjustments.
The idea seems far-fetched, yet we have a very narrow range of perception inwards to sub-atomic particles and outwards into space.
I would make the argument we simply do not know very much and although humans have certainly progressed, we do not even have a single “final” theory of physics yet.
I think there is much room for improvement.
Black holes might be “island universes” with entire realities locked up inside (with the event horizon serving a firewall barrier) and our universe may just exist to manufacture them. For all we know.
I find the concept of vacuum energy disturbing — particles and anti-particles popping in and out of existence everywhere, all the time. If so, does not mean that “space” is fixed. If the universe is expanding as they say, this “new space” does it produce the same amount of vacuum energy activity or does it decline with “stretching”. Either of those scenarios means actual space is a fixed quantity, and we are back to once discredited “ether” theory.
I think we know very little.
Disregarding all the atheist/agnostic/religious materials, isn’t it funny that the “Civil Rights” types, who have fought for years to be able to express their (sometimes contrary) opinions, are upset because somebody else did?
Reminds me of the “Pilgrim” era settlements – religious freedom for their groups, but other viewpoints/beliefs/religions need not apply….
Oh boo-hoo, I’m sooo offended. Someone needs to pay for this, ’cause I’m offended as f*ck. Seriously, people need to grow the F up.
I don’t get what’s so bad. They’re trying to show another side of the bible other than the one most christians know. I think it’s fair, if the passage actually is in the bible. You can’t be trying to put people down as “bullies” for conveying a message which you find “offensive”. Debate the issues if you feel strongly about it, that’s what freedom of speech gives us.
Hmeyers2 pondering the ultimate nature of reality says:
3/19/2012 at 1:24 am
What if? //// HEY DUDE!!==The question is “Even if….”
Holy Crap. You want to contemplate Vacuum Energy (sic) when you can’t even repeat a two word question?
Ha, ha. Just cracking myself up. Yes no one knows what ultimate reality is making the concept of God just that much more idiotic. We have enough we can see and measure that we don’t understand. No need to arguing about that which stands outside of everything we grope towards.
I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson say the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we are all made of stardust. I disagree. I think the most remarkable thing is that sentient life evolved to wonder at its own existence.
Thats way more cool. Speaking of boring–how boring to be god? One of? No Mate????? Ha, ha. God is a sexless humorless entity without a sense of humor or wonderment.
I pity the poor thing.
Well with the Civil Rights activists having nothing to do for the last four years, they ceased the moment, fighting to stay in the game. Who wants to lose to the Occupy Wall Street movement?
OMG! Nick Gorden and Bobby Christina living together. The went from brother and sister, to lovers! She is wearing her mother’s wedding ring!
If we take a strictly non-biased view over all the major and/or minor conflicts throughout history, we can certainly find within one of the root causes to be some basis of theological leaning. One side saying their side is the best and is willing to kill to get their point across. One group of people getting blamed for the problems of another group, mainly using the differences of beliefs to tell them apart. It is possible that Atheists are the only true peaceful group out there, and just by proclaiming their beliefs has mad them a target of those with a differing viewpoint.
That is a bad example of thinking clearly. Atheist: doesn’t believe in god. Period. Anything past that is projected onto it for whatever non definitional reasons there are.
I am anti-theist and anti-war (without sufficient reason) so–in fairness atheists make ware on other people for non-religious reasons. some other “ology” always involved.
You are making very much the same definitionally wrong mistake so many do who claim that Atheists have killed more people than the Relgious types have. Atheists don’t kill other people “for” Atheism, but for some other independent variable, Like Communism, or Capitalism. Lots of money to be made by Capitalism killing people==makes land and minerals cheaper and you can sell stuff to armies. But its not atheism doing the killing.
Can I have an Amen?
Amenology.
The Bible was used to support slavery, wife beating, child murder, etc …. It DESERVES ALL THE BRICK-BATS WE CAN THROW AT IT !!!