Baptist Watch: Forum for religious debate and criticism

Obama's buddy

PatPace — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:47:02 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP6_qtLoW98&feature=player_embedded

Forum: News

Way to go Conservatives

PatPace — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:43:58 GMT

Forum: Politics

Exclusive: Ray Comfort Defends His Creationist Edition of 'On the Origin of Species'

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:25:58 GMT

When I blogged recently about a new, pro-creationism edition of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Speciescomplete with a rebuttal to the theory of evolutionthe responses poured in. "I'm a little concerned," the communications director for the National Center for Science Education wrote me in an E-mail, "that some stuffsuch as Ray Comfort's version of On the Origin of Speciesgets coverage but no critical commentary."

So I invited the head of the National Center for Science Education, the leading organization promoting and defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, to debate Ray Comfort, author of the new Origin, here on God & Country.

Here's the first post from Comfort, explaining his new book, which he plans to distribute in the tens of thousands on college campuses. I'll post a rebuttal from NCSE Executive Director Eugenie Scott later today. Next week, I'll put up a follow-up post from each. And just a reminder: Neither God & Country nor U.S. News necessarily endorses their views. - Dan Gilgoff

Why I Published a New Origin
By Ray Comfort
When I discovered that the famous On the Origin of Species was public domain, I decided to publish it myself and write an Introduction and give away copies of the book to university students, in honor of the book's 150th year of publication.
But when Kirk Cameron (my TV cohost on The Way of the Master) and I produced a short video clip explaining what I wanted to do and posted it online, we kicked a hornet's nest. A big one.
Why are many atheists so angry? Why are they talking about book burnings, threatening to resist the giveaway and rip out the Introduction, etc.? Why was richarddawkins.net encouraging people to collect copies and rip out the Introduction? Professor Dawkins himself said that even though "a lot of people seem to be very worried about this," he wasn't at all worried. Why did he then tell Toronto university students to tear out the Introduction? There have been more than 140 different editions of On the Origin of Species, many with special Introductions, so what's the big deal with this one? If I am (as Professor Dawkins says) "an ignorant fool," why are so many feeling threatened by what I've written? Surely, the Introduction will be ignorance and foolishness, and simply confirm the students' presuppositions that intelligent design isn't worthy of even a first look.

There's a reason that they are deeply concerned.
The Introduction quotes Charles Darwin saying that blacks are closer to gorillas than whites and that natural selection has left men more intelligent than women. It also has quotes from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf showing Hitler's undeniable links to evolution. Of course, Hitler also used Christianity to further his political agenda, but my point is that Nazi Germany was the natural outcome of what Darwin called "one general law." Darwin said the law of natural selection is "Let the strongest live and the weakest die" (Chapter Seven, "Instinct"). Adolf Hitler put the theory of Darwinism into practice.
The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everythingwhich is a scientific impossibility. Professor Dawkins believes that nothing created everything, and his belief is a big intellectual embarrassment to his followers. Now, anyone can get their own copy of the book on Amazon.com and read the Introduction, but don't be fooled by the comments. No doubt they will be hijacked by atheists. When my book You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think bumped Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion on Amazon.com in the atheist category, hundreds of angry atheists left scathing comments on Amazon.com and gave my book the lowest rating.
So, is this book going to be a backward step for science, as some have maintained? Of course not. Science is a wonderful discipline, to which we are deeply indebted. It will, however, be a backward step for the pseudo science of Darwinian evolution, of which there is no empirical proof. There are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. None. I deal with hundreds of atheists every day through my blog, so I can predict the response: "Of course there are fossils! There are millions of fossils, you unscientific idiot!!" They are right. There are millions of fossils, but they are the fossils of God's creation and have nothing to do with evolution. Again, there are no species-to-species transitional forms in the fossil record. That's what is called "the missing link." It was missing in Darwin's day, and it's still missing today. When believers in evolution protest that there are links between "kinds," a close look at their evidence reveals small bumps on whale bones (proving it once had legs), or experiments with bacteria, or conjecture that modern turkeys were once dinosaurs. Sure.
The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution or the word species. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expandingbecause its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination.
When we give away On the Origin of Species to university students, I want every one of them to make sure they don't stop at the Introduction. I want them to thoroughly read On the Origin of Species. When I read the book, I was very impressed with the brilliance of Charles Darwin. If he was alive today, I am sure that he would quickly rise to the top of Disney's imagineers or earn big bucks as a Hollywood screenwriter for science-fiction movies. Among other things, Darwin noted that black bears swam for hours with their mouths open, catching insects in the water. He believed that if they kept their mouths open all day, every day (for a long period of time), that they would acquire "larger and larger mouths, until a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale" (Chapter Six, "Difficulties on Theory").
Students can read Darwin's own explanation as to why there is no empirical evidence for his theorythat all "intermediate varieties" have disappearedjust like the Mormons' golden plates that the angel Moroni supposedly gave to Joseph Smith. There's one big difference, though, between the golden plates and the intermediate varieties. The Mormons say that only two golden plates are missing. Darwin says that millions of fossils (what he referred to as "innumerable," ibid.) are missing. After 150 years of desperate searching, the missing links are stillmissing.
In Darwin's book, nothing is as God created it. Instead, all of creation miraculously evolvedfrom the bear's mouth to the giraffe's tail. For some reason, it has all reached the point of maturity during our lifetime and (after millions of years of redundancy) now functions as it was intended. Move over, J. R. R. Tolkien, Arthur C. Clarke, and J. K. Rowling. These three combined don't hold a candle to Charles Darwin. Most of their fans know that their writings were fantasy. Darwin's faithful followers don't.

Ray Comfort is the best selling author of more than 60 books, including You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think, Nothing Created Everything (with special cover condemnation by Richard Dawkins), God Doesn't Believe in Atheists, and Evolutionthe Fairy Tale for Grownups. His booklet "The Atheist Test" has sold more than a million copies. He is the cohost of an award-winning television program (with actor Kirk Cameron), blogs daily to hundreds of atheists at Atheist Central, has debated atheistic evolution on ABC's Nightline and on the BBC, and was a platform speaker at the annual convention of American Atheists Inc. in 2001. He is a New Zealander who lives with his wife, Sue, in Southern California. They have three grown children. Find out more at Living Waters.

Forum: Baptist Watch!

Another atheist billboard vandalized - FFRF calls it a hate crime

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:24:38 GMT

The Freedom From Religion Foundation's "Keep Religion OUT of Government" billboard on the 2600 block of North Avenue, Grand Junction, Colo., was defaced, apparently last weekend. A vandal X'ed out the word "religion," and painted in the word "fag."

"This is the first time one of our billboards has been defaced," commented Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor, of Madison, Wis. Though, another atheist billboard in Idaho was defaced recently.

"And we consider it a double hate crime, targeting two minoritiesnonbelievers and gays. It is very sad to see our message honoring the Constitution turned into ugly hate speech."

The Foundation, a state/church watchdog with 14,000 nationwide and more than 400 members in Colorado, has placed more than 50 billboards in more than 22 states, since launching a national billboard campaign in October 2007.

This was the first time the Foundation debuted this particular message, "Keep Religion OUT of Government," on a billboard. It was intended to send a message to both city and county governments to stop praying during government meetings, in cooperation with local members and the local group, Western Colorado Freethinkers and Atheists.

"We are sure this act of vandalism does not reflect the feelings of most citizens in Grand Junction. Yet the city and county governments have sent a continuing message that citizens who believe in God, and more particularly, believe in Jesus, are the true Americans, excluding the rest of us. When religion is allied with government, there is always persecution of minorities and the unorthodox," Gaylor added.
The Foundation filed a police report. The vinyl billboard cost $500 and the month-long lease was another $500.

Forum: Atheist Discussions

Atheist Ricky Gervais to host Golden Globes

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:23:28 GMT

Atheist comedian, writer, director, and actor Ricky Gervais has been chosen to host the 67th annual Golden Globes award show. According to an Associated Press report, it will be the first time in more than a decade that the show has had an emcee. The last time was in 1995 when the show was emceed by John Larroquette and Janine Turner.

This announcement comes on the heels of considerable bad press (mainly from Christian writers) surrounding Gervais and his latest movie, The Invention of Lying. (I loved the movie and am a fan of Ricky's work and his comedy. I particularly appreciate his stand-up bit about the Bible.)

According to the report, Ricky said "'I have resisted many other offers like this, but there are just some things you don't turn down.'"

Forum: Atheist Discussions

Christopher Hitchens goes off on Mother Teresa

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:22:53 GMT

On October 30, atheist author Christopher Hitchens appeared on Dennis Millers Internet radio show condemning Mother Teresa. The UK born author and commentator referred to the Nobel Prize winner, saying The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and its a shame there is no hell for your b***h to go to.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded, "I once told Hitchens that one of the real reasons he hates Mother Teresa has to do with his socialist ideology: he believes the state should care for the poor, not voluntary organizations, and he especially loathes the idea of religious ones servicing the dispossessed. Indeed, he sees in Mother Teresa the very embodiment of altruism, a virtue he cannotwith good reasonfully comprehend."

The fact of the matter is that socialism is the greatest generator of poverty known to mankind, and Mother Teresa did more to heal and rescue its victims than anyone in the modern era. This explains why she is adored by the people who knew her bestthe men and women of India (she is second only to Gandhi as the nations most revered person). "

Hitchens is positively obsessed by Mother Teresa, and that is a very telling commentary on his psyche. She is a constant reminder that reason without faith is a dark hole."

Forum: Atheist Discussions

Atheism's own fundamentalists lead 'religion' of 'Not'

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:17:03 GMT

Forget God, let's talk about arrogance.

That's not exactly the way Rice University humanities professor Anthony Pinn, in an article for the online magazine Religion Dispatches, describes the monotone of mockery at the Atheist Alliance International convention, but it gets you to Pinn's key points pretty quickly.

The convention, starring the atheist band's Mick Jagger, Richard Dawkins, promoting his book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth, and some backup singers like TV host Bill Maher, was held in Burbank, Calif., earlier this month.

Pinn found the main idea at the event, is that religion is

... the single most dangerous human creation.
The welfare of humanity, it was argued, depends on the dismantling of religion and all of its delusions. The possibility of collaboration, of compromise, of any shared ethical commitments between theists and non-theists, was not on the table.

Pinn, who calls himself a humanist, zeroes in on the common trait that atheists share with fundamentalists of any religion -- "their inability for critical self-reflection and critique."

They have formed, in effect, the religion of "not," defined by what they refuse and rebuke.

Consider Christopher Hitchens, the Keith Richards of the band (OK, enough Stones), who is on the road right now promoting his new documentary, Collision, in which he debates Rev. Douglas Wilson. Hitchens, who has no new intellectual songs to sing here but he does have nice manners, sort of. He writes in Slate

I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Pinn, however, is more focused on substance. He proposes atheists and humanists construct

... (A) system of ethics meant to enhance quality of life, both through scientific advancement and rigorous struggle against irrational modes of destruction such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. What is necessary is the application of practices that speak clearly to atheism's concern for life within the context of a fragile environment.

After all, Pinn observes, while religious rituals doctrines shift with time and culture, religion is never going away. It offers it's own set of answers for core questions:

... Theism, at its core, is about the making of meaning and the establishment of stories and practices related to how and why we occupy time and space.

Pinn would like to see atheists, humanists and believers, retaining their distinctions, focus on shared ethical commitments. What are the chances?

Forum: Atheist Discussions

Atheists of Florida purchase billboard and invite the public

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:15:19 GMT

The Atheists of Florida are on the move and in the press this week. They just put up their first billboard in Lakeland that says, Dont believe in God? You are not alone. And as expected, it has generated a little bit of controversy. Fortunately, most people respect the right of individuals to not believe these days, so the death threats are at a minimum. Though, the TBO website article has a lot of comments that have been removed by the staff at TBO for inappropriate comments.

Because the Atheists of Florida expect some controversy over the billboard, they have organized a meet the atheists meet up on Nov 23rd at the Lakeland Public Library so that anyone who has questions or concerns about the billboard can talk to the members of the Atheists of Florida directly instead of just railing about it or sending threatening emails. The good folks at the Atheists of Florida are pretty brave.

But the billboard isnt the only activity the Atheists of Florida have going on. The Lakeland chapter meets on the third Sunday of everyone month at the Community Southern Bank and the Tampa group meets up on the last Tuesday of each month at their offices in Tampa. They also host a webcast every Tuesday at 6 pm.

But the big news this month is that they are hosting the annual picnic on Sunday Nov 8th starting at 11 am at Lettuce Lake Park in Tampa.

For More Information visit the Atheists of Florida Website at: http://www.atheistsofflorida.org/

Forum: Atheist Discussions

Scandinavian Black Metal Music

CastleGreySkull1979 — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:13:36 GMT

Black Metal is a sub-genre of Heavy Metal that was developed in the early 80`s by shock rock bands, Venom, Possessed, Merciful Fate and Bathory. The emphasis of these bands was united by one abstract theological idea "Satan and Satanism. Although these forerunners of the Norwegian and Swedish black metal scene were overtly Satanic in their theatrics, lyrical content, and intensity, they were a bit different than the scene as it stands today. These bands were probably not truly Satanists. In fact, the stage play and silly antics these bands performed (with the exception of King Diamond, the singer for Merciful Fate, who has always been a genuine Satanist) were most likely adopted for shock value. This short piece will outline the genealogy of Black Metal and its change and growth through the last several decades.

The bands that created Black Metal in the early 80`s were highly influenced by another sub-genre of metal popular at the time "thrash metal. Although bands like Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax were quite extreme for the time, it was the underground thrash movement that anticipated Black Metal. Bands such as Slayer, Dark Angel and even Exodus, brought to the scene overt images of Satanism. This early thrash movement would motivate the next step in the progression, the development of metal in Norway.

By the late 80`s and early 90`s thrash metal had lost its edge, music and metal had deteriorated and new forms of simplified and more popular vocal styles of rock and roll were replacing metal as a whole. Grunge and alternative were already competing for dominance. The American underground scene had already withdrawn and created death metal, a form of thrash influenced metal with much faster drums and unintelligibly low vocal grunts replacing the anthemic cries and shouts of thrash metal. Death metal was a reaction to a world of commercialism and greed, the music depicted sordid and macabre scenes of gruesome acts. Bands like Cannibal Corpse, Death, and Carcass were expressing the dark nature of human existence through superfast drum blasts, low toned vocals and frantic guitar solos.

As Death Metal was being created, an equally intense, equally twisted form of extreme metal was being created in Scandinavia. This form of music was Black Metal, and its focus was and still is actual Satanism, Satanic practice and various forms of mysticism and devil worship. The first bands in this category came from Norway; Mayhem, Burzum, Emperor, Immortal, and Gorgoroth are just a few. Musically, these bands replaced the guitar solos of other forms of metal with atmospheric keyboards, and adopted the superfast drumming of death metal. Vocals are often unintelligible like Death Metal, however they are higher pitched shrieks and other ghastly sounds of demonic inspiration. Yet, there is more to Black Metal than just the music, there is the Satanism. The early Black Metal movement performed incessant church burnings throughout Norway. According to the musicians themselves, these acts were symbolic of a return to Scandinavian culture before Christianity was forced in, replacing the original Viking culture. Although the early scene was responsible for these church burnings, and a handful of ritual murders of primarily other Satanists, the scene is not excessively violent today. Today, the underground Black Metal movement serves as an outlet for any person on the fringes of their social structure. True, the images of anti-Christianity, anti-establishment and Satan are intensely frightening, and shocking, the emphasis of these bands is not necessarily evil. Most of these bands, and indeed most of the scene today have no part in the church burnings, and no part in the early scenes violence. In a VH1 interviewed with Enslaved, an early band in the scene that shared the same drummer as Emperor, the band stated that their only motive for the dark music was to inspire a return to the original culture of Norway before Christianity came.

Forum: News

GOP Halloween

DocStrange — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:39:40 GMT

Forum: Politics

Vatican slams Halloween

CastleGreySkull1979 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:20:34 GMT

Credit: Eugenia / Flickr.com -- Creative Commons License

Regular Photo Size

More Talker Stories

Caught on Camera: Naked Man Flees

A naked Chinese man who jumped out of the window and hid on the

UK Drug Fines Less Than Parking Tickets

The average fine for possessing crack cocaine and heroin in the

Rash of Teen Train Suicides in Calif.

A 16-year-old boy committed suicide when he stood in front of a

Woman Eats 78 Forks and Spoons

A woman obsessed with eating cutlery had to have surgery to

Nudist Hotel Upsets Neighbors

A naturist retreat in England has the neighbors complaining

Daylight Savings: 3 Reasons to End It

This Sunday at 2 a.m. local time, millions of Americans will

Video: Man Lands Rubber Band Ball

A South Florida resident traded in his famous lawn ornament for

Bra-Mask Could Save Your Life

There is a new bra that can save your life and its creator

Levi Johnston to Bare All, Upsetting

Levi Johnston, the 19-year-old man from Alaska famous for being

Vatican: Halloween Is Anti-Christian

Updated: Saturday, 31 Oct 2009, 5:50 PM EDT
Published : Saturday, 31 Oct 2009, 5:05 PM EDT

By MIKE BRODY

(MYFOX NATIONAL) - The Vatican condemned the celebration of Halloween as "anti-Christian" and "dangerous" on Friday because of its links to the occult, according to the Telegraph .

Parents were advised not to let their children dress up as ghosts and ghouls on Saturday, as the Vatican called Halloween a pagan celebration of "terror, fear and death."

The condemnation follows similar criticism from Catholic bishops in Spain who earlier this week urged parents not to let their children dress up for Halloween.

Celebrating Halloween is a tradition that began in the United States with limited celebrations in Colonial times. It became more popular in the 1800s, and was widely celebrated throughout the country in the mid-1900s. The tradition has recently spread to other countries particularly Britain and Italy.

The Vatican issued its warning through its official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano . In the article entitled "Halloween's Dangerous Messages," it says "Halloween has an undercurrent of occultism and is absolutely anti-Christian."

Parents should "be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death," Father Canals, a member of a Spanish commission on church rites, told the Telegraph.

In many European countries, particularly those with large Catholic populations, the focus is on All Saints' Day , when many families visit cemeteries on Nov. 1 to remember deceased loved ones.

Forum: Christianity

Pat Robertson continues to slam Halloween.

CastleGreySkull1979 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:12:31 GMT

WASHINGTON - October 29 - Put aside your fears of swine flu. TV preacher Pat Robertson's Web site has just issued a bulletin warning Americans of the real threat we face this season: Demons may be lurking in our Halloween candy.

In a column on the Christian Broadcasting Network's Web site, writer Kimberly Daniels asserts that "demons" sneak into bags of Halloween candy at grocery stores.

" ost of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches," Daniels wrote. "I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference."

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, urged Robertson and Daniels to lighten up.

"I've heard of the devil being in the details, but to think he's lurking inside a Snickers bar is a little too much," Lynn quipped. "Pat Robertson has always peddled some scary stuff, but this is over the top."

Added Lynn, "I hate to see all of that candy go to waste. I wish Robertson would send it to me, because I'm throwing a Halloween party and could use it."

Daniels asserts that far from being harmless fun, Halloween is a veritable doorway to hell, full of literal monsters.

"Halloween is much more than a holiday filled with fun and tricks or treats," she wrote. "It is a time for the gathering of evil that masquerades behind the fictitious characters of Dracula, werewolves, mummies and witches on brooms. The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon."

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and an influential player in American politics, has long opposed Halloween. As far back as 1982, he attacked the holiday as a "Satanic ritual" and said on the air, "I think we ought to close Halloween down."

CBN later produced a pamphlet titled "Hallowed or Harmful: Christian Perspective on Halloween." It asserted, "During Halloween, little children in particular are the weak ones."

On Oct. 29, 2007, Robertson called Halloween a "festival of the devil" and added that celebrating the holiday is "a mistake for Christians."

Lynn urged Robertson to take a deep breath and try to relax.

"I think Pat has been watching too many scary movies," Lynn said. "Still, if he doesn't want to celebrate Halloween, that's fine with me, but he should quit trying to spoil everyone else's fun."

Forum: Christianity

Decision Time !!!1

arth47 — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:17:34 GMT

We are at a stage in history when We must make a decision about what We want our eternity to be like.Here are the choices available to Mankind:
1.Seeking "christ consciousness" within or seeking the True Christ(Jesus) without:Satan's lie throughout the history of this evil world has been that we can only come to wholeness and eventually save ourselves by seeking our inward sinful nature(Gen 3:4-5).He claims that God wants to restrain us from achieving this wholeness and that is why He restrains us from seeking our inner selves(image of sin,knowledge of good and evil).So He fools Humanity to think that the path to godhood is wiping out everything that is of God (His righteous laws and reliance on His Spirit)from their civilization and understanding(i.e secularism and materialism)He emphasizes science and not Jesus.He makes us feel that our own genius can solve our own problems and that God is "just a man upstairs"who is irrelevant to us.That is why Nowadays,It is a common thing to hear statements like this: "God helps those who help themselves","Be who You are",Know Yourself","The sky is the limit","All things are possible" or "its in You".These statements are not only misleading but are AntiChrist.God helps those who trust in Him.He isn't some "weak" being who needs Your assistance in order to act.He helps the weak and those that know that they are nothing without Him.Not the strong and self confident who feel they can conquer by their wit and strength.
Do not be who You are be who God wants You to be invite his Son into Your heart and let Him transform You into his image(Romans 12:2).Do not know Yourself:You are not God.Seek to know the truth Jesus Christ.Be like St Paul who counted everything he had to be dung in order to know Jesus.The sky is not the limit without God.Hell is the limit:For dust You are and unto dust You shall return if You do not accept God.It was Eve's desire to attain godhood that led her to Hell.
Nothing is possible without Christ.Without Him You can do nothing(John 15:5).Its not in You world Its in Jesus.Seek the son.Only he can save You.You cannot attain godhood by seeking Yourself but by submitting to Jesus.

2.Seeking to be like God:knowing good and evil (being a law unto ourselves)or seeking to bear Gods image:Having Eternal life(submitting to His law):
The world we live in today is a world that is "self centered" All its laws are "man made" and are geared towards satisfying our "human rights" and not satisfying God's requirements.The motto of the world is:" As long as it feels good and doesn't harm anyone it is good".The ultimate goal of satan is to create a world where man is the only law.A world where everyone does what is "right in their own eyes".That is what the new world order that his puppets are building is all about it is the collective government of man:A world where man is a law unto himself and chooses what is best for himself.Satan fools them to think that being a law unto themselves is what makes them like God(the ability to be able to choose what is right and wrong for themselves).The only way we can bear God's divine is self denial:Being a law unto ourselves only makes us beastly and base.We have to stop seeing(being a law unto ourselves,John 9:41)and admit that we cant see with our so called "opened eyes".That is why Proverbs 32:8 says:"I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye".We can only see with "Gods eye".Our eyes(sense of right and wrong)are blind.We have to submit to Gods laws and let him lead us with his eye(mind) in order to bear His image and enter His paradise.

3.Seeking Life(the tree of life)and seeking independence from life (the tree of knowledge of good and evil)
- Deut 30:19:"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live"
You cant attain eternal life by "being You"You need Jesus.Don't believe satans lie.He tells You You wouldn't die when You partake in sin.He even fools You to think that Your progenitors didn't die when they rebelled but instead had their eyes opened( Gen 3:4:"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die")Truth is they died.The immediate change:realization that they were naked is death:The change of focus from God(life)to self realization is death (Eph 2:1).You need God world You cant do it alone.God is Your life don't let satan fool You to think that You are alive and well without God.The same choices that Your progenitors had in the garden of Eden are available to You today:The Lie that You can be like God without submitting to God and the truth that the only way to bear Gods image is to submit to Him and If You are like Eve who preferred to believe the lies of satan and reject the truth that God told her,You would end up living a life of being subject to the devils deceit and would never see the truth that You belong in Eden not Babylon(2 Thess 2:10-12) and would subsequently spend Your eternity separated from God .
Seek the truth (eternal life,John 17:3)today So You can "see"and be saved.

Forum: Christianity

America to get its own hate crimes laws..

Tim — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:47:05 GMT

http://story.australianherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/c08dd24cec417021/id/557156/cs/1/

Obama to sign new civil rights law
Australian Herald
Thursday 22nd October, 2009

New civil rights legislation has been approved by the US Congress and sent to President Barack Obama.

The legisaltion targets hate crimes, including physical attacks on people based on their sexual orientation.

The expanded hate crimes legislation was frist brought forward by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who saw it as a priority.

The measure expands current law to include crimes based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

The legislation is named for Matthew Shepard, the gay Wyoming college student murdered 11 years ago.

The measure was only passed, after years of effort, when Kennedy's Democratic supporters attached the measure to a $680 billion defence policy bill.

The House passed the the defence bill earlier this month in the House with a majority of 68-29.

Many Republicans, who are normally staunch supporters of defence bills, voted against the bill because of the hate crimes provision.

The legislation, which was first enacted after the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, centres on crimes based on race, color, religion or nationality.

Forum: News

Atheist Movement Keeps Growing

CastleGreySkull1979 — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:35:36 GMT

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is using quotes from famous atheists to spread the message in its national billboard campaign.

This month, San Francisco's public transit system was enlisted in the battle against organized religion.

A publicity campaign by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a nonprofit devoted to fighting for the separation of church and state, covered the sides and interiors of 75 city buses with the anti-religion quips of assorted atheist wordsmiths.

Here's Mark Twain: "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Clarence Darrow: "I dont believe in God, because I don't believe in Mother Goose."

Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction."

Butterfly McQueen, who played Prissy in Gone With the Wind: "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion."

The bus campaign is part of a wider push by FFRF to promote atheism around the country. In the past few years, the organization has put up billboards in Denver, Detroit and Seattle. FFRF billboards have even popped up in the Bible Belt, asking Alabama residents to "Imagine no Religion."

AlterNet spoke with FFRF co-founder and co-president Annie Laurie Gaynor about the organization's efforts to push atheism or "free thought," as Gaynor says -- in the most religious industrialized nation on earth. Also discussed was: why many atheists know more about the Bible than do a lot of Christians; if liberal Christians are worse than right-wing fundamentalists; and whether "New Atheists" Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are annoying.

AlterNet: What's the thinking behind the San Francisco bus campaign?

Annie Laurie Gaynor: It's free thinking. We want to bring our message to the masses. And we've been censored for so long. For decades we tried to put up billboards, and we were denied access.

That's slowly changing -- we have a national billboard campaign, and now we're moving to the buses, and that's taken from the British bus-sign campaign, which made a big splash. So that's been a global movement.

We're not the only ones doing it. But we have a very generous member of our group on the West Coast, suggesting that we use her donation either to place bus signs in San Jose or San Francisco. And so, it was cheaper in San Francisco, so that's where we went, and we wanted to also reach tourists. Also, we knew we were going to be reaching a very sympathetic audience.

AlterNet: You've also put up billboards in places like Alabama and one of the more conservative parts of Southern California. What's the reaction there?

ALG: Usually we get a pretty good reaction. We get crank mail on our state/church litigation and death threats over our work with state/church. But mostly, with the billboards, we hear from people who like us. But in Alabama they were more hateful. Our Alabama chapter head got about 50 not-very-nice e-mails. But she also got some nice e-mails. More nasty than nice though.

And there was an interview on one of the local TV stations with what, frankly, looked like a stereotyped redneck, where I felt a little shiver of fear for our chapter head because he was saying, "They don't belong here. They shouldn't be here." But we've never had any violence. We've never had a violent attack on a billboard. The one from Alabama is unscathed. We now have it up in Indianapolis.

So we've been surprised at the lack of problems with billboards. But we have been censored. For example, we put one up in Rancho Cucamonga, .

And then we have a lawsuit where we are claiming city censorship: The city asked to please take our billboard down (they were engaged with negotiations over billboard space). And they're claiming it wasn't censorship but just conveying information. So that was quite a shock. To me that's like something that would happen in a dictatorship, not a democratic republic. That's the only such incident.

AlterNet: Why do you think that happened? Personal beliefs of city council members, or pressure from the community?

ALG: There were two stations that covered it. We made a big splash. I believe it was one particular church that some city member officials might have belonged to that were getting calls.

So I think that was sort of an insular, provincial reaction and that they had done this before with another billboard. That wasn't an establishment-clause issue there. Where they didn't like the billboard, and they'd called another company and the company had taken down the billboard. So, I think they are little bit out of control that they're not able to recognize First Amendment rights. We're pursuing that very seriously.

We didn't sue the billboard company. Didn't want to discourage billboard companies from accepting our billboards in the future. We've been waiting 30 years because of censorship from billboard companies (not the government.)

AlterNet: Why are billboard companies willing to use your campaigns now?

ALG: Now, this year, the economy. But we started doing this at the end of 2007, and I think the country is finally changing and waking up, and we are very slowly seeing the kind of change that Europe saw some time ago. We're becoming more secular. Fifteen percent of the population is nonreligious, and that is reflected in billboard companies, in their understanding of their audiences. They're less fearful of an immediate negative reaction from the public.

Also, they probably recognize, you put up one billboard, it gets lost in the shuffle. Maybe they have a sense of proportion they didn't have before. Like we have seven up right now in Detroit, in a very religious community. We'll have seven or nine in Las Vegas next month.

When we get turned down by one company, we find another. But not always; there have been some cities where we haven't been able to get billboards up. Bloomington, is dominated by Lamar. We've worked with all them over the country. But the one in Bloomington wouldn't work with us.

So we couldn't get one in liberal Bloomington, Ind., so we took it to Indianapolis. And the same thing happened in Grand Rapids, . That's another national company that we've worked with all around the country, but they said, "Our clients are really the community," and they won't like your billboard, so we're not gonna put it up. And we thought, boy, Grand Rapids needs to hear our message. We had state/church problems we were trying to educate about.

We're still encountering this squeamishness about free-thought messages. That it's taboo to criticize religion, and we're not part of the marketplace of ideas.

AlterNet: That's interesting, it seems to be common knowledge that Americans rarely drag themselves to church -- even if they identify as religious. So obviously, a huge percentage of the population doesn't take religion very seriously. Yet, a lot of times the efforts of public, outspoken atheists are met with horror. Why?

ALG: This has always been a paradox, because the Bible's the best-seller that's never read. Our members probably know more about what the Bible says than most religious people many of them read it, and then became atheists.

It's paradoxical, but I think that people seem to think there's a civic religion that if you believe in a god or Jesus, you don't have to go to church but you're still supporting religion. And they feel that it's absolutely taboo to be an atheist or to criticize religion.

There was a relatively recent study -- 2005 -- by the University of Minnesota, where they took polls on unpopular people. This included gays, Arabs, blacks, women -- analyzing, would you vote for these people, what do you think about them?

They found the bias against atheists and agnostics dating to the 1960s had not changed, while so many attitudes have greatly changed, fortunately, about African Americans, gays, even Arab Americans.

We're at the bottom of the totem poll when it comes to social acceptance in America.

And I think about Julia Sweeny, from Saturday Night Live. She has that one-woman play, "Letting Go of God," and she likes to tell this story about how she called her parents, who were devout Catholics, and at some point told them, "I don't believe in a god anymore," and they kind of accepted it.

But then she spoke at some event, and a story went out around the wire referring to her as an atheist, and her mother called her up and said, "this was too much!" The word atheist: that's what not believing in a god means, but until her mother heard the label, she was able to tolerate it. It's a pejorative in our society. And we're trying to change that.

Our members are atheists, agnostics, skeptics, but we're trying to change that kneejerk reaction that somehow people who do not believe in a god are bad people. Or you don't know any of them, or we're immoral; that's the greatest stereotype that we face.

I don't know why these people, who don't go to church, think atheists are so bad, but most people don't go to church in our society but still have these prejudices.

When I talked to the researcher, Penny Edgell at the University of Minnesota, what did she think accounted for this? What she said was, she believes most of these people don't realize they know atheists and agnostics. And that's 'cause we're afraid to speak out. We don't wanna ruin a party or speak out socially -- don't want to offend. We're being polite.

And I think free-thinkers are becoming more direct. They realize it's time, like the gay movement, to come out of the closet.

AlterNet: There's a very common argument, which essentially tells public atheists to shut up: Its main premise is that very vocal atheists are as annoying as very vocal religious people. For example, one columnist called your work with the billboards more like "evangelism than a fight for civil rights." What's your reaction to that argument?

ALG: Well. Boy, I don't like the term evangelist. But it isn't just a fight for civil rights; it's a fight for social acceptance. What we're being told is constantly to shut up. We're constantly told to leave the country. That's what most of our crank mail says.

If you don't like religion, God, Jesus, you're not an American, leave the country. It's just a joke. We ran a page of crank mail a few months ago in our newspaper, Free Thought Today. To make it more humorous, we put all the different countries with all the different quotes together. There were some new ones for me; usually you hear Russia, and you hear China. But this had Pakistan, Afghanistan. Even Canada! Which is a lovely country.

But there's a belligerence that it's wrong to say atheist. I think a lot of religious people think that the word alone is that we don't have the right to those views, because that reflects badly on them. If we say, "We don't believe in a god," that puts them on the defensive.

And they get angry at us, I guess. But I think that there's a backlash against Dawkins, et al., and they don't deserve it. I think Richard Dawkins and all these people are doing a wonderful service. It's time to speak out and own our dissent from religion. And free thought is an intellectually respectable position. Religious people are the ones who should be on the defensive.

They're the ones who think there's a god. Well, they should prove it. They're the ones who think that the Bible is a holy book. Well, then, we might have to disagree.

And if they would confine it to their own homes and churches, that would be one thing. But when we are constantly fighting a battle against this campaign to inflict dogma in our law, that's a different thing.

That's why our group started. We were so fearful of the campaign to put dogma into our law, like abortion, gay rights and so on. Look how stem-cell research was held up, just because President Bush wanted to kowtow to the Catholic hierarchy.

That's so destructive of progress. It's that war between science and religion that we are continually having to refight. The fact that 50 percent of Americans reject evolution is a frightening figure. And we have a billboard on Darwin -- because it's his bicentennial year -- to fight that.

AlterNet: What do you think about more progressive religious leaders and groups that try to reconcile science and religion?

ALG: Well, we're all for that, if they understand that evolution should be taught in schools. We're not going into the churches, dragging people out of the pews. We're not going knocking on doors like the Mormons and everybody else. We're live and let live, to a certain point.

But, we do think that speaking out and reaching the masses through the mass media is a very powerful thing. Many people who join our group call and e-mail us and say, "I thought I was the only atheist in North Dakota." They feel so isolated. And they feel afraid to let their neighbors know they don't believe.

And we have a classic story out of Georgia, where we have this chapter in Alabama and they have a meeting every year that gets people from all across the country, especially the South, and there were two neighbors, who'd lived side by side for years, and both of them members of our group and not religious. And they never knew it until they saw each other at this meeting at our chapter because they were afraid of the reception, of being stigmatized, or turned into neighborhood pariahs.

And that's sort of a classic case of people, especially in the South, they don't know friend or foe. And they're afraid of the damage that can be done if they're known to not be religious. Especially if they have businesses. It's easier to be a free-thinker in San Francisco. Yet we think a lot of people in San Francisco recognize especially after Proposition 8 the harm of the religion lobby. There's a lot of anger about that. We hope they'll sign up.

AlterNet: There's a very popular argument nowadays that the aggressive atheism of Dawkins and Harris and Hitchens -- at least the way it's presented in the mainstream media -- hurts your cause because it alienates people. And your strategy is to also aggressively present atheist views. What do you think about that?

ALG: I think if people argue that Dawkins hurts the cause of atheism, they have not had the great pleasure of meeting him. Because he's an absolutely charming person. He's somebody whom people, when they hear him lecture, are abashed because they understand his scientific credentials. Maybe they think, "I can't go on talking about the spook in the sky that I believe in, in front of him." And that's good.

AlterNet: Let's go with Hitchens then.

ALG: Well, Hitchens on religion, great. I don't agree with him on many of his other views on social issues. I don't think Hitchens is particularly representative of the typical free-thinker, but I admire his book God Is Not Great and his debating talents. I don't agree with him on abortion or war.

But I don't think he attempts to represent the free-thought movement. I think he represents his own views, and I think that our members agree with that book. But he has a whole body of other work that's quite different.

Free-thinkers are all over the place on other issues. I think Dawkins' social views are more in line with most free-thinkers.

AlterNet: But even as far as their religious views, they're not saying, "Oh, it's bad that Mormons mobilized against same-sex marriage efforts, but otherwise they can believe whatever they want, and we can believe whatever we want." The effort is to alter public views about religion in general ...

ALG: Well, I know former Mormons, and they are damaged people. At least, they felt that religion did so much harm in their lives. And it's such a patriarchal religion. There's every reason for us to criticize these kinds of religions.

If you look at the power of the pope -- with one word he could really end the population problem by endorsing the use of contraception, and everywhere he goes he creates more misery. That's the history of the Catholic Church.

Not just when it comes to reproductive rights, but with warfare and persecution. Think of the women killed as witches because of one Bible verse. It was also the Protestants. So they're not they have a lot of the blame. But religion has a lot to answer for.

So yes, I'm not going to have an argument with my neighbor next door because she goes to the Episcopalian church. We get along fine. She's pretty liberal. But if someone asks me about doctrine and how I disagree with it, I'm going to be very open. I think it's very important.

There should not be a taboo where you can talk about everything else and debate everything else, but somehow it's not allowed to talk about religion and analyze it, like we do everything else. Making known that you dissent is not allowed.

It's just indoctrination from an early age to not only believe in religion, but to think that it's a sin to criticize religion. So how can you overcome that unless you are very public, writing books like the God Delusion, unless you're putting up bus signs and billboards and doing your own media, which is what we're doing? And we think it's a public service.

And we think there's nothing more important than working for the First Amendment. And I think those of us who are not religious tend to be purists on this topic of separation of church and state. So we think freedom depends on free-thinkers.

And free thought is a term we like. It's an umbrella term. It means people who form their opinion based on reason, rather than faith, tradition and authority. And so that encompasses atheists, agnostics a few deists in the classical sense, like Thomas Paine.

And we very much believe in what we do around here. We don't believe in a god, but we believe in this world. And that's the message behind "imagine no religion." Think about how much better off we would be without clinging to the supernatural and expecting a god to do what we need to do for ourselves.

Investing all your best energies in some other afterlife instead of this world. And being concerned about how we leave this world for our descendants. I think religion has been so destructive in that regard, taking our minds off the real world. Just working in the imaginary realm.

AlterNet: What about the very progressive religious groups that use that ideology to perform services in the real world?

ALG: Well, I think that's great, and they get a lot of tax exemptions to do good works. It's not usually a huge percentage of any church budget. The Unitarian Universalists I don't consider them when we're talking about the Freedom From Religion Foundation, we're usually not including them, because they're creedless. And the UCC has been good on gay marriage, and that's great.

But it's taking a long time for the other Christian groups to catch up on that issue, and you know most of the mainstream Protestant groups support abortion rights, just not the Catholics! But the evangelicals and the fundamentalists combined, they're the people calling the shots on the social agenda.

So I'm wondering if the fact that the liberal religionists share the same Bible isn't really just making them as responsible for the fact that they're trying to get that Bible into our lives. In the sense the very liberal religionists give credibility to religion.

So we've had a whole clique of former ministers in our membership. We had a couple of former Episcopalian priests. One of them is still alive, in San Francisco. That's Dick Hewittson. But we have another member who also left the Episcopalian fold. And he has given speeches to our group where he felt we should be harder on the liberal religionists than the fundamentalists, because they know more, and in a sense are more responsible. That they're picking and choosing the verses they like and trying to ignore the rest, but that they give credibility to the fundamentalists.

So we get along with them. But they're using that same Bible. They're also trying to say there's this authority in the sky that we owe some kind of allegiance to. And we don't we're like Margaret Sanger, whose motto is: "No gods, no monsters," and we think that kind of master/servant hierarchy is a bad thing.

AlterNet: You don't think there's any context in which religion can do some good?

ALG: Oh yes. People can do good things in the name of religion, but professor Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics a few years ago -- he became our first awardee of this award called "the Emperor Has No Clothes." We give it to the person who makes his or her dissent from religion known publicly. And he was our first awardee.

He made this really astute observation: He said that good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good peopleto do bad things, that takes religion.

And that's the danger. Because if you give up your mind to some other supernatural mind, you have to obey its laws and dicates. And you want to be a good person, and you're told be religious to be a good person, think of what you can do in the name of religion, and we've seen that throughout history. They thought they were doing the best thing when they were drowning and burning witches, and killing people in the Crusades.

And so I think that's a very memorable way to look at it.

But, as I said, we're all for the we get along. We're all for the free exercise of religion in this country. But our establishment clause means freedom from religion in our government.

AlterNet: So not that there should be no religion. But in an ideal world?

ALG: In an ideal world we just want people to just for a moment imagine what if there were no religion? And some people are just horrified at the idea.

We're just thinking, well, you would put all your focus on this world. And you wouldn't be fighting wars over what you imagine God wants you to do. And why can't we just be humans and stop trying to pretend there's a divinity up there telling us what to do.

And that's a good exercise for everyone.

Forum: Atheist Discussions