Friday, March 14, 2008

My Christian Duty

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.

I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

“Like what?”

“Well … are you religious or atheist?”


“Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?”


“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”


“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”


“Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”

“Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”

“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”

“Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”

To which I said, “Then die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

[This is not mine. It was copied from somewhere on the web and emailed to me.]


damion said...

jon this is just the beginning of the contradictions (a couple of them may be open to debate, but the fact that there are many contradictions is undeniable). After we are done with this I will teach you how the books of the bible came to be (and best of all, who put all this crap together? A pagan emporer of rome!).

God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

The number of beasts in the ark

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

How many stalls and horsemen?

KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

The bat is not a bird

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Odd genetic engineering

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astromical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Earth supported?

JOB 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Heaven supported too

JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

The hydrological cycle

ECC 1:7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

JOB 38:22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

Storehouses are not part of the cycle

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

How orderly were things created?

#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three "days."
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

How satisfied with creation was he?

#1: God says "it was good" after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)

Moses' personality

Num.12:3: "Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the fact of the earth."

Num.31:14, 17, 18: "And Moses was wroth...And Moses said unto them, "Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman, ... But all the women children ... keep alive for yourselves."

Righteous live?

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Acts 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Matt. 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Jesus' last words

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Years of famine

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

Moved David to anger?

II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.

I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.


In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.

God be seen?

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9

God CAN be seen:

"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:

"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)


"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (Jer. 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chron. 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Ps. 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)


"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

Ascend to heaven

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

What was Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial?

Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34

Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30
How many times did the cock crow?

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

Who killed Saul

SA1 31:4 Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
SA1 31:5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise upon his sword, and died with him.
SA1 31:6 So Saul died, and his three sons, and his armourbearer, and all his men, that same day together.
SA2 1:15 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

Does every man sin?

KI1 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

CH2 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Who bought potter's field

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

Who prophesied the potter's field?

Matthew 27:9-10 (mentions Jeremy but no such verse in Jeremiah) is in Zechariah 11:12-13

Who bears guilt?

GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign?

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

Did those with Saul/Paul at his conversion hear a voice?

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

MAR 1:12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

JOH 1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

(various trapsing)

How many apostles were in office between the resurection and ascention?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
Matthew 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
Acts 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


1 Cor 2:15 "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)

1 Cor 4:5 "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

Good deeds

Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secert. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

For or against?

MAT 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(default is against)

MAR 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
(default is for)

LUK 9:50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
(default is for)

Whom did they see at the tomb?

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

God change?

malachi 3:6
james 1:17
1 samuel 15:29
jonah 3:10
genesis 6:6
Destruction of cities (what said was jeremiah was zechariah)

MAT 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

zechariah 11:11-13
(nothing in Jeremiah remotely like)

Who's sepulchers

acts 7:16
genesis 23:17,18

Strong drink?

proverbs 31:6,7
john 2:11-11

When second coming?

MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1 thessalonians 4:15-18

Solomon's overseers

550 in I Kings 9:23
250 in II Chron 8:10
The mother of Abijah:

Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2 Chron 9:20

Michaiah the daughter of Uriel 2 Chron 13:2

When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

22 in 2 Kings 8:26

42 in 2 Chron 22:2

Who was Josiah's successor?

Jehoahaz - 2 Chron 36:1

Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11
The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah.

What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial?

scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple John 19:2

What did they give him to drink?

vinegar - Matthew 27:34

wine with myrrh - Mark 15:23

How long was Jesus in the tomb?

Depends where you look; Matthew 12:40 gives Jesus prophesying that he will spend "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," and Mark 10:34 has "after three days (meta treis emeras) he will rise again." As far as I can see from a quick look, the prophecies have "after three days," but the post-Resurrection narratives have "on the third day."


The King James version of the Bible.

Self-Contradictions of the Bible by William Henry Burr (written in 1859 as a response to fundamentalism).

The X-Rated Bible: An Irreverent Survey of Sex in the Scriptures by Ben Edward Akerley

The Bible Handbook. (This is a compilation of several previous works by several authors, including W.P. Ball, G.W. Foote, and John Bowden. It's a collection of biblical contradictions, absurdities, atrocities, immoralities, indecencies, obscenities, unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises. This 372-page volume will give the atheist tons of scriptural ammunition for shooting down the flimsy arguments of the reality impaired.)

damion said...

That Fabulous Fable

A nonsense repeated ad nauseam is the fable of the ‘writing above the sun’ which advised Constantine of his divine destiny. In its worst form, the legend has it that the words ‘In this sign, you shall conquer’ and the sign of the cross were visible to Constantine and his entire army. The words would have been, perhaps, Latin ‘In Hoc Signo Victor Seris’, a bizarre cloud formation unique in the annuls of meteorological observation.

On the other hand, more than one author (e.g. S. Angus, The Mystery Religions, p236) says that the words were in Greek ('En Touto Nika'), which would have left them unintelligible to the bulk of the army. Then, again, perhaps they were in both Latin and Greek, a complete occluded front of cumulus cloud!

Digging below the legend however we discover that the vision was in fact a dream reported some years later by Constantine to his secretary Lactantius (On the Death of the Persecutors, chapter xliv; ANF. vii, 318.) The fable was later embellished by the emperor's ‘minister of propaganda’, Bishop Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine (1.xxvi-xxxi). The ‘sign of the cross’ was an even later interpolation (the cross was not a Christian symbol at the time of the battle – nor would be until the 6th century!). Any ‘good luck emblem’ at this date would have been the chi-rho – ambiguously the first two letters of the word Christos, the Greek word for ‘auspicious’ and also Chronos, god of time and a popular embodiment of Mithras!

What is perhaps most significant about this ‘origins’ fantasy is that ‘lucky charms’ had entered the parlance of Christianity. Constantine did not need to be a Christian; invoking its symbols was sufficient to win divine patronage. But did he invoke its symbols? Coins issued at the time celebrating his victory showed only Sol Invictus: his triumphant arch, still standing, refers only to ‘the gods’. In truth, Constantine was not a particularly pious man. Famously, he delayed his baptism until he was close to death for fear of further sinning – with good reason: among his many murders was that of his first wife Fausta (boiled alive) and eldest son Crispus (strangled).

damion said...

Disclaimer, disclaimer both post where copy and paste.

Jon said...


Did you enjoy the movie?

I will spend the time to prove these proposed contradictions are false if this will help, but I do not have time to fully explain all tonight.

We will start with the "God good to all, or just a few," and you may pick the next.

I would think a critical thinker that has read the Bible through at least two times would be able to find his own proposed contradictions.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

You may debate, but I infer the attempted contradiction is God is good to all and shows mercy to all, but in Jeremiah he will not have pity or mercy, and he will destroy them all.

Psalms is a book of praises (songs) to the Lord. They are multiple authors, but 145 belongs to King David. In verse 8 " The Lord is gracious, and full of mercy; slow to anger, and of great mercy." Why would the same author admit that God can be slowly angered if he can not be brought to anger? If verse 9 stated the Lord is good to all, all the time, and his tender mercies are over you no matter. There would be a contradiction. Read what is there, and put it in its proper context.

In Jeremiah, this verse is one of many warnings to the Israelites. A warning that fell on deaf ears. Jeremiah was a prophet of God.

God's word to him was to warn of the impending result of the Israelites turning there backs to God. Jeremiah warned them many
times before God's wrath befell them. God was showing mercy by not immediately disciplining his people the first time they worshipped Baal. God had been good to the Israelites. It was not like this was the first time the Israelites had turned their backs on God.

Find something that has more merit. I think you may be more intelligent that this author of these proposed contradictions.

Are these writings where you really place your disbelief?

Please read Psalms 1:1.

Jon said...


I think I told you to be careful about the pagan Roman emperor.

Are we speaking of the same Constantine? St. Constantine. The first Christian emperor of Rome. Who called upon Yahweh before a battle of insured defeat and won.

One other thought about Constantine putting the Bible together. What are the radiocarbon dates of the dead sea scrolls? How many of your counterparts would be offended? I guess you meant the whole Bible both the Old and New testaments. Keep on with the Horace and I will educate you some more.

Nag, Nag, Nag

There is a way to stop the nag, the struggle, or the denial.

Guess where I will be at 9:30 am?

I like your disclaimer, but I like the ones you give me better.

Jon said...

Hi Heather,

You actually made me laugh. Militant agnostic and your story on what type of Baptist.

You may like snakes when you know what type and where, but I would love to see your reaction to stepping on an unknown type.

You are not Satan, but your acknowledgement of him is a start.

This is a short story taken from a joke I heard last Wednesday at work. The person telling the joke has no idea of our debate. I was not a church or anything affiliated with a church.

An atheist and an agnostic were taking a walk through the mountains of Colorado. The atheist was a renowned scientist. He was making every effort to prove to the agnostic how everything they could see evolved and no God could have been the designer. He had an explanation for the everything.

Suddenly they heard a rustle in the bush. At first they thought it was a bird, but to their dismay, it was a bear. The bear rushed toward them. The atheist said, no fear, I will raise my arms, and he will flee. The agnostic feared his life and called upon God. "God please save me." The bear came closer. The atheist started flailing his raised arms.

The bear raised on his back legs to show he was not intimidated. The agnostic cried; please God I do want to be harmed. The atheist could not believe his books were failing him. (What to do if a bear attacks.)

As the bear reached back to take a full swing at the flailing atheist, the skies parted with a loud clap of thunder.

A loud voice from heaven said "Who is that calling upon my name." It is me lord the agnostic; excuse me, the believer of you, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. "Why my child did it take this for you to believe in me." I am sorry Lord, I just could not figure it out.

The atheist was attempting to make sense of what was happening. He was thinking the bear had been lightning struck, and the thunder sounds like a voice that the idiot agnostic is talking with.

"What is it my child? What do you want" The agnostic, I wish for the bear to become a Christian.

The bear lowered his outstretched arm and placed both of his paws under his chin. The atheist was thinking the electrical currents had altered the bears brain possibly his genes. Could this be an undiscovered theory of evolution?

The bear began to speak. The atheist, thinking he was correct, bears can not talk. The agnostic was still in shock from the whole event.

The bear said, Dear heavenly, father thank you for the pure water you have provided, thank you for my cave, in which, in rest, and thank you for the bountiful meal, in which, I will now partake, Amen.

Just a joke.

damion said...

jon like I said, a couple may be open to debate. I base my belief that christianity is joke on the sheer amount of nonsense that is in it. I do find it amazing your inability to see when you are wrong! Heather devastated your argument on the serpent, to quote Heather,you have twisted yourself up in a dogmatic knot! It does make me smile when you see an agent of hate like the christian, Sally Kern share what is at the heart of your religion. The bible was put together by a person today who would be charged with crimes against humanity, is it any wonder the followers of it would want to do the same?! Thats right 9:30 its time to bash some fags! Than again how could someone see reality when they don't know what fantasy is? Belly of a fish jon, belly of a fish.

Jons infected Dick said...

I think fags should die , die and burn in HEll!

damion said...

ScienceDaily (Mar. 15, 2008)
— For the first time, astronomers have observed the initial phase in the formation of an earth-like planet.

The discovery, highlighted in the March 13th issue of Nature, was documented by a team of astronomers led by William Herbst, the Van Vleck Professor of Astronomy professor at Wesleyan, and Catrina Hamilton PhD '03, professor of physics and astronomy at Dickinson College.

What Herbst and other astronomers on his team observed was that a protoplanetary disk, or ring, around the binary star known as KH 15D, is composed of solid particles larger than what is usually observed in space.

"For hundreds of years, scientists have been theorizing that Earth-like planets form when gas and dust around a star get compressed into these disks and the material begins to coalesce into planets. But until now we never had the ability to study this process in detail," Herbst said. "The unique geometry presented by KH 15D and the way the light was being reflected off the disk allowed us to get a good look at the structure of the disk .We were amazed at what we saw."

The disk orbiting KH 15D is at least the size of Jupiter's orbit and composed of sand-sized grains that have grown from microscopic-sized particles to form the larger grains. These grains are now approximately 1 mm in diameter, much larger than the tiny particles typically seen in space. This is also the characteristic size of "chondrules," small glassy spherules that are found in the most primitive solar system, the so-called carbonaceous chondrite meteorites.

The observations of the disk were made over several years using some of the largest telescopes in the world, including the 10-meter telescope of the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii. More modest telescopes, including the one at Wesleyan University's Van Vleck observatory and the Maidanak Observatory in Uzbekistan, were also used in the study.

Located approximately 2,400 light years from earth and also known within the astronomical community as the "winking star," KH 15D was first documented in 1995 by Herbst and his then-graduate student Kristin Kearns. An ensuing Ph.D. thesis by Herbst student Catrina Hamilton, now on the faculty of Dickinson College, further solidified the importance of this star and brought it to the attention of the astronomical community. In 2004, two groups of astronomers on opposite coasts showed that KH 15D's winking was a result binary star with an orbiting period of 48.36 days within a large disk. The winking effect was generated as one of the stars alternately rose above and set below the disk.

What Herbst, Hamilton and the rest of the team observed recently is that the disk is slowly hiding the stars from view and putting them in a permanent state of faintness, though still visible by the reflection off the disk.

"Because of how the light is being reflected there are opportunities to make observations about the chemical composition of these sand-like particles," Herbst said. "That's very exciting because it opens up so many doors for new type of research on this disk."

Support for the work has come over the years from NASA's Origins of Solar Systems program and from the W. M. Keck Observatory Principal Investigator's Fund.

A Flash animation of what the team observed can be seen here:

Sorry jon, god nor jesus was anywhere to be seen. Also jon for a joke to be funny it should have kernel of truth, but better luck next time!

anonymous said...

Jon you may find this enlighting.

The Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy
by Steve Mizrach

The current furor over the Dead Sea Scrolls has mostly been examined by the media as a simple scholarly feud. It is scandal enough that scroll researchers have restricted access by "outsiders" to the scrolls for over forty years. (The history and politics of the scrolls' acquisition is long, complex, and well known, and I will not go into it here.) But if it were merely yet another academic "turf" war or simple scholarly egoism, the controversy would not merit as much attention. The problem is that the scrolls deal with very pertinent matters surrounding the development of modern Christianity and Judaism. The position that the scroll researchers have tried to bulwark for forty years is that the Essenes of Qumran were external to "normative" Judaism or Christianity, a fringe sect with little connection to events of the time. (Recently, the theory has been raised that the Qumranites may have been Sadducees instead, as the word "Essene" does not appear anywhere in the documents. This theory has been summarily dismissed, but the difference may have been nothing more than semantic, as we shall see.)

Based on Josephus' accounts, a popular image of the Essenes has been that they were pacifist, ascetic, celibate, separatist, and apolitical mystics. This image is at least partially true: but Josephus contradicts himself at various points. He adds, almost as an afterthought, the observation that some of the Essenes were married, participated in Zealot revolutionary activities, and lived within the city of Jerusalem. It is also curious that the speech at Masada delivered by the surviving Zealot commander seems remarkably Essene in orientation, at least as recorded by Josephus. Archaeological evidence found at Qumran points out some interesting facts: a forge for weapons was found, as well as many Roman and non-Roman arrowheads, and evidence of fortifications. This suggests that Qumran may have been more of a fortress than a monastery. It is curious as to why the Romans appear to have driven out these harmless mystics somewhere around AD 68, right in the middle of the Jewish Revolt. Also found at Qumran were graves for women and children; and coins minted in Jerusalem as well as artifacts produced there. Family life and commercial integration appear to have been very "mainstream" for the Qumran community.

But the internal evidence of the scrolls does not make the Essenes "ordinary joes." The so-called Temple Scroll suggests that they had a dream of rebuilding a new Temple of visionary dimensions after razing Herod's to the ground. The Copper Scroll suggests they had knowledge of the whereabouts of many Temple treasures and connections to some elements of the priesthood, although they had fierce opposition to the wealthy, elite, pro-Roman, Hellenizing Sadducean Temple establishment. They had a very particular Messianic expectation of the arrival of two "twin Messiahs": the "Aaronic Messiah" would be the legitimate anointed high priest and he would herald the "Davidic Messiah" who would restore the true sacred kingship. The War Scroll suggests that they had a vision of a cosmic conflict between the forces of light and darkness: the Gentile "kittim" or Romans against the "sons of light," namely, the Essenes. Other scrolls interpret biblical prophecies to describe current political events, offer strange apocalyptic and eschatological predictions, and incorporate some of the "pseudepigraphal" and "apocryphal" material of the Intertestamental Period. And the "Damascus" Document suggests that their leader, the Teacher of Righteousness, was persecuted by an illegitimate member of the priesthood they called the Wicked Priest, and put to death.

The scholarly team controlling the scrolls has kept a lid on the explosive contents of the Damascus Document by an interesting trick. Using poor philological and graphological analysis, they date that scroll to the 2nd century BCE -- hence it becomes a missive against one of the Maccabean kings, who illegitimately assumed the kingship and priesthood and became Hellenizers toward the end of their reign. But it also could be as much an indictment of Herodian rule as Maccabean... and there are some indications that it may be a 1st century CE document instead. As to the name of the document, it is a curiosity -- there were no Essenes that lived in Damascus in Syria -- unless one realizes that "Damascus," as described geographically by the scroll, can be nowhere else but on the Dead Sea. The objectivity of the scroll researchers on these controversial questions is itself questionable, as de Vaux and many others are members of the Ecole Biblique, an institution formed to combat Modernist tendencies in Catholicism and promote pro-Catholic readings of scripture. The one agnostic on the team, John Allegro, tried to release early reports of scroll contents, and was subsequently hounded off the team in the 1970s. (Though, one might note, he later responded by asserting authoritatively that Jesus may have been a mushroom, based on some speculative translations of various Aramaic words.)

What are the scroll researchers really afraid of? Robert Eisenman, an independent scholar, notes that more may be at stake than just academic defensiveness. Eisenman notes that many of the names used by the Essenes to refer to themselves -- Zadokim (the Just), Ebionim (the Poor), Nazoreans (the Pure), Hasideans (Zealous for the law), etc. -- are also some of the appellations used by the entity known as the "early Church" or "Jewish-Christians" or "Jerusalem Church." Eisenman believes that the Zealots, Essenes, Nazoreans, etc. were all just names for one single movement with different aspects, but very specific goals: restoration of the legitimate anointed (Meshiach) king and high priest, expulsion of the Roman occupation and the pro-Roman Herodians and Sadducees, and religious reconstruction. Jesus, then, may have been a legitimate dynast (his genealogy from the line of David is given in two of the Synoptic Gospels), and a real political threat to the Romans , not the religious authorities of the Sanhedrin. After his death, Eisenman notes, Jesus' followers coalesced behind his brother James the Just, who may well have been the Essene Teacher of Righteousness; he was put to death by the pro-Roman high priest Phinehas, who is an excellent candidate for the Wicked Priest.

A bold hypothesis, you might ask. If early Christianity was really a revolutionary political movement fully within the sphere of Judaism at the time... whence the Christianity of today? That story can be traced to a certain Saul of Tarsus. This tentmaker, who apparently had very influential friends among the Sadducees, was sent to "Damascus" to root out "Christians" there. Of course, he would have had no authority to carry out those orders in a different part of the Empire than Palestine. But if "Damascus" is "Qumran" a new picture begins to emerge... along the way Saul has a "conversion" and becomes Paul, a "Christian." Shortly after this experience, as recorded in the Acts of the New Testament, the very vigorous Paul travels all over the Roman Empire and preaches Christ. Except... James and members of the Jerusalem "Church" complain he is preaching "another Christ," telling people to be "apostates from the law," and promoting "deviation."

Imagine this scenario: James and his followers attempt a Messianic crusade focusing on returning the "lost sheep" of Israel to the fold. (The key to successful revolt would be the enlistment of Jews all over the Empire -- many Jews lived in Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt at the time.) Along comes this Paul, who claims he wants to assist them in their efforts for revolutionary recruitment. Only... he seems to be preaching a new religion which is distinct from, and even inherently opposed to Judaism: proclaiming that a very holy but earthly man was also divine, recruiting among the Gentiles using pagan concepts (the dying-and-resurrected god and virgin birth are features of the Mithras and Attis cults), and betraying Jewish nationalist aspirations by focusing on a very otherworldly "kingdom of heaven" rather than a concrete political restoration.

So who was Paul? Eisenman suggests he may have been an agent provocateur . He may have even been the individual that the Damascus Document identifies as "the Liar" and "the Apostate." And as to why he went to the effort to found a new religion, Eisenman suggests that it was a brilliantly conceived means to defuse the very this-world, political significance of Jesus and his Davidic bloodline. As an agent of the pro-Roman Sadducee establishment, he found a perfect way to deflect anti-Roman agitation into yet another Roman mystery cult. He apparently succeeded very well. When Bar Kochba revolted yet again against the Romans in 132 CE, he turned to the "Christians" for help, and became extremely angry when they declared opposition to his goals. The Roman authorities still remained concerned about potential threats: Eusebius records that the Emperor went to special efforts to assure that members of Jesus' family, the so-called Desposyni -- in the 2nd century CE! -- remained loyal to the Empire and were not planning rebellion. The Romans may have had more reasons to throw "Christians" to the lions than merely worrying that the moralistic folk might cancel their orgies and parties, especially if early Christianity were an anti-Roman political movement.

In a sense, Constantine completes our story. His efforts to make "Roman" Christianity the religion of the Empire (which suggests that the "bishops" of cities such as Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem may have had another "brand") and to impose uniformity through the Council of Nicaea essentially cut off the stream of "Nazorean Christianity" from history. The New Testament has clearly been altered (if the accounts of Mark, etc. thirty years after the fact are even accurate) to provide a pro-Roman bias. The Sanhedrin, rather than Roman authorities, are blamed for Jesus' death, as are the "Jews" in some vague way. There are clearly Zealots in Jesus' entourage and John the Baptist appears to be an Essene; some of Jesus' sayings are borrowed from prominent Pharisees such as Hillel. Yet the New Testament seems to condemn all these groups. Incidents suggesting violent resistance, revolutionary activity, dynastic marriage, and political alliance seem to be hinted at but quietly hushed up. And everywhere attention to Rome and the real situation in Palestine are deflected to otherworldly concerns; Jesus is transformed into some kind of divine figure, though he himself repudiates those who believe such a thing. The New Testament seems to be a sort of fairy tale situated in a very bloody, turbulent time.

Moses Hess wrote an important book in the 19th century entitled Rome and Jerusalem . He examined the twin roots of modern Western civilization, Hebraic and Hellenistic, monotheistic and pagan, and examined their opposition. It was clear that, for a while, the two poles struggled mightily against one another. The result was a victory of one and then a curious fusion of the two ... and through "Christendom" and the rule of the Catholic Church the West was nurtured on this admixture. Rome won that conflict, perhaps through historical accident as much as anything else. The West is a curious blend of Roman values -- hierarchy, martial rule, imperialism, bread and circuses -- and the Hebraic prophetic tradition of justice, law, and equality. Nietzche knew that and so have others. One might reflect on our "Judaeo-Christian" tradition in light of that.

Jon said...


Well, what can I say? You have insulted someone other than Christians, but you will not be called out because it might hurt the integrity of your agenda. Is there an ounce of integrity?

Any reader of the previous comments would have to disagree with your assessment of my debate with Heather over the serpent. Intentional deception was more than obvious. Other readers proved they believed what she said in their comments before I entered.

I told to be careful with Constantine, but you did not listen.

Your last post is interesting.

"For hundreds of years, scientists have been theorizing that Earth-like planets form when gas and dust around a star get compressed into these disks and the material begins to coalesce into planets. But until now we never had the ability to study this process in detail," Herbst said.

I might have to admit to being wrong here, but I would like to see proof that someone proposed these theories two hundred years ago.

Come on brother. Do you read this stuff before you paste it?

I as a Christian, I do not bash homosexuals any more that I bash thieves, liars, deceivers, adulteries, rapist's, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc. You get the point. Your views on Christianity are distorted for your own beliefs.

Jude 16 - " These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."

See you when I can.

God loves you despite your anger.


Jon said...


Thanks for the input. I knew of some different theories of the dead sea scrolls potential findings, but the argument between Damion and I stems over a time line issue. My point was most of the Old Testament was found together in scroll form before Constantine lived. I may be wrong, but I think they were radiocarbon dated in the early 90's.

chris said...

Jon, Heather and Damion clearly have reduced your argument to almost nothing, you must as deluded as they say for you to think otherwise!

Humanist said...

"Any reader of the previous comments would have to disagree with your assessment of my debate with Heather over the serpent. Intentional deception was more than obvious.Jon"

I have been following this blog for a long time. Until recently I have never found a reason to post, Jon you take the cake. Do you really believe the things that come out of your mouth? Annastasia's post and subsequent debate on the serpent was a text book win in any debate class. To top it off Damion has made you look like a fool! Please don't stop! This has been one of the funniest blogs I have been on! Annastasia keep up the good work! And we need more attack dogs like Damion on the left, keep riping through them!

Donna said...

Hey, Jon I have a bridge in London, you interested?

tim said...

OH my god did Jon actually say that he has had the upper hand? I agree with Donna, Jon I have a bridge to!

anonymous said...

My post was for your education Jon, you seem to have a twisted view of reality! Jesus was a political radical that fought against roman occupation! A fine example is the money changing tables in the temple that Christ knocked over. The romans used them as a form of tax collection. That is the reason the romans killed him.

Anonymous said...

Thats funny to stupid to know your wrong!

Heather Annastasia said...

You may like snakes when you know what type and where, but I would love to see your reaction to stepping on an unknown type. (jon)

so... Would I be reacting as a hysterical woman, or as any reasonable person who would be stepping on a possibly poisonous snake?

You are not Satan, but your acknowledgement of him is a start. (jon)

Here's my acknowledgment of Satan.

As for the joke, I heard a much funnier version of it, but it just involved the atheist, god, and the bear. Same punch-line.

I as a Christian, I do not bash homosexuals any more that I bash thieves, liars, deceivers, adulteries, rapist's, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc. (jon)

So you're not bashing homosexuals, but you're putting them in the same category with thieves, liars, deceivers, adulterers, rapists, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc?


Ira said...

Thank our forefathers for the wisdom to separate church and state! If people like Jon had their way we would be goose stepping for god! What is great about type and tape recorders is that you can go over what is said! I have never seen someone so clearly beaten in argument as Jon, yet insist that they are right! It reminds me of the mad dictator who fights down to the last man and than asks are you ready to surrender?! Jon is a lost cause stop wasting your time!

Gay and Proud said...

Jon you are a hateful, ignorant, pathetic little man.

Jon said...

Hi Heather,

I am enjoying this to much.

I acknowledge the fact that you are much more (much more) of a polished writer than I, but I really find it amusing your inability of understanding what I suggest.

The bashing of anything was a play on words brought by your dear Damion.

The proposed bashing of anyone is quit a stretch. My attempt to play on these words went over your head. Do you think there are no liars, drunks, and adulterers in my church? I threw in some in your face sins for reality to the issue. My point was no matter your sin I do not bash.

Your issue with me is I truly believe all things in the Bible including John 8: When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood and said to them, "The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her."
(Holman Christian Standard Bible)

You may say I have thrown stones at you, and I may well have. I do not pretend to be perfect.

I read your acknowledgement of Satan, but you must admit you asked for that. I will drop the Adam and Eve issue if you allow. If no one else gets it, you and I know the intent.

The flock mentality is clearly in play. I all but quoted Damion's insult to male homosexuals, but not one in this flock called him on it. I guess none of the flock would ever think this little pathetic ignorant moron that has been wished to die could be correct about anything.

What kind of insight do I have about your flock? I wish death upon no one and surely wish no one to hell. I just remind your readers that death is certain.

May you all understand that the nagging struggle inside of you has merit.

My argument is the same as yours from the opposite side. You are the one deceived.

Jon said...

Dear Ira,

I am a lost cause to this flock. These words are most likely correct.

Clearly beaten?

I would suggest you take some time away from the internet and enter a real world. Not a world of high school teachers or college professors.

I know not one self respecting scientists that would make any attempt to teach the theory of evolution through the eyes of Darwin. I have been out of school for some time, but I know this truly dis proven theory is still taught in high schools and colleges across the country.

If you need more than this, I will provide. When is the last time you heard these words? We have found the missing link. The problem starts way before this. Many single celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. The known animals with 6-20 cells are parasites. What sustained there life? Check this out if you think I am wrong, but someone who has taken me to task stated "everything we know now about biology began with evolution," or something like that.

Please take corrections as not being insults.

Heather Annastasia said...


I'm not sure what you're point is here, I never accused you of bashing anyone. I only pointed out that you were relegating homosexuals to the status of rapists, molesters, and murderers.

See, I don't believe homosexuality is wrong.

Now, maybe for a small band of people struggling to survive as they wandered through the desert, spilling your seed on the ground or putting it inside another man where it can't possibly make a baby would be a terrible thing.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that made sense a long time ago. When women often died in childbirth, it made sense for men to take many wives, and very young wives. One man can impregnate many women, and if one dies giving birth, there's likely to be another one that can nurse the baby.

The problem is when people today try to live by a book that doesn't apply to our culture.

As soon as people settled down into towns and cities, food and resources were much less scarce. It made more sense for one man and one woman to concentrate their efforts on raising 5 to 10 children (the infant and mother mortality rate was still high, so they still needed to make lots of kids, just not as many as you can make with 2 or 3 wives).

Now today in our culture, the infant and mother mortality rate is quite low. It makes more sense for a family to concentrate on raising 1 to 3 kids. (I heard about a study on NPR that said even though both parents in a home work these days, parents spend and average of 10 hours per week more with their kids than parents did 50 years ago.)

Ok, so my question is, in this day and age, who are homosexuals hurting? What is this threat they pose to the American family? If you take away the "because the Bible says so" argument, how exactly are homosexuals in the same category as thieves, liars, deceivers, adulterers, rapists, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc?

I will drop the Adam and Eve issue if you allow. If no one else gets it, you and I know the intent.(jon)

Well, I certainly know the intent, but I still haven't figured out what planet you're on.

May you all understand that the nagging struggle inside of you has merit.(jon)

Yes, the nagging struggle inside me had merit. That's why I finally gave in to it.

I can remember when I was 5, sitting in the car waiting for my mom so we could go to church. I knew she was hiding Easter eggs, and I gave a great performance when we got back; pretending to be surprised. I remember in the 3rd grade when my dad solemnly broke the news to me the Easter bunny didn't exist. I pretended to be shocked and sad (I was sad that the game was over).

My dad said that he never wanted to do the Santa Claus or Easter Bunny thing; it was my mom's idea. His instincts were probably correct because I think those early experiences helped me to recognize that voice of logic that gnawed at my insides when grownups were feeding me bullshit.

What's more, I noticed as I got older, and my questions got more difficult to answer, the grownups got more and more irritated with my questions.

Still, it took me a long time to fully embrace my internal voice of reason. A part of me still found value in the game. It was what I knew; it was comforting. Like a warm fuzzy blanket that smelled like happy childhood memories.

But I took that final step and let go of the religious fantasy world. I know right and wrong and I act accordingly. Not because I crave the approval of some higher being, or because I fear eternal punishment.

Now, for you to imply that there is some nagging voice of god in my mind would be like me telling you that the Easter Bunny is nagging at you.

Why have you forsaken the Easter Bunny, Jon?

Ira said...

Real world Jon? You don't know what the real world is! I fought a war against Nazis like you. Whats it like to never pick up a newspaper and know whats going on in the world? You poor pathetic man evolution is a theory like the law of gravity! We have seen it in our lifetimes you stupid fool! By decoding DNA we can see where every split has occurred, stupid, stupid fool! You are so full of hate it has blinded you to reality. Well duh what about the missing link? There is no missing link Jon, that is something fabricated by ignorant people to explain gaps in our fossil record.

monica said...

I love watching dumb Christians getting their ass handed to them! This is a riot. But on a serious note if Jon had his way homosexuals would be in jail. Jon you words can't hide your lying heart.
I as a Christian, I do not bash homosexuals any more that I bash thieves, liars, deceivers, adulteries, rapist's, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc. (jon)
Jon you are a sad little ignorant man!

wade said...

I think we should lock up people like Jon and throw away the key! Jon you should go live in Pakistan you would be wildly received their, as a matter of fact you would fit right in! I think those 9:30 meetings he goes to must be a Nazi rally.

kevin r. said...

Some of you people go overboard here. Why can't you disagree without name-calling?

Annastasia makes sound, logical points.

Jon... well, Jon is...

OK, let me put it this way: the rest of you make Jon look good when you get nasty instead of making rational points to counter his less-than-rational statements.

You almost make Jon look reasonable!

Heather Annastasia said...


You almost make Jon look reasonable!

You're piling up on jon like everyone else, are you not?

Okay, your insult is nicer...

I've also made the point before that I think jon himself is a lost cause. I argue with him for the sake of reachable readers.

Plus, we got you to comment.


Didn't you say at one point that anyone reading could see that you're right on the Adam and Eve thing?

Now, granted, more people read than post comments, but if you've convinced anyone at all, they haven't spoken up.

How could that be?

Since you're argument was so clear and rational?

damion said...


I'm going on vacation with the family, we'll be passing out secular tracts to the children. Always time to enlighten! I'll beat up on you in about a week. Until then, I have a new disclaimer for ya!

as a Christian, I do not bash homosexuals any more than I bash thieves, liars, deceivers, adulteries, rapist's, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc. (jon the NAZI)

Angry said...

Name Calling?
Anyone who would say something like this needs to be marginalized. For a monster like jon, there is no name harsh enough to describe what they are. The world would be a hell of a lot better if we could just wall off the Appalachians. We could call it the holiest of the holies. Jon could be a super-duper holy man; right hand man of the lord, benefactor of the hillbillies, destroyer of knowledge, protector of ignorance. Think about this Jon, you could burn all the fags you want. You'd be immune to the law! Best of all, like the Shaman of old, you can have a staff of skulls, or foreskins, (whatever turns you on man)!

kevin r. said...


You need serious professional help. You don't have any room to talk about Jon.

jp said...

I thought that was hilarious! Take heart, Angry, once something or someone becomes a joke they are already marginalized! I have never seen nor heard someone as arrogant yet so wrong as Jon. Scary thing is, that is the right wing base of the republican party!

chris said...

Hey hey now, let's not forget what is important: always remember we cannot allow people like Jon to go unchallenged. Just like a parent who grabs their child at the sight of a poisonous snake. Right wing loonies are just as venomous. Damion has finaly hit on the right title for Jon. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
as a Christian, I do not bash homosexuals any more than I bash thieves, liars, deceivers, adulteries, rapist's, molesters, murderers, drunks, drug dealers, etc. (jon the NAZI)

Anonymous said...

Hitler walks up to the Pearly Gates and says to St Peter, "I'd like to come in."

St Peter: "Not likely!"

Hitler: I've repented and I've given back all the gold and treasures that I stole from the Jews, and I'm really sorry."

At that point, Jesus walks up and asks what's going on.

St Peter: "It's Hitler here, he wants to come in."

Jesus: "Bugger off!"

Hitler: "No, it's true! To prove it, I've got a six foot solid gold cross I can't find the owner of. I could give that to you."

Now Jesus was partial to crosses, so he went to see God.

Jesus: "Hey Dad, I've got Hitler outside and he wants to come in now he's repented."

God: "Tell him to get lost!"

Jesus: "But Dad, he's given back all the gold that he stole from the Jews - except for a six foot, solid gold cross he can't find the owner for. He says I can have it."

God: "And what do you want with a solid gold cross? You couldn't even carry a fuckin' wooden one!"

bob said...

A Sunday-school teacher asks the class of young children, "What is little and gray, eats nuts, and has a big bushy tail?"

After a moment one child replies, "I know the answer's probably supposed to be Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me."

Anonymous said...

Time to bring hope to the debate!

2150 C.E.

Jesus is gone, nobody cares

The sound of his name just brings indifferent stares.

People grew tired of his vanishing act

and finally decided he ain't coming back.

Relieved of the burden of fancy and fable

Society since brought great minds to the table

Biological research brought extension to life

To those who had once lived in pain and in strife

Society still has its few who believe

They cling to the myth that there is no reprieve

They just sit and stare at the moon in great awe

While men in white coats feed them meals through a straw.

tb said...

Ok so it's fine to think Christianity is a joke and the bible is crap here but not ok to think homosexualism is wrong?

Bash Christianity == good.

Bash Homosexuality == bad.

Let the church burnings begin!!!

I did not read all of the stuff on here but wow...

BTW good luck in your crusades against christianity just because it thinks homosexuallity is a sin. FYI there are tons of things a christian thinks are sins and 100% of them commit them themselves so whoop dee doo who cares!!

Heather Annastasia said...

I think tb is right about the christian-bashing.

But I don't think homosexualism is a word. (I could be wrong)

I think a few commentors here have gone off the deep end (I don't think commentor is a word either).

It seems to me that some of these commentors are going for shock value. I go for shock value myself quite often; to get people's attention and make them talk or think... but I stop short of wishing the death or exportation of people with whom I disagree, even in jest.

In Theory and the Premodern Text, Paul Strohm points out that the burning of a Lollard ex-priest (Christian heretic) in England in 1401 was preceded by approximately twenty years of anti-Lollard language in literature (jokes about Lollards being good food for flames and what not).

It was a very well laid out point, and after reading it, I've tried to use shock-value and satire carefully. I try not to use violence as a point for a joke. I think joking about violence is serious, and, under the right circumstances can incite violence.

Of course, very few people have read Theory and the Premodern Text (I had to special order the book), and I don't think very many people think that critically about the jests they make. So, I honestly think that the comments here are for shock-value, and not intended to inflict any real harm on anyone.

Now, that being said, in The Portable Atheist, Christopher Hitchens makes the very good point that our own society is not as far removed as we like to think from burning atheists.

Let's be realistic here, in our culture, Christians are by far the ruling majority. Atheists can joke all they want, but if anyone is in danger of actually being marginalized, exported or exterminated, it's homosexuals and atheists.

Loki said...

Let the church burnings begin!!!(tb)

Here, here!

tb said...

I just found this site and I doubt I will stick around as it seems too mainly just be the Damion and Jon show on here with comments from Heather.

To damion I ask why this crusade against Christianity and why is it so "evil"? So yes it's based on a book put together 2000 years ago by a pagan roman ruler or should we say a council of people that he appointed. For the most part Christianity teaches you too be kind too your fellow man and not this hatred that I see here. Sure it's taught that homosexuality is a sin but so are tons of other things that most people do, but it also teaches that you can be forgiven. Sure it is a form of brain washing I guess but what other medium do you recommend too me to help teach my kids some morals in this world. Heck teaching a child that only atheism is right would be a form of brain washing too. You may think it is correct but that does not make it correct. Why not let people see both sides and decide what they want too believe.

Are you so blinded in your hatred that you fail too see how many hospitals out there have a St. in front of their name, or how many soup kitchens, etc in the inner cities are done by some church.

And heather I am not for the exportation or extermination of anyone no matter how they believe. America is all about freedoms and I'm not one too try and take those away from anyone.

Too much these days it's about making the left hate the right and vice versa. While the crooks on both sides keep doing what they do in Washington...

Jon said...

Hi Heather,

Still enjoying more than I should. You are also welcome.

"I certainly know my intent;" you sold it, and it was bought. You should be proud.

Do you think my point of regard could be more correct? I know where I am, and I do not expect people to speak nicely to those they believe hate them. I may insult many here with what stares them in the face daily, but all anger is misdirected and quit amusing.

To your question on homosexuality without God's direction, what would be wrong? I propose nothing would be anymore wrong or right without God. What is wrong with people that respond to your blog when someone disagrees with them or offends them? If we were face to face and God did not exist, would there be violence? It is as harsh as it can become to wish death on anyone. I am not offended.

Have you seen a person in their daily life live for Christ every day?

Jon said...

Mr. Ira,

You may have fought a war against Nazis, but there were nothing like me. I have not once said anything for you to think I wish anyone dead for any reason. I have yet to tell anyone what they should do in any way. I wish my grandfather that did fight in WWII were here to help me with this battle. He would get a real kick out of this.

Excuse this correction. Evolution, as defined by Darwin, my friend is a theory. Gravity is a law. There are major differences between the two. I am sorry you were misguided.

Thank you for your service. I am truly grateful.

Jon said...


You turn me on, but not the way you wish. You have joined Damion by inslulting your flock. Do you know why I refer to it as your flock?

divine justice said...

Jon is right GOD condemns fags to hell.Damion has his own special place set aside for him. And Heather you play the role Satan has given you well! There will come a time soon when Jesus will appear out of the clouds with an army of angels and cast the unpure into the eternal fires of hell. What will all your devil science do for you then? All must bow before Christ and accept him as Lord or their fate is doomed! We as warriors for God must march on the schools and libraries that lead our children into sin! Web sights that promote a godless agenda must be confronted and brought down! We are a Christian nation I say send them all to God and let him figure it out.

Ira said...

There is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law, of course.

However, the more important difference is that between a scientific theory and a theory in lay terms.

You see, a scientific theory is one that has never been proven wrong when applied to scientific work.

NEVER proven wrong.

Once a scientific theory is proven wrong (by scientists, not religious folks who just don't want to believe it), it ceases to be a scientific theory.

That me reiterate that:


That means that scientists use the theory of evolution. They use it in archeology. They use it in medicine. They create new drugs and study diseases using the theory of evolution. They create new types of plants for medicine and crops.

This is why courts have upheld the teaching of evolution in schools. Because it is true. Because it is fact.

You see, the christian right hears "theory" and immediately makes the leap to "just a theory." But that is an entirely inaccurate conclusion.

This theory has had practical scientific applications for over a hundred years without ever once being proven wrong in actual scientific research or the development of new drugs and technologies.

Your life, and the lives of everyone you know and care about has been saved or extended by the scientific application of the theory of evolution.

God never gave us antibiotics.

And yet, christians relentlessly attack the science that seeks to extend our lives. Stem cell research is another good example.

Christians attack knowledge and advancement as a knee-jerk reaction that they refuse to think about logically.

I'm old, I'm tired.

I'm done for the day.

Wormwood said...

tb, based on your argument why not be Muslim or buddhist they both have a code of ethics, as you say,

Sure it is a form of brain washing I guess but what other medium do you recommend too me to help teach my kids some morals in this world. tb

This sounds more like a failing at parenting than anything else. Humanity is naturally ultraistic its in our genes you could say. You must raise a child with honesty and rationality, not to forget love. With that as your philosophical foundation you will produce well rounded and intellectually sound children. To admit something is brain wash and continue to use it is in itself morally reprehensible! A rational person should want to distance themselves from the like of divine justice which said I quote,

We as warriors for God must march on the schools and libraries that lead our children into sin! Web sights that promote a godless agenda must be confronted and brought down! We are a Christian nation I say send them all to God and let him figure it out. divine justice

This is ultimately the destination most fundamentalist Christians arrive at. Unfortunately for the Christian-lite among our population, this is something they don't want to be confronted by! Now to quote the flip side of that coin. Angry states,

The world would be a hell of a lot better if we could just wall off the Appalachians. We could call it the holiest of the holies. Jon could be a super-duper holy man; right hand man of the lord, benefactor of the hillbillies, destroyer of knowledge, protector of ignorance. Think about this Jon, you could burn all the fags you want. You'd be immune to the law! Best of all, like the Shaman of old, you can have a staff of skulls, or foreskins, (whatever turns you on man)!angry

The main difference between what angry said and what divine justice said is the intent. What angry said was an attempt at humor, and I will assume he has no real plans to wall off the Appalachia's. Angry if I am wrong let me know! Now divine really wants to burn books! And if he had his way I'm sure their is a noose with my name on it. Now a people like Jon and TB act as apologists and provides cover for people the likes of divine. They most likely do this without even realizing they have. That for another post.
People we don't have to compromise our ability to think rationally. Its time for our species to throw off the yoke of religion. Man must face death with the recognition of what it is. We must toss out the fairy tales of the past, and accept the cold hard realities of our existence. Maybe once our species has reached this point we could a attain a higher goal. A cure for death, truly becoming masters of nature! Heather you have a wonderful blog this was my first post and I'll be back!

loki said...

The Naming of Jesus

A group of biblical scholars were involved in a heated discussion about how Jesus of Nazareth was named. How did he become known as the Messiah, or Christ. One of the scholars argued that the name was a Greek corruption of Aramaic, and purists and fundamentalists ought to use the name Joshua. Another argued that Joshua was Hebrew, not Aramaic, to which a third argued that Hebrew should be used because Jesus was said to be the King of the Jews. The debate went on and on and became more and more sophisticated and obtuse. Finally, an old man known for his wisdom intervened. He informed the group that he knew how Jesus was named. When Jesus was born, a star shown in the sky, and three wise men from the East travelled to Bethlehem. They had travelled for days, suffered great deprivation, and when they finally got to Bethlehem got lost trying to find the manger. Finally, after much ado, and in rather foul moods, they reached the manger and entered the stall. As one of them came through the door, he tripped on the door sill, and fell into the wall hitting his head. "Jesus Christ!" he screamed, andthat is how the baby was named.

Anonymous said...

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2008) —

According to researchers at the Monell Center, fruit flies are more like humans in their responses to many sweet tastes than are almost any other species.
The diverse range of molecules that humans experience as sweet do not necessarily taste sweet to other species. For example, aspartame, a sweetener used by humans, does not taste sweet to rats and mice.

However, fruit flies respond positively to most sweeteners preferred by humans, including sweeteners not perceived as sweet by some species of monkeys.

The findings, published in a recent issue of the journal Chemical Senses, demonstrate the critical role of environment in shaping the genetic basis of taste preferences and feeding behavior.

"Humans and flies have similar taste responses because they share similar environments and ecological niches, not because their sweet receptors are similar genetically," notes senior author Paul A.S. Breslin, PhD, a Monell sensory geneticist. "Both are African species, both are omnivorous, and both historically are primarily fruit eaters."

To compare how molecular structure is related to sweet taste perception in humans and flies, the Monell researchers evaluated how fruit flies respond to 21 nutritive and nonnutritive compounds of varying molecular structure, all of which taste sweet to humans.

Breslin and lead author Beth Gordesky-Gold, PhD, used two behavioral tests to evaluate the flies' responses to the various sweeteners.

The taste reactivity test measures whether a fly extends its feeding tube, or 'proboscis,' to consume a given sweetener. In addition, a two-choice preference test evaluates the flies' responses to a sweetener by measuring whether they consume it in preference to a control solution (usually water).

The Monell researchers found that fruit flies and humans both respond positively to the same broad range of sweet-tasting molecules.

"The similarity between human and fly responses to sweeteners is astounding, especially in light of the differences in their taste receptors," notes Gordesky-Gold, a Drosophila (fruit fly) geneticist at Monell.

Sweet receptors belong to a large family of receptors known as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs), which are involved in biological processes throughout the body. Human and fly sweet taste GPCRs are presumed to have markedly different structures, an assumption that is based on differences in the genes that code for them.

Since substances will only taste sweet if they are able to bind to and activate a receptor, these two structurally different types of sweet receptors must have similar 'binding regions' that fit the same range of molecular shapes.

"That genes could be so divergent in sequence and so similar in physiology and function is truly striking," says Breslin. "This is a wonderful example of convergent evolution in perceptual behavior, where evolution has taken two different routes to address pressures imposed by shared environment and nutrition."

Future work will be directed towards modeling how these two structurally different sweet receptors could have highly overlapping sweetener affinities. Such knowledge will increase understanding of how molecules bind to GPCRs, which are targets for many pharmaceutical drugs.

The research was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders.

tb said...

This sounds more like a failing at parenting than anything else. Humanity is naturally ultraistic its in our genes you could say. You must raise a child with honesty and rationality, not to forget love. With that as your philosophical foundation you will produce well rounded and intellectually sound children. To admit something is brain wash and continue to use it is in itself morally reprehensible! A rational person should want to distance themselves from the like of divine justice which said I quote,

See the problem I have is right away an insult, basically calling me a failure at parenting and I am also morally reprehensible too. So there we go right away I am wrong you are right. I was basically saying I guess you could call it brain washing. Anything you teach to someone could be considered brain washing if you really think about it could it not be? I didn't want to argue some point about brain washing because it is too hard to prove one way or another. But I guess if you give the child all sides of the story and they decide for themselves then it would not be brain washing. Can a 5 year old make a well informed decision? I don't think so, 13 year old, getting there. I guess at whatever age they start questioning things and asking well thought out questions would be the time to answer them. But alas I refuse to debate with someone who has to resort to name calling immediately.

"Be good and honest son. Ok, why? Well uh because I said so. Ok dad yeah sure..." I've seen children of religious parents and I've seen children of non religious parents. I don't really want my kids acting like the children from non religious parents. Real life experience shows me more than any theory ever can...

Anonymous said...

Is Religious Indoctrination Child Abuse?

Once the veil of religion was lifted from my eyes, so many things that I had never considered suddenly seemed glaringly apparent. I am sure this is not news to anyone who has come out of a rigid or even liberal religious background to a position of unbridled freedom of thought. There are so many aspects of what I had been taught was ‘right’ and ‘good’ that I am sure I will be busy for many months writing and posting my thoughts.

One of the major concerns that I now have as a free thinker is the entire concept of children being indoctrinated into religious thought at a young age. To a westernized Christian, the idea that church ideology could harm a child is not even considered. But this same group of people would no doubt cringe at the site of Muslim boys sitting crossed legged for hours memorizing the Koran, rocking forward and backward like some automaton. This is what passes for education in many places in this world.

I would have no way of knowing what Christians today choose to allow their young children to know of the Bible’s blood lust, but I hope that most use some discretion. Most Christians that I know have major blind spots or complete ignorance of most of the Bible which would indicate to me that they never were taught these parts or at the least that they were conveniently overlooked.

But this begs the question; why use the Bible as your guide to child-rearing if you have to ignore large portions of what it teaches? I could list dozens of passages that are not fit to be heard by children, but I will refrain for now and limit by choices to one; the wonderful father and son adventure of Abraham and Isaac.

Once upon a time ….

‘God’ decides to tempt Abraham to test his faith and willingness to murder his son. Why ‘God’ would have to tempt Abraham is odd considering that he should already know whether Abraham had faith or not. And the method that Abraham receives this command isn’t defined. If Abraham receives his messages from ‘God’ as most believers do, then I assume it is a voice in his head.

To get on with the story, The Voice in Abraham’s Head tells him to go on a trip with his son, load up some asses and couple of servants and head off to commit murder on top of some yet to be disclosed mountain. When they get within sight of the mountain, Abraham leaves the servants and asses and heads up the mountain with Isaac. First, Abraham loads up Isaac with the wood that will be needed to burn him and he gets some fire, maybe a book of matches from one of the servants, who knows. By the way, Abraham lies to the servants about where he and his son are headed, he tells them they are going to go to yon mountain and worship. He isn’t exactly honest in saying that he is going to yon mountain to murder my only son.

At this point, Isaac asks his father where the lamb to offer as a sacrifice is. Abraham again lies and says that ‘God’ will provide that. He could have been honest and said, “Lamb, I don’t need no stinking Lamb”.

Abraham and Isaac get to the top of the mountain and build the alter of sacrifice. Abraham binds Isaac. Evidently, Isaac can not be trusted to simply lie on the alter and be slaughtered willingly. Like most sensible people, he would probably try to avoid being murdered by his father.

Without hesitation or even a second check of that voice in his head, Abraham raises the knife to murder his son. What Isaac is thinking at this time or doing is not specified in the holy texts. My guess would be that having been bound and laid on an alter, he was probably screaming something to the effect of “WTF!”.

Just at that moment, one of ‘God’s’ flunkies, a nameless angel (who at least does speak out of the clouds as we would expect them to), commands Abraham to put down the knife and tells him that the whole deal was pretty much just a little joke ‘God’ had played upon him. ‘God’ evidently was too busy to speak directly to Abraham at this time. He may have been destroying Sodom and Gomorrah or turning someone into a pillar of salt.

Abraham notices a goat that is now in some bushes and decides to kill it instead of Isaac. Abraham is praised for being a really cool servant of God for his willingness to murder his own son and is promised to get the ‘God’ version of Viagra to go and spread his wonderful seed all over the land.

I am not really sure what kind of relationship that Isaac and Abraham had after that. It doesn’t seem to be important to ‘God’. I can only guess that Isaac slept with one eye open and avoided going on vacation with dad after that.

…and they lived happily ever after?

This passage is the subject of unknown numbers of sermons in churches every week. Can you imagine the fear that it must put into the minds of children? I wonder if any of the kids ask their fathers what they would do if ‘God’ instructed them to do such a thing.

What would you Real Christians do if instructed by ‘God’ to murder your children and what would you expect your secular counterparts to do if you acted upon this instruction from a voice in your head?

The problem that True Believers seem to have is that they want to credit their holy book for any morality they may have, but their true morality is based upon secular values, not those condoned in the bloody Bible.

These people should think about what they are doing before they send their kids off to Sunday school or to a religious school. Damage is being done.

Jon said...

Mr. Ira,

I would like to help you with your argument. You have mistaken biology and wrapped it up in evolution. Everything you have stated is true of biology not evolution. Decoding DNA has laid waste to Darwin's theory. Lay terms or scientific terms it does not matter here. Evolution in Darwin's terms or theory or whatever you may call it has been proven incorrect by scientific law. I would suggest you google Mendel's Law. (different combinations not different genes)

Mutations are the only means for new genetic material. Most mutations are harmful if not lethal for survival.

I am not old or young, but I am tried. (not tired)

I am not done, and God is not done with you.

wormwood said...

[ultraistic is not a word. I meant altruistic]

To brainwash someone requires force or coercion (like the threat of eternal damnation from a being who is everywhere, including in their dirty little minds).

To brainwash an innocent child is morally reprehensible.

I don’t mean it as an insult, but simply a matter of fact that if you knowingly brainwash your child because you cannot think of any other way to teach them morals, you have failed as a parent.

What if I said, “I have to smack my child because I don’t know how else to get them to do their homework.”? Would you not say, “what the heck are you doing? If you can’t make your child do their homework without hitting them, there is something wrong with you!”?

Your most imaginative example of teaching morality without religion:

"Be good and honest son. Ok, why? Well uh because I said so.

First of all, what exactly is the difference between saying "because I said so," and "because god said so."?

Your problem here, I think, is your need to put it in a nutshell, so to speak. To actually explain to a child why something is right or wrong, and to have the intellectual honesty to admit you don't have the answer to every question, cannot be done with a sentence or a proverb or threat (be it from you or from god). It's a dialogue that takes place over many years. A neverending dialogue built upon honesty and trust (not fear of hell or the fantasy of heaven).

The true value of this open and honest dialogue is immeasurable, for the parent as well as a child. When you allow your child to think rationally about deep philosophical issues, you will be amazed at just how brilliant they are. But when you force-feed them fairy tales, is it any wonder when they turn out like Devine or Jon?

Also, I must point out that there is a big difference between "non-religious" and "atheist" parents. The difference between someone who is too intellectually lazy to try to understand how the universe works (let alone explain it to their children), and someone who grapples with those questions every day, and actively involves their children in philosophical matters.

But to be a sheep! To spoon feed the canned answers and conditioned responses that you were fed as a child to your own children, especially when you realize that it's just a crutch, a quick fix, to avoid discussing real issues with your children; to squelch their intellectual curiosity with ancient myths and folklore; that is wrong.

Jon said...

Divine Justice,

Please brother, you are not helping here. We may tell by the fruits of their labor, but we are not to judge to heaven or hell.

I do appreciate the help, but these people have no fear of God or hell.

They have been deeply deceived.

Do not be such a Pharisee.

Thanks, and to God be the Glory!

wormwood said...

Introduction to Physical Anthropology Ninth Edition

Chapter 2, Page 37:

"The publication of the The Origin of Species fanned the flames of controversy over evolution into an inferno, but the question had already been debated in intellectual circles for some years...

The debate has not ended even now, almost 150 years later. For the majority of scientists today, evolution is fact. Indeed, the genetic evidence for it is indisputable, and anyone who appreciates and understands genetic mechanisms cannot avoid the conclusion that populations and species evolve."

wormwood said...

Please brother?

You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears!

I do appreciate the help

What help? He only offered death and destruction.

RIP said...

I was dead on an operating table for 3 minutes a few years ago. I think some of you are in for a little surprise when death hits you.

I was lucky, I got a for-taste of what happens when one dies. Call me a sheep if you must. I will pray for God's mercy on you...

Heather Annastasia said...

"Doctor Olaf Blanke, a neurologist at Geneva University Hospital reproduced out-of-body experience without cameras and clinical death. In the British journal Nature he described an experiment with a 43-year-old patient suffering from epileptic seizures. To study the woman’s disease the researcher implanted electrodes into her brain to stimulate the right temporal lobe and accidentally excited her angular gyrus, the structure connected with the organs of vision, sense of touch and organs of equilibrium. As a result of the experiment the patient could see herself from outside without provoking clinical death.

Doctor Blanke was also surprised with the results of the experiment. He supposed that probably when a person is in stress his brain somehow stimulates the gyrus that helps send information about the position of his body to the visual cortex. Visual cortex in its turn interprets it its own way, intermixes it with other images it has and projects it to the retina. This produces the effect of inverted vision, and the man feels as if he sees himself from outside. The researcher believes that the same happens to patients when psychiatrists speak about split personality.

Materialists mention recent experiments conducted in Wales in this connection. Welsh doctors observed clinical death of 39 patients. The doctors painted big symbols on paper and placed them close to the patients experiencing clinical death. At that, none of the patients who had out-of-body experience noticed the symbols at all."

wormwood said...

For rip,
At the moment the heart stops one has about 3 minutes until brain damage. It takes 7 to 10 minutes before brain cells begin to die. In the mean time you are going to experience the hallucination, of quite literately your life! Everything from the glowing tunnel to out of body. And I am sure that the psychological impact on a person under those situations is rather intense. But lets step back and view this in a larger context. For a moment lets take ourselves back 3000 years, a solar eclipse was a sign from god! "The heavens are unhappy, quick lets kill something!" Today we know that to be nonsense. We know the sun is a big ball of gas, we know that planets orbit around it, we know that moons orbit the planets, we know that all life on this wonderful planet evolved from a common ancestor. And for Rip and the countless others that have had a near death experience, we know. We know god had nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...


By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Not only were they voted off the school board by an exasperated public last November, but this week a federal district judge declared their handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity."

A new and wiser school board is planning to do just that by removing intelligent design from the science curriculum and perhaps placing it in an elective course on comparative religion. That would be a more appropriate venue to learn about what the judge deemed "a religious view, a mere relabeling of creationism and not a scientific theory."

The intelligent design movement holds that life forms are too complex to have been formed by natural processes and must have been fashioned by a higher intelligence, which is never officially identified but which most adherents believe to be God. By injecting intelligent design into the science curriculum, the judge ruled, the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

The decision will have come at an opportune time if it is able to deflect other misguided efforts by religious conservatives to undermine the teaching of evolution, a central organizing principle of modern biology. In Georgia, a federal appeals court shows signs of wanting to reverse a lower court that said it was unconstitutional to require textbooks to carry a sticker disparaging evolution as "a theory, not a fact." That's the line of argument used by the anti-evolution crowd. We can only hope that the judges in Atlanta find the reasoning of the Pennsylvania judge, who dealt with comparable issues, persuasive.

Meanwhile in Kansas, the State Board of Education has urged schools to criticize evolution. It has also changed the definition of science so it is not limited to natural explanations, opening the way for including intelligent design or other forms of creationism that cannot meet traditional definitions of science. All Kansans interested in a sound science curriculum should heed what happened in Dover and vote out the inane board members.

The judge in the Pennsylvania case, John Jones III, can hardly be accused of being a liberal activist out to overturn community values - even by those inclined to see conspiracies. He is a lifelong Republican, appointed to the bench by President Bush, and has been praised for his integrity and intellect. Indeed, as the judge pointed out, the real activists in this case were ill-informed school board members, aided by a public interest law firm that promotes Christian values, who combined to drive the board to adopt an imprudent and unconstitutional policy.

Judge Jones's decision was a striking repudiation of intelligent design, given that Dover's policy was minimally intrusive on classroom teaching. Administrators merely read a brief disclaimer at the beginning of a class asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact; that there were gaps in the evidence for evolution; and that intelligent design provided an alternative explanation and could be further explored by consulting a book in the school library. Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt the theory of evolution without scientific justification and presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory.

The case was most notable for its searching inquiry into whether intelligent design could be considered science. The answer, after a six-week trial that included hours of expert testimony, was a resounding no.

The judge found that intelligent design violated the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation and by making assertions that could not be tested or proved wrong. Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in the scientific community, has not been supported by peer-reviewed research, and has not generated a research and testing program of its own. The core argument for intelligent design - the supposedly irreducible complexity of key biological systems - has clear theological overtones. As long ago as the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that because nature is complex, it must have a designer.

The religious thrust behind Dover's policy was unmistakable. The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they tried to dissemble during the trial. Judge Jones charged that the two ringleaders lied in depositions to hide the fact that they had raised money at a church to buy copies of an intelligent design textbook for the school library. He also found that board members were strikingly ignorant about intelligent design and that several individuals had lied time and again to hide their religious motivations for backing the concept. Their contention that they had a secular purpose - to improve science education and encourage critical thinking - was declared a sham.

No one believes that this thoroughgoing repudiation of intelligent design will end the incessant warfare over evolution. But any community that is worried about the ability of its students to compete in a global economy would be wise to keep supernatural explanations out of its science classes.

jon's dick said...

Shriveled and in pain!

Jon said...

To all who disbelieve,

Happy Easter! Thank God for a risen Savior!

Try to believe then you may see.

Try to think about visiting a Christ believing church tomorrow.

I will be in church at 9:30 praising his name. We will not be bashing anyone for anything. Same as always.

Maybe I will have more time next week.

Anonymous said...

Hey Jon I have a joke for you!
What's the difference between Jesus and a picture of Jesus?
It only takes one nail to hang up the picture.

toadpipe, trusted scribe of jon, bearer of the sauce said...

To all who disbelieve,
The great spaghetti monster gave his only begotten meatball , so that all could get some spicy Italian in their life. So come out to our church and help us celebrate the gift of this meatball.
Try to believe then you may see!
We wont be bashing anyone..
Just fags, atheists, and anyone else that disagrees!
Hang in there I'll say something ignorant next week!

sauce! said...

Satan left out part of my title.

Wormwood said...

The silence of the Jesus crowd..

Why are Christians such intellectual cowards? Not a single one will test their faith to the cold hard reality of reason!

tb said...


The silence on this board in general is pretty much the fact.

Not many read here and the ones that do just get tired of reading umpteen paragraphs of stuff you cut and paste to try and prove your point.

I don't come to blogs too read cut and pasted stuff from others. I come to get personal opinions from people.

Call me an intellectual coward if you will. It's hard to describe faith to people who clearly have none and have no desire to have any. Their only faith is in there intellectual supremecy over all.

I have had plenty of years to think it all over but I have choosen that life without faith is rather empty and sad.

Let the name calling continue...

Heather Annastasia said...


I don't think wormwood cut and pasted anything, that was damion.

I have had plenty of years to think it all over but I have choosen that life without faith is rather empty and sad.

I accept that there are people who need to have faith in a higher being, though I think it's sad that so many people are unwilling to face life without an imaginary crutch. I don't feel superior, just liberated. There are plenty of religious people who are smarter, more successful, and better than me. Every individual, even the dim-witted teenage mother on welfare, has an intrinsic value not bestowed by any supreme being in the sky, but simply because we are all one. We all have hopes and dreams, love and heartbreak, we will all die.

Personally, I think people should have a right to believe whatever they want.

The problem is when religious people want to influence our laws and force their fantasy world on everyone else.

There is no logical reason, for instance, that gays shouldn't get married; laws preventing gay marriage are christian laws and therefore unconstitutional, just like our previous laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

tb said...


I do find this site interesting as having been a christian my whole life I have never ran into many atheists. Being an engineer I like too think of myself as a logical thinker and of course over the years I have questioned religion et all. But I guess after really looking into I made a choice, but it's really too much too go into in a blog.

I agree that people should be able too believe what they want also. It's just I guess the words that people use on here that make it seem that atheists are very hostile to anyone who does not agree with them. Even you feel that religious people live in a "fantasy" world.

Last I checked we lived in a democracy and the majority made the rules. Yes I guess that means that since the majority of people in the US are christian then that will affect the laws too some degree.

The problem comes I guess in determining right and wrong and what rules need to be around and what rules don't need too be around.

But then there are many things like cigarettes for one example that don't make sense either. They have proven them too be quite harmful to people and addictive, yet they continue too be legal too sell whereas something like marijuana is still illegal.

Marriage is another one of those issues too. Isn't marriage an institution started by the church for the most part?? I don't know the whole history of it but it sure seems that way too me. Is there any logical reason why polygamy isn't allowed as well? Just another thing to blame the church on I guess.

So how does one determine what is right or wrong as an atheist? There is no higher power you will have to answer too one day so what determines the rules we live by? I would guess what the majority think is right and wrong correct?

Sorry for being so ignorant about atheism but I just don't get it. Does a body have a soul in atheism? I would guess not so we are here just too live this life and that's that? Do whatever you want I guess. I get the idea that many of you feel liberated after making this decision? Is that because there are no more rules too live by?

I'll give you that organized religions are far from perfect. After all they are run by humans who are prone to mess things up but that's in government and other things as well.

wormwood said...

I don't come to blogs too read cut and pasted stuff from others. I come to get personal opinions from people.TB

Well lets start with a little cut and paste seeing I do it all the time. Unfortunitly that is completely inaccurate. Very important to note this coming from a person who willingly lives his life according to something he or she describes as brainwash!

Dealing with the question of morality.

Morality is something that is hardwired into a human being. A more appropriate term would be cooperation. The desire to help is evident in the earliest stages of life. That uncontrollable urge to jump and save a drowning child at the possible expense of your life. Altruism is a common behavior of every living thing on this planet. Once we as a species started communities there became a need for laws and a hierarchy. This is something shared by our cousins in the wild. To discover how to treat people one should look no further than ones self. A god plays no roll in this.

The motivating factor behind any belief in a god or a soul can be narrowed down to one thing. Fear, fear of death, fear of the unknown. For the alcoholic in A.A. its the fear of a relapse. For a majority of the population fear is the motivating factor in their lives. Is it any wonder when the majority of the people from the time of infancy on attend a church that tells them they are going to hell?!! That their very birth has made them guilty! From the moment a child opens their eyes they are fed a daily diet of fairy tales and dogmatic nonsense. A modern man should have no delusions, death is most likely what it means. Does that make life dreary and bleak? Quite the opposite I strive to make it the best life that I can every moment is precious! That is also why I fight the tyranny of faith. It is through the tyranny of faith that a young man is marched off to war, it is through the tyranny of faith that a suicide bomber blows himself up in a market, and it is through the tyranny of faith that people like tb, jon, and nevermind brainwash their children. Once we free ourselves from the delusions we have been fed our whole lives, we will begin to understand just how precious life really is!

Heather Annastasia said...


So how does one determine what is right or wrong as an atheist? There is no higher power you will have to answer too one day so what determines the rules we live by? tb

I've been meaning to do a post on this very issue. I'll try really hard to get to it tomorrow.

The short answer is this: Atheists are mostly very moral people. As moral and immoral as religious people.

The broader, larger moral issues are self-evident. Murder is wrong. hurting people is wrong. I don't need to be threatened with a god or hell to know that. I know what it is to be hurt, and I have no wish to inflict pain on others. People who enjoy hurting others, or who are willing to hurt others for their own benefit, will do so with or without religion.

Morality, like everything else, can be considered logically. There's nothing supernatural about it.

More tomorrow. It's late and I'm tired. Good questions here, though. And good insights.

As for the hostility here; people get heated over these issues, but dialog is good. I have gotten very hostile toward positions I later accepted.

tb said...

Ok I like the more open discussion without needing to berate one another.

But can we get one thing straight. Yes I did post that religion was a sort of brainwashing and now that its getting beaten too death about me. What I should of said is I can see how people could think it was a brain washing. Anything can be brain washed into people if repeated enough. Hell TV is pretty much a brain washing as well but you you're not anti-TV, ok well maybe you are we haven't talked about that yet.

It just really get old when someone states one thing and you won't get off of it and keep claiming I believe that. I can see how people can think it is a brain washing. I for one don't tell my children that it's this way or the highway or lock them in front of some screen for hours too brain wash them into it. I have two teenagers who can think for themselves and ask plenty of questions. I don't brain wash my children. Ok rant over, but geez you all take one thing and run with it like crazy...