I only know one group of people who would even have a question like this come to mind. The “compassionate” liberally minded politician with an enlightened sense of social justice. I don’t like the idea of social justice. It presumes one demographic of people is so down trodden they need someone to step in on their behalf. Speaking for myself, it has never occurred to me that anyone should do something with them — why should we?
Social justice activists truly believe they have the most sincere of good intentions. They see it as their mission to eradicate the discrimination and veiled racism which they believe pervades our society. But isn’t it racist to claim that Blacks can’t take care of themselves; that they won’t work and will become a burden upon the State through welfare. Is the problem white privilege and employers who won’t employ them if they don’t have to? Is it because of racism that young Blacks become poor criminals overrunning all our jails and prisons, and thus you feel as though you must do something.
Let me answer the question. Do nothing. Let them succeed or fail on their own. They need no intervention by the elitist know-more-thans. They can go to school, no one stands in the way. They can work; millions of Black people have great jobs all across America. They can make their own way, can’t they? Do they really need your help? Or are they not smart enough to understand, without your help, that if they work hard they can succeed, and if they don’t they’ll fail.
How many Blacks must succeed on their own before you concede that you don’t know what’s best for them? How many must become judges, doctors, actors, and CEOs of their own accord before you realize that your butting into their lives isn’t required or helping? Are you afraid they can’t succeed without your help? Perhaps you’re afraid they won’t. Or perhaps still you’re afraid they will and prove that they didn’t need you at all.
Sifting Reality 
John Barron’s thoughts on “poor blacks in America” is another indication of how spiritually bankrupt and amoral Christianity has become in the United States of America. No doubt about it, John Barron represents the very worst traits exhibited by self-righteous self-absorbed American Christians.
To begin with, John:
1. The population of poor white people in America vastly exceeds the population of poor black people.
2. The population of poor Christians in America vastly exceeds the population of poor black people.
3. Christians have a long history of genocide, oppression, prejudice, bigotry and genocide against the poor of all races, nationalities, religions and cultures worldwide.
4. American Christians are the most materialistic, selfish and violent people who have ever lived upon the Earth.
5. The Native Americans did not donate North America, South America and Central America to the Christians. The Christians stole this land and all of its resources by warfare and the mass murder of native people, including children.
6. Those Americans who are from Africa did not come to this nation willingly. They were abducted from their own native land, deprived of their human rights, enslaved, bought, sold, raped and killed by the white Christians of America.
7. Since the white Christians of the South fought a war on behalf of slavery and lost, these same Christians have utilized every means available — legal as well as illegal — to deprive African Americans of their human rights, civil rights and economic opportunity.
8. The white Christians have also, by means of the local, state and federal government and the court system, designed the criminal justice system to make criminals out of minorities, place them in jail and render them felons as a means of depriving American citizens the right to vote and otherwise participate in our democracy,
9. Nonetheless, the white Christians of America are facing a demographic collapse which means that their political power is diminishing and therefore a day will come when they become the minority and they will enjoy all of the sufferings which minority status entails.
10. Who knows? The day may come when the white Christians will need to suffer persecution. Christians love persecution and they’ve been mourning its loss for a very long time. Don’t worry, though, your day will come.
1. You’re right. So why is the left so fixated on the poor minority population?
2. Possibly, so why is the left so fixated on the poor minority population?
3. You’ve continually made this assertion with no citation.
4. That’s one person’s opinion.
5. The Indians were killing and stealing from one another when the Europeans got here. We didn’t invent it.
6. Black slaves were sold to European slave traders after having been abducted by their own people and tribe’s men.
7. Slavery and oppressive racism has been gone from society for some time now. Maybe you’ll discuss the atrocities handed down from Atheistic governments some day.
8. Nope. Things that are illegal for minorities are also illegal for non-minorities.
9. This only matters to racists whose numbers are diminishing.
10. You really seem to hate Christians and Christianity. I think you’ve tipped your hat, you aren’t an atheist because of evidence, it’s because you hate a group of people, making you a bigot.
Hello, I think it’s my first time commenting here. From what I’ve seen, I don’t have high expectations of discourse, but I’ll throw these two points in.
7. White Christians in the North established the modern world’s first abolitionist society in the late 1600s. Christian revival brought British acquisition of slaves to an end in the early 1800s. The South did not fight just to preserve slavery; other issues were salient to their decisionmaking. Also, opposition to slavery was one major factor for White Christians in the North. Christians of all colors animated the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
8. What credible scholarly sources substantiate your claim that all levels of US government have been designed to perpetuate racism? What theory of social science do you use to establish this? Is your claim able to be extrapolated across the board, or are these instances the exception rather than the norm?
Hello John,
Thanks for demonstrating conclusively that Christians are every bit as horrendously evil as any other population of humans throughout history. That’s what I’ve been saying for a very long time to every Christian I happen to meet, especially those naïve people who claim (erroneously) that Christianity is a religion of peace, love and mercy.
Jesus came to this Earth to die on the cross so that he might establish a religion which would commit genocide, warfare, oppression and slavery for two thousand years. Jesus didn’t die on a cross to save anyone, especially not the Christians. Is it any wonder that Jesus hasn’t returned? Of course, dead people cannot return to the Earth under any circumstance and God himself is absent from the universe because of his own intrinsic nonexistence.
As to my bigotry against Christians, I am not the one who spends all my time missing the former days of Christian persecution and dreaming of future days of Christian persecution. Christians do so and have said as much throughout my life. I always feel a bit sad for these perpetually persecuted never-actually-persecuted people.
Given Christianity’s dismal history of amorality it is about time America found a new set of values to govern itself. Secularism prevails because Christianity failed.
Wow as the only(I think) resident Black subscriber to this blog I must speak (LOL).
This blog has very sensational titles at times but the owner is actually a nice guy. :)
@David,
I think it’s important that we never judge a concept by the abuse of it. And Christianity is no exception. Personally, I have not made my conclusions about Islam because of a few Islamic terrorists but by comparison of the fundamentals of Islam against the fundamentals of Christianity. I have compared their answers on the topics of origin, morality, meaning and destiny. I find Christianity to be more coherent and consistent and most importantly I have had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ.
No other religious worldview but the Judeo-Christian worldview could have produced the Constitution in its entirety. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. All religions do not claim intrinsic value to every life (thus our pro-life stance). Certainly not Hinduism and the caste system. All religions do not give you freedom to disagree as provided in the first amendment. You couldn’t have this discussion in certain middle eastern countries whose laws are framed from an Islamic worldview. Unfortunately the Constitution wasn’t applied in the same spirit of truth that birthed it. But then you blame messengers not the message.
If you want more resources that discuss comparative religion please let me know. Have a nice day.
@John
Racism most certainly exists. But not in the capacity that it once did. As long as there is sin then there is racism. I look at is a flavor of sin and to be dealt with like all sin. “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.” (John 17:15, NKJV). However it is no longer the domineering social thought used as an elaborate secret tool to separate the have and the have-nots. No, i think the new social thought is simply money. Money divides us more than anything. The race associated to those who have money just comes along for the ride. At the same time the problems in our black community began with slavery and have now become self destructive. There needs to always be efforts led by the Church to help and teach and transform. These efforts should have a timeline so that people aren’t enabled. The Church must lead because through Christ not only will people have natural food but will have spiritual food and break generations of poverty: “And they shall rebuild the old ruins,They shall raise up the former desolations,And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations. (Isaiah 61:4, NKJV). Right now via our church family we have someone and their child living with us for a God set time to pour into her the things that she didn’t get. We believe our efforts are not in vain even if it sews seed and that one day she will turn around and help someone else. And this is happening all over in the Body of Christ. I was talking to someone that works at my VW dealership and he’s a Chrstian raising a stranger’s kid. This private grass roots effort undergirded by the hearts of believers is how it should be. The liberals are right in validating social problems but the Church needs to take action not the government.
By the way, later today I will introduce a new perspective on this post.
Hello Zanspence,
You say, “I think it’s important that we never judge a concept by the abuse of it. ”
Unfortunately, Christianity’s history of prejudice, bigotry, warfare, oppression, enslavement and genocide represent the norm and not an abuse of an otherwise peaceful, loving, merciful religion. Christianity’s present manifestation as the religion of the Angry White Male who happens (coincidentally) to hate the poor and hate minorities and especially to hate poor minorities is perfectly consistent with Christianity’s history as a religion of hatred and perpetual strife between humans.
You say, “Personally, I have not made my conclusions about Islam because of a few Islamic terrorists but by comparison of the fundamentals of Islam against the fundamentals of Christianity. I have compared their answers on the topics of origin, morality, meaning and destiny. I find Christianity to be more coherent and consistent and most importantly I have had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. ”
A Christian would say so but a Christian cannot function as an objective judge between the competing claims of Christianity and Islam. If you personally encountered Jesus Christ you have personally encountered an imaginary (nonexistent) being.
You say, “No other religious worldview but the Judeo-Christian worldview could have produced the Constitution in its entirety. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. All religions do not claim intrinsic value to every life (thus our pro-life stance). Certainly not Hinduism and the caste system. All religions do not give you freedom to disagree as provided in the first amendment. You couldn’t have this discussion in certain middle eastern countries whose laws are framed from an Islamic worldview. Unfortunately the Constitution wasn’t applied in the same spirit of truth that birthed it. But then you blame messengers not the message. ”
You’ve got to be joking, right? The Constitution was written by Deists, not by Christians, and it was written in response to the crimes committed by Christianity in Europe, crimes which specifically motivated the oppressed and persecuted minority Christian religions of Europe to cross a very dangerous ocean to escape from their Christian persecutors.
As to the notion of all men being equal, the Christians of the South did not consider their slaves as humans and certainly did not (and still do not) consider the black man equal to the white. So much for Christianity.
David you claim a Christian cannot judge objectively between competing claims of Islam and Christianity, yet you think Aslan, a Muslim, is a perfectly qualified judge of Christianity. You talk out both sides of your mouth my friend. Your goal posts lack rigidity.
David, out of the 55 framers of the US Constitution, 49 belonged to protestant denominations, and two to the Catholic church. In that time, being affiliated with an institutional church was a serious commitment. The Constitution was drafted in large part by Christians, not deists.
Hey David,
I’m going to challenge you on just 2 points.
First the baseline for comparison of religions is their sacred texts. You can easily find a religions’ stance on origin/cosmology from their sacred texts. You can also find destinty/eschatology from their sacred texts. And so on with meaning (“what’s the point of life”) and morality (what is “right” and what is “wrong”). I can tell you that Christianity is unique in that no other belief or philosophical system is based on a person. Christianity isn’t based on the teachings of Jesus but Jesus himself. All other religions and philosophical systems are undergirided by how much you know, how you live your life or a mystical experience. The 3 concepts are centered around the will power of the human being. Christianity is centered around the power in Christ. Grace is unique. Thus far in this paragraph I have typed objective facts. I have type objective information, empirically verified by sacred texts. If you choose to believe it like I do then the action is subjective. But my discussion itself of the facts are objective.
Secondly the Christian deism of some of the writers did not stop them from applying Judeo-Christian principles. The principles framed their morality and their concept of what should be law. Christian deism rests on the moral teachings of Jesus. I’d also note that our 7 year bankruptcy law clearly draws from Leviticus and the Mosaic law of 7 year debt forgiveness.
John,
Social justice is a good thing where needed. Many groups were victimized throughout history and benefited from the works of those with an enlightened sense of social justice. I will agree, though, that the idea is perhaps a bit antiquated in modern America. And if it shouldn’t be antiquated, then at least it should be focused on other groups, such as unborn children.
And this David fellow is clearly an idiot.
The question I have about social justice is, why isn’t regular justice enough? It seems redundant. If regular justice is insufficient, then it should be reformed, because justice is always social in the first place; when is justice inherently ever not social?
John,
My recent experience causes me to question one aspect of your premise.
I live in a large metropolitan area with a large East African Immigrant population (Ethiopian, Somali, Eritrean), and it is beginning to seem like there are two increasingly distinct strains of blacks in America. For lack of better terminology I’m referring to them as American African Americans and African African Americans. I believe that based on what I am observing that we will soon the African African Americans begin to surpass the American African Americans in economic success. I suspect that there are a number of reasons for this. What I am wondering about now is can the African African Americans maintain the things that drive them towards success or will they succumb to the culture. Am am also wondering if we will start to see a split in the black community where the African African Americans start to be treated as scapegoats for the problems in the American African American community.
At this point, I’m still watching and formulating some thoughts and questions. But, I see the potential for some really ugly clahses.
Craig
virtually every time I reference Blacks, I refer to American by birth and familial culture.
But what I wanted to note was this post was adapted from a Frederick Douglass speech.
Sorry, couldn’t correct clashes in time.
@Craig,
I can speak to your observation a lot. I live in the NYC metropolitan area so most white Americans have noticed what you have noticed. I will extend your observation to include Black immigrants (African, Caribbean and Spanish blacks) in general. I was born in Jamaica and was naturalized as a US citizen while a minor via my parent’s naturalization in the late 90s. We black immigrants are conspicuously overrepresented in corporate america and in higher education particularly the S.T.E.M. majors. This phenomenon was even written about in Essence Magazine. Overall most of the blacks in higher education are immigrants like myself or are the children of immigrants. I have a bachelors and masters in Computer Science. Th e disparity between black immigrants and black americans can cause resentment from black americans and scorn by black immigrants. Because I have been in America since I was 6 I understand both sides. I choose not to scorn black americans but to bridge differences. White people have blatantly mentioned that they have noticed the disparity not just in academics and career but also with culture in how we speak and our values. There are socio-econmic books devoted on this topic. You can find it in Amazon. My theory is that immigrants in general including black immigrants see this country with great opportunity. We come from countries with very little opportunity and resources. We have a focused goal. If you dig deeper you’ll find the same trend in politics. Obama is the son of an African and Colin Powell is the son of Jamaican parents.
Zanspence
Don’t you think the prolific success rates of Black immigrants and Blacks from relatively new roots in America undermines the premise that institutionalized racism is responsible for the predominant poverty in the inner cities that overwhelmingly affects generational American Blacks? How should one interpret the disparity between the two: Immigrant Blacks and American Blacks? Why can one group regularly succeed and the other not? More over, why do immigrants in general succeed and American Blacks not?
For lack of any argument to the contrary, I place the blame on American Black activists who make it their living telling Blacks they cant succeed because of racism. When people hear it their whole lives that no matter how hard they try, they’ll get nowhere, at some point they stop trying, dont they?
I like this cogitatingduck person. Hope to see more of him/her here.
For David, I offer this:
“According to colonial records, the first slave owner in the United States was a black man.
Prior to 1655 there were no legal slaves in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from slave traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.
Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost killed when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.
When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.
Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for blacks to own slave of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent slave and Johnson the first slave owner.
Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free whites, blacks, and Indians the right to own blacks as slaves.
By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves.
However, black slave owners continued to thrive in the United States.
By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.”
Zance,
Shut up. Nothing you say matters because you’re one of the smartest people I’ve ever seen on any blog – ever. You are a mile smarter than most people of any race. So, your experience is of little help. :-)
Hello John,
You say, “David you claim a Christian cannot judge objectively between competing claims of Islam and Christianity, yet you think Aslan, a Muslim, is a perfectly qualified judge of Christianity. You talk out both sides of your mouth my friend. Your goal posts lack rigidity. ”
Reza Aslan is perfectly qualified as a scholar to judge the story of Jesus as represented by the gospels according to the standards of historical scholarship. Reza Aslan does not attempt to judge objectively the claims of truth between the religions of Islam and Christianity, and neither are you, me or anyone else.
The reason for this is quite simple: There is no truth in religion. Christianity isn’t any better or worse than Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, atheism and agnosticism. People believe whatever they believe for whatever reason they might have to believe. That’s all anyone can say about religion and the futile attempt to choose which religion is correct and approved by God.
From a historical, rational, scientific and philosophical standpoint it is quite possible to objectively prove that Christianity and all of the other religions are false. That’s what I’ve concluded after studying all of the religions and God Himself agrees since God says in the Book of Revelation Addendum 23:2, “All religions are false. All preachers and prophets are liars. There is no truth nor any means for a human, an evolved primate, to know the truth even if it actually existed. I would have told humankind this a long time ago (in the Preamble to the Book of Genesis) but I didn’t have an opportunity because non-existent entities cannot actually say anything.”
Who am I to argue with God?
Hello Zanspense,
You say, “First the baseline for comparison of religions is their sacred texts. You can easily find a religions’ stance on origin/cosmology from their sacred texts. You can also find destinty/eschatology from their sacred texts. And so on with meaning (“what’s the point of life”) and morality (what is “right” and what is “wrong”). I can tell you that Christianity is unique in that no other belief or philosophical system is based on a person. Christianity isn’t based on the teachings of Jesus but Jesus himself. All other religions and philosophical systems are undergirided by how much you know, how you live your life or a mystical experience. The 3 concepts are centered around the will power of the human being. Christianity is centered around the power in Christ. Grace is unique. Thus far in this paragraph I have typed objective facts. I have type objective information, empirically verified by sacred texts. If you choose to believe it like I do then the action is subjective. But my discussion itself of the facts are objective. ”
Sorry, the above paragraph is wrong. I’ve read the Bible and it is noteworthy only insofar as Christians have justified 2000 years of violence, warfare, oppression and genocide based upon its teachings. Jesus Christ (so called) is an imaginary god which constitutes a poor conflation of Judaism’s monotheism with Greek religion and philosophy. The Bible is wrong about a great many things and among those errors is its claim that Jesus was the messiah and its claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Neither claim is correct as Jews have pointed out to Christians for two thousand years.
You say, “Secondly the Christian deism of some of the writers did not stop them from applying Judeo-Christian principles. The principles framed their morality and their concept of what should be law. Christian deism rests on the moral teachings of Jesus. I’d also note that our 7 year bankruptcy law clearly draws from Leviticus and the Mosaic law of 7 year debt forgiveness. ”
Perhaps so but also irrelevant. The elite intellectuals who wrote the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights were one step removed from atheism, they rejected the Bible, denied Jesus as savior, and explicitly rejected the notion that the United States is a Christian nation.
Hello cogitatingduck,
You say, “7. White Christians in the North established the modern world’s first abolitionist society in the late 1600s. Christian revival brought British acquisition of slaves to an end in the early 1800s. The South did not fight just to preserve slavery; other issues were salient to their decisionmaking. Also, opposition to slavery was one major factor for White Christians in the North. Christians of all colors animated the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. ”
The question is not whether or not white Christians of the North opposed slavery (because they did), it is this: How did a Christian nation become a slave-owning nation in the first place?
As it turns out, the Christians of the South became slave-owners by their own choice, perpetuated slavery by their own choice, preached about God, Jesus and love while at the same time oppressing, raping and killing their own slaves, and they bought weapons and fought a Civil War, killing their own fellow Christians, on behalf of protecting and preserving slavery.
These same Christians have spent the last century preserving racism, bigotry and disenfranchisement among their own fellow citizens on behalf of their racism, and they have hated their own fellow Christians throughout this time period because of their racism, and they continue to persevere in their racism as they denying the citizenship and Christianity of President Barack Obama.
Christianity is not a religion of love.
You say, “8. What credible scholarly sources substantiate your claim that all levels of US government have been designed to perpetuate racism? What theory of social science do you use to establish this? Is your claim able to be extrapolated across the board, or are these instances the exception rather than the norm? ”
The norm is Separate but Unequal for the black citizens of the United States and the Christians of the South were loudly proclaiming their love for “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”:
http://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/history/hpol/wallace/segregation
Christianity is the more bloody violent and oppressive religion to ever inflict itself upon humankind. Thank God we live in a secular, humanistic and atheistic nation!
America was a slave owning country because England was a slave owning country.
Hello Craig,
You say, “I live in a large metropolitan area with a large East African Immigrant population (Ethiopian, Somali, Eritrean), and it is beginning to seem like there are two increasingly distinct strains of blacks in America. For lack of better terminology I’m referring to them as American African Americans and African African Americans. I believe that based on what I am observing that we will soon the African African Americans begin to surpass the American African Americans in economic success. I suspect that there are a number of reasons for this. What I am wondering about now is can the African African Americans maintain the things that drive them towards success or will they succumb to the culture. Am am also wondering if we will start to see a split in the black community where the African African Americans start to be treated as scapegoats for the problems in the American African American community. ”
I say that you’re just a liar, not an objective observer of your fellow citizens and that you’re theories about various population of black American is pure bunk.
You do know that the President of the United States is … get this, consider the implications, and apply it to your supposed observations as stated above … an African-American!
Martin Luther King, Jr. was also an … African-American!
Since the African-Americans have accomplished thing I think it safe to say that you’re theories regarding the African-Americans reveals only that you are an unreconstructed bigot.
Christians rank among the worst bigots to afflict the United States of America. Did you know that the KKK was a Christian organization? Violent Christians raped and murdered their own slaves, too. Jesus died on a cross so that Christians could hate their neighbor!
Actually the KKK was a Democrat organization which publicly claimed to be a Christian organization
Hello cognitivedissonanceduck,
You say, “David, out of the 55 framers of the US Constitution, 49 belonged to protestant denominations, and two to the Catholic church. In that time, being affiliated with an institutional church was a serious commitment. The Constitution was drafted in large part by Christians, not deists. ”
Membership in a denomination was essentially a requirement for politics in the 18th century but the framers of the Constitution did not take their religion seriously, did not believe the Bible, rejected the notion that Jesus is god, and denied that the United States is a Christian nation.
Other than that, I must admit, they were Christians just like you …
Hello John Barron,
You ask Zans, “Don’t you think the prolific success rates of Black immigrants and Blacks from relatively new roots in America undermines the premise that institutionalized racism is responsible for the predominant poverty in the inner cities that overwhelmingly affects generational American Blacks?”
If you want to put this theory to the test John Barron, we can enslave both you and your fellow Christians for the next 400 years, deny your descendants an education, deprive them of their civil rights, and do everything possible to further disenfranchise them and see how well they turn out.
Egypt enslaved the Hebrews for 400 years so I think that the United States should enslave the Christians for 400 years. If God wants the Christians freed after 400 years God can raise up another Moses and perform the stick-to-snake-to-stick magic again. It didn’t work so well in Egypt and probably won’t work in the United States circa 2500 A.D. Perhaps God can burn another bush …
You ask, “How should one interpret the disparity between the two: Immigrant Blacks and American Blacks? Why can one group regularly succeed and the other not? More over, why do immigrants in general succeed and American Blacks not? ”
Given that the President is an American black I think it safe to attribute the above questions to your own intrinsic ignorance and racism, John.
You further ask, “For lack of any argument to the contrary, I place the blame on American Black activists who make it their living telling Blacks they cant succeed because of racism. When people hear it their whole lives that no matter how hard they try, they’ll get nowhere, at some point they stop trying, dont they? ”
Your assumptions contained in the above questions reveal quite explicitly that you are a racist.
But if you want to argue in the above manner, I will perform my own surmising: “For lack of an argument to the contrary, I place the blame on Jesus Christ for how the American Christians turned out so violent, bigoted, racist and xenophobic. Jesus Christ tried to teach love but he was nailed to a cross and the American Christians thereby reasoned that they should cover the world in the blood of innocent people so that they might not suffer a similar fate. If Jesus had only taken himself off the cross and saved himself from death by crucifixion the world would have avoided the horrors of Christianity.”
Hello Marshal, You say, “For David, I offer this … ” For Marshal, I offer this: Since the Israelites had a long history of capital punishment for a variety of minor infractions against the politic and religious opinions of the Hebrews no one should imagine that the Romans were at all wrong or unjustified when they decided to crucify Jesus, a peasant whose words implied a threat of sedition against the Roman Empire. Given that untold thousands of people were murdered for lesser infractions throughout the history of Israel, the death of Jesus on the cross is a trivial and meaningless event.” Of course, murdering God is a sin of some significance. It is quite difficult to murder a nonexistent entity, so the death of Jesus means absolutely nothing, saves no one, and doesn’t grant any special status to the Christians.
David. I’ll just step in and note this. I’ll fix your reference to Marshal as “Marsha” this time for you because you wouldn’t intentionally do something so petty, right? It was just a mistake, right?
Hello John,
You say, “Actually the KKK was a Democrat organization which publicly claimed to be a Christian organization ”
Yes, indeed, the KKK was (and is) a Christian organization. The political affiliation of the organization is quite irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
You ask, “David. I’ll just step in and note this. I’ll fix your reference to Marshal as “Marsha” this time for you because you wouldn’t intentionally do something so petty, right? It was just a mistake, right? ”
What’s petty. I’ll just respond according to the wisdom of Shakespeare:
“’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part 45
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes 50
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name;
And for that name, which is no part of thee,
http://www.bartleby.com/70/3822.html
@TerranceH, thank you my friend. I have you as the voice of reason and the Paula to Jon’s Simon as well.
David, you are a Poster Boy for Poe’s Law.
Hello Mike,
You say, “David, you are a Poster Boy for Poe’s Law.”
I say that your going to have to do better than that. We’re you attempting to say something? I cannot gather any useful information whatsoever from your comment.
Hi David
I wasn’t really trying to make a point, just an observation. You can google “Poe’s Law” if you don’t get what I said.
P.S. did you shoot all those photos on your flikr profile? They are awesome.
Zan,
Thanks for giving some degree of support to what I am observing. I certainly didn’t mean to exclude blacks from other the Caribbean or other places, I just didn’t want to speak beyond what I am seeing here. I would agree that of the folks I have met in Haiti, who have spent time in the US also mirror your experiences.
As for this, ” My theory is that immigrants in general including black immigrants see this country with great opportunity. We come from countries with very little opportunity and resources. We have a focused goal. “. I think you have nailed it. I also suspect that there are some cultural/religious factors as well. Especially as it relates to the the intact extended family structure, attitude towards education, and avoidance of debt.
I applaud your attitude, but fear you may be in a minority. I suspect that we will see an increasing divide between the two “groups”, which will serve to embitter the one side and to raise the “If they can do it why can’t you?” questions that John alludes to.
John,
I kind of assumed you were referring to what I called “American African American”s. My point is that I don’t think the answers are different for the two “groups”. Interesting that F.D. is the source for your post.
Good stuff, except for…
David,
You make two huge errors in your last comment to me.
First:
“…the Israelites had a long history of capital punishment for a variety of minor infractions against the politic and religious opinions of the Hebrews…”
This is incorrect. The infractions were against God who laid down the law through Moses. If you’re going to pretend you’ve actually studied the Bible, you must deal with on its terms, not on modern notions of what allegedly actually happened. OR, you must first prove that their laws were not from God as the Bible indicates.
Second:
“…no one should imagine that the Romans were at all wrong or unjustified when they decided to crucify Jesus, a peasant whose words implied a threat of sedition against the Roman Empire.”
This might be a point scored in your favor if not for the fact that Pilate found no fault in Jesus. He judged Jesus not-guilty of the crimes for which Jesus was brought before him.
So you must now prove that the Biblical account of Christ’s judgement under Pilate did not occur as the Bible claims it did.
Hello Marshal,
You say, “This is incorrect. The infractions were against God who laid down the law through Moses. If you’re going to pretend you’ve actually studied the Bible, you must deal with on its terms, not on modern notions of what allegedly actually happened. OR, you must first prove that their laws were not from God as the Bible indicates. ”
To begin with, the claims that the laws of Israel came from God differ not at all from the claims of Israel’s neighbors that their own laws, customs and religions came from their own Gods. For that reason, all Divine claims regarding Israel are rendered irrelevant.
As to Yahweh’s judgments against the people of Canaan and Israel itself, Yahweh cannot sit in judgment against any of these groups of humankind because Yahweh doesn’t exist to the same extent that Baal, Zeus and Ganesh does not exist.
You say, “This might be a point scored in your favor if not for the fact that Pilate found no fault in Jesus. He judged Jesus not-guilty of the crimes for which Jesus was brought before him. So you must now prove that the Biblical account of Christ’s judgement under Pilate did not occur as the Bible claims it did. ”
The Bible’s account of Jesus’ judgment and record of Pilate’s words and actions are all the inventions of the anonymous authors of the gospels. The gospels are not historical and they are often wrong and contradictory.
David,
“To begin with, the claims that the laws of Israel came from God differ not at all from the claims of Israel’s neighbors that their own laws, customs and religions came from their own Gods. For that reason, all Divine claims regarding Israel are rendered irrelevant.”
Two problems here:
First of all, to assert that several cultures makes similar claims does not in any way render any of them irrelevant, and less so the claims of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It only makes them similar. Honorable people would seek to determine if any are true rather than pretend none of them are due to these “similarities”. Your conclusion is lazy and quite baseless.
Secondly, your response does not in any way mitigate the truth of my comment, which is a correction of your clearly incorrect position. Their punishments were not for acting against the politic and religious opinions of the Hebrews. That is factually incorrect. They were for acting against God. This is true whether or not it can be proved that God does not exist.
“…Yahweh cannot sit in judgment against any of these groups of humankind because Yahweh doesn’t exist…”
When you can provide proof for this assertion, it might stand as more than wishful and hopeful thinking on your part. Opinion, especially yours regarding religion, does not equate to fact or truth.
“The Bible’s account of Jesus’ judgment and record of Pilate’s words and actions are all the inventions of the anonymous authors of the gospels. The gospels are not historical and they are often wrong and contradictory.”
Sez you, and that’s not saying much. Regardless of whether or not you’re personally impressed, the Gospel books are historical records. It does not matter that you don’t think there exists any other historical works that support them (see the histories of Josephus and Tacitus, for example), and it wouldn’t matter if none existed. That wouldn’t prove that the events recorded didn’t happen. Now, I’m sure you have proof that the Gospel accounts are “inventions”. I’d been thrilled to see you present something that hasn’t already been shredded over and over again.
Hello Marshal,
You say, “First of all, to assert that several cultures makes similar claims does not in any way render any of them irrelevant, and less so the claims of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It only makes them similar. Honorable people would seek to determine if any are true rather than pretend none of them are due to these “similarities”. Your conclusion is lazy and quite baseless. ”
As a general rule, I dismiss all claims regarding the special status of any group of people over those of anyone else. This is a universal rule and it is applied consistently regardless of the divinities who are asserted as making the claim.
For that matter, I also dismiss all claims regarding the special status of people based upon nationality. I live on a planet of 7 billion humans and thoroughly reject the notion of national boundaries, nation-states and all economic theories (whether socialism, communism or capitalism economics is rendered irrelevant by the innate evil of human nature).
I do not know that Yahweh exist nor can I deny that Chemosh exist. All the gods look the same to me. If one god exist then they all exist. If one god doesn’t exist then no god exist.
You say, “Secondly, your response does not in any way mitigate the truth of my comment, which is a correction of your clearly incorrect position. Their punishments were not for acting against the politic and religious opinions of the Hebrews. That is factually incorrect. They were for acting against God. This is true whether or not it can be proved that God does not exist. ”
The Hebrews committed genocide against the Canaanites for one reason and for one reason only: They wanted to steal the land and resources of the Canaanites. Throughout history this is the one and only reason why any group of people has ever committed genocide against another. For example, this is the very specific reason why the Christians of the United States of America committed genocide against the Native Americans.
From the standpoint of genocide, religion is irrelevant. God is also irrelevant. In any case where God is alleged to have commanded genocide that act alone is sufficient proof in itself that the god commanding genocide does not exist.
You say, “When you can provide proof for this assertion, it might stand as more than wishful and hopeful thinking on your part. Opinion, especially yours regarding religion, does not equate to fact or truth. ”
I can prove Yahweh does not exist. If you want to perform Elijah’s game of Yahweh vs. Baal and see whether or not Yahweh still can accomplish such a magic trick, I invite you to do so. All of Yahweh’s acts occurred within the realm of mythology, legend and literary fiction.
You say, “Sez you, and that’s not saying much. Regardless of whether or not you’re personally impressed, the Gospel books are historical records. It does not matter that you don’t think there exists any other historical works that support them (see the histories of Josephus and Tacitus, for example), and it wouldn’t matter if none existed. That wouldn’t prove that the events recorded didn’t happen. Now, I’m sure you have proof that the Gospel accounts are “inventions”. I’d been thrilled to see you present something that hasn’t already been shredded over and over again. ”
I’ve read Josephus and Tacitus and can assure you that they say nothing whatsoever to verify the gospels. There are no historical works to support the gospels because objective history is a modern invention that did not exist even among the intellectuals of the first century, much less the anonymous authors of the gospels who were quite explicit in expressing the theological intentions of their writings.
It is quite easy to prove that the gospel accounts are inventions. Christians and non-Christians have noticed problems in the gospels for nearly 2000 years. Modern day scholars have done the heavy lifting and have identified and explained all of the errors of the gospel authors.
But if you want to discuss the historical accuracy of the gospels, let’s discuss the gospel of Thomas:
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm
If all the gods look the same to you, David, then you have a very shallow uninformed view of the history of religion.
Hello John,
You say, “If all the gods look the same to you, David, then you have a very shallow uninformed view of the history of religion. ”
That’s quite an odd thing to say because I have made a point of reading the scriptures of all of the world’s religions and have examined the history of religion and it is for this reason that all of the gods look the same to me.
As a matter of policy, I simply deny the distinction between any of the gods, religions, nationalities or cultures that might otherwise divide humankind. A human who worships Yahweh is identical in every way to a human who worships Chemosh. If Yahweh and Chemosh have any issues between each other (and they don’t) they can work it out on their own without involving humankind at all.
John,
maybe it’s just me, but I keep noticing odd similarities between Dan’s reasoning and David’s reasoning. Coincidence?
;)
David,
“As a general rule, I dismiss all claims regarding the special status of any group of people over those of anyone else.”
How nice for you. Unfortunately for your response, Christians do not claim any special status over other groups. Indeed, humility if a teaching of the faith you claim to have studied. I was referring, of course, to the truth claims of the various religions. So to put it more distinctly, that several cultures promote similar truth claims does not justify dismissing them all and doing so is intellectually lazy.
“I live on a planet of 7 billion humans and thoroughly reject the notion of national boundaries, nation-states and all economic theories “
Wow. It’s been quite some time when I’ve been so bedazzled by such pseudo-sophisticated tripe! Kudos!
“All the gods look the same to me. If one god exist then they all exist. If one god doesn’t exist then no god exist.”
So when you said you’ve read of all the religions, by that you meant “skim”. I don’t care how much of a hard-core atheist you could possibly be. There’s no way you could claim to have examined all the religions and make a statement that they all look the same to you.
Then, to say that if one god doesn’t exist, then no gods exist, how exactly does it follow?
“The Hebrews committed genocide against the Canaanites for one reason and for one reason only: They wanted to steal the land and resources of the Canaanites.”
Like Dan with his “epic writing” example, you assume this is true as if you could even back it up. They attacked the Canaanites for one reason and for one reason only: The Canaanites lived lives that were an abomination to God and God used the Hebrews to annihilate them. You can speculate about “the REAL reason” all you want (as you no doubt will), but to insist your speculation is actual truth requires proof.
“For example, this is the very specific reason why the Christians of the United States of America committed genocide against the Native Americans.”
Despite the historic record of abuses, there is no evidence of any desire to completely exterminate the native populations. Rather, the federal policy was to assimilate them into civilized society. Before the first white settlers arrived, native tribes were warring with each other for territorial reasons, looking to drive off “lesser” peoples.
“In any case where God is alleged to have commanded genocide that act alone is sufficient proof in itself that the god commanding genocide does not exist. “
Incredible. How does it follow, exactly? (This ought’a be good)
“I can prove Yahweh does not exist. If you want to perform Elijah’s game of Yahweh vs. Baal and see whether or not Yahweh still can accomplish such a magic trick, I invite you to do so.”
So, you’re saying that if God does not deign to comply with your arrogant test of His existence, you’ve proven He doesn’t exist? Are you typing this crap with a straight face?
“I’ve read Josephus and Tacitus and can assure you that they say nothing whatsoever to verify the gospels.”
What they verify, fool, is the existence of the Christian movement, various characters and references to claims being made at the time. I didn’t say they had videos of Christ changing water to wine. But what they do say presents outside sources that lend credence to the claims, even if it isn’t overwhelming by itself. As John has tried to illustrate in several of his posts, the atheist would not balk at such a gathering of evidence to support anything else in history. Only for God.
“There are no historical works to support the gospels because objective history is a modern invention that did not exist even among the intellectuals of the first century…”
You’ll have to take this up with Dan Trabue who has cited an alleged scholar who claims modern historical recording began around 500 BC. Now you’re just confusing us by saying it didn’t happen until the late 1940’s. But like Dan, you CHOOSE to ASSUME that because other peoples behaved in one way (here in the manner of recording history), that the Judeo-Christian populations therefore had to act in the exact same way. It’s as weak and lame for you as it is for Dan.
“It is quite easy to prove that the gospel accounts are inventions.”
Then you’d think someone would have done it by now. You can’t seem to come close to achieving this feat.
“Modern day scholars have done the heavy lifting and have identified and explained all of the errors of the gospel authors.”
Such as?
Hello Marshal,
You say, ” So to put it more distinctly, that several cultures promote similar truth claims does not justify dismissing them all and doing so is intellectually lazy. ”
As a matter of my own personal policy, I don’t dismiss any truth claims at all. The claims which Christians make regarding the truthfulness of their own religion are equally valid to the claims that Muslims make regarding the truthfulness of Islam. I handle all religions the same. They stand or fall together.
You say, “Wow. It’s been quite some time when I’ve been so bedazzled by such pseudo-sophisticated tripe! Kudos! ”
Did you miss what I was saying? I was making an explicit rejection to all the claims of American Exceptionalism, any preference for the United States of America over any other nation on the planet, and all favoritism regarding American culture over anyone else’s culture. My statement was an expression of multiculturalism.
The analogous statement from a religious standpoint takes this form: Yahweh is as much a god as Zeus, Christianity is as valid a religion as Hinduism, and Jesus Christ is as effective a miracle worker and soul savior as Apollonius of Tyana.
You say, “So when you said you’ve read of all the religions, by that you meant “skim”. I don’t care how much of a hard-core atheist you could possibly be. There’s no way you could claim to have examined all the religions and make a statement that they all look the same to you. ”
Of course. It is quite impossible to read the Scriptures of all the world’s religions nor to examine the claims of all of humankind’s gods. But I have read as much material as is available in the English language in print and on the internet and have examined the claims of all religions which an American might encounter in the United States, which is a representative sample of all the world’s religions.
You say, ” They attacked the Canaanites for one reason and for one reason only: The Canaanites lived lives that were an abomination to God and God used the Hebrews to annihilate them. ”
You are quite incorrect in the above claim. The Israelites did not annihilate the Canaanites. Nor did they annihilate the religions of Canaan. Israel adopted the native religions of Canaan and worshipped many gods alongside Yahweh and El. Monotheism did not occur to the Israelites until Isaiah the prophet invented the concept and there is quite a lot of evidence that polytheism existed among the Jews long after Isaiah’s time.
You say, “Despite the historic record of abuses, there is no evidence of any desire to completely exterminate the native populations. Rather, the federal policy was to assimilate them into civilized society. Before the first white settlers arrived, native tribes were warring with each other for territorial reasons, looking to drive off “lesser” peoples. ”
Historical evidence disagrees with your own whitewash of the Christian genocide against the Native Americans. But this is an irrelevant point to the present discussion.
You say, “Incredible. How does it follow, exactly? ”
It follows quite logically from the premise that Yahweh never existed in the first place and therefore all claims by Israel that Yahweh commanded them to commit genocide against the Canaanites were lies.
A nonexistent god cannot actually command anyone to do anything. Yahweh’s ability to act is limited by his inherent nonexistence.
You say, “So, you’re saying that if God does not deign to comply with your arrogant test of His existence, you’ve proven He doesn’t exist? Are you typing this crap with a straight face? ”
Elijah is the one who invented this test of Divinity and he used it to “prove” that Baal does not exist. By your reasoning above I see that you disagree with Elijah and accept the possibility that Baal wasn’t under any obligation to perform a miracle to prove his own existence.
Praise Baal!
You say, “What they verify, fool, is the existence of the Christian movement, various characters and references to claims being made at the time. ”
I did not know that I needed to argue with a Christian in order to prove to the Christian that Christianity exist. If I had known that the existence of Christianity was the subject of our dispute I would have conceded the point at the outset so that we need not bother with Josephus and Tacitus.
You say, “You’ll have to take this up with Dan Trabue who has cited an alleged scholar who claims modern historical recording began around 500 BC. Now you’re just confusing us by saying it didn’t happen until the late 1940′s. But like Dan, you CHOOSE to ASSUME that because other peoples behaved in one way (here in the manner of recording history), that the Judeo-Christian populations therefore had to act in the exact same way. It’s as weak and lame for you as it is for Dan. ”
Are you suggesting that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is history?
You can read it here:
http://gnosis.org/library/inftoma.htm
Those ancient Jews and Christians collected mythology, legends and tall tales when they wrote the gospels. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and filled with obvious literary inventions and in no sense can any of these books be called “history” in any sense, whether according to the ancient Greek standards or modern standards.
You say, “Then you’d think someone would have done it by now. You can’t seem to come close to achieving this feat. ”
Someone has done so already. You should read the books written by Bible scholars as they have already performed the task successfully and irrefutably.
David,
“As a matter of my own personal policy, I don’t dismiss any truth claims at all.”
Are you a liar now? You have posted comments to the effect that God doesn’t exist. That God does exist is a basic truth claim of Christianity.
“The claims which Christians make regarding the truthfulness of their own religion are equally valid to the claims that Muslims make regarding the truthfulness of Islam. “
Perhaps to one like yourself who is desperate to invalidate the truth claims of either, but is not logical or intellectually honest on the face of it. The claims of one is “equally valid to the claims” of another? This doesn’t follow in the least unless you are merely stating that YOU don’t find either valid. But this is already known and by itself worthless and irrelevant. The point I was making is that you can’t presume to dismiss one because you dismiss the other and then pretend you’ve made a point. What’s more, the worthlessness of any other religion doesn’t provide evidence in any way that a reasonable and logical person could use to dismiss Christianity. The other religions are totally irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity. To “handle all religions the same” is intellectually lazy.
” My statement was an expression of multiculturalism.”
Oh, I totally got it, dude. My response stands more firmly with your clarification: pseudo-sophisticated tripe.
“Yahweh is as much a god as Zeus, Christianity is as valid a religion as Hinduism, and Jesus Christ is as effective a miracle worker and soul savior as Apollonius of Tyana.”
And once again, nothing more than assertion on your part. You offer nothing but, whether they’re yours or the assertions and opinions of another to whom you refer as “modern scholars”.
“I have read as much material as is available in the English language in print and on the internet and have examined the claims of all religions which an American might encounter in the United States, which is a representative sample of all the world’s religions.”
And yet this clarification changes nothing. You could not have put in the time you suggest you have and conclude they all look the same. Even to come away with no change to the level of belief, no serious study of the world’s religions, even a cursory study, could leave an honest person with that position.
“You are quite incorrect in the above claim. The Israelites did not annihilate the Canaanites. Nor did they annihilate the religions of Canaan.”
Not incorrect at all. But first of all, you are not responding to my rebuttal to your explanation for why the Hebrews, which was:
“The Hebrews committed genocide against the Canaanites for one reason and for one reason only: They wanted to steal the land and resources of the Canaanites.“
So was that bullshit, or are you full of shit now? Now it seems you prefer to change the subject when confronted with the stated reason for attacking the Canaanites.
Secondly, you use the term “genocide”. The correct term is “capital punishment” for the behavior of the Canaanites. As to whether or not the annihilation was complete, that is a matter of whether or not there is evidence for a complete elimination of all Canaanites. There is enough to suggest that wasn’t the case, but the issue becomes why that is. I would suggest that it was enough that all the Canaanites who were in the vicinity the Hebrews attacked were indeed annihilated, but that it doesn’t account for Canaanites who were elsewhere at the time of the attack. This would explain why some survived.
“Historical evidence disagrees with your own whitewash of the Christian genocide against the Native Americans. But this is an irrelevant point to the present discussion.”
Then you shouldn’t have brought it up. But since you did, the blatant flaw of your position on the subject needs correction as well. While historical evidence exists to indicate extreme aggression against specific groups of indigenous peoples, as well as other abuses, there is none that indicates a policy of total extermination or genocide of the native populations by the federal government of the United States. If there were you wouldn’t be so quick to drop the subject.
“It follows quite logically from the premise that Yahweh never existed in the first place and therefore all claims by Israel that Yahweh commanded them to commit genocide against the Canaanites were lies.”
Circular reasoning based upon an unsupported premise won’t cut it. If you wish to counter the claims of OT authors regarding ancient Hebrew history, you will need to provide actual proofs and evidence to counter it. Your opinion alone is worthless in doing so.
“Elijah is the one who invented this test of Divinity and he used it to “prove” that Baal does not exist. By your reasoning above I see that you disagree with Elijah and accept the possibility that Baal wasn’t under any obligation to perform a miracle to prove his own existence.”
Elijah simply proved what was already apparent, that God will act and Baal will not. Plus, Elijah was God’s prophet. I am not. What’s more, Christ’s appearance made unnecessary any further wondering. He performed miracles in public, in front of thousands. His death was witnessed by many who did not believe (as well as by believers) He was the Son of God, and then over 500 people saw Him after His resurrection. This is what the Biblical record states and are among the points that need to be refuted by opposing evidence. More importantly, my point was that you would use any such test as proof, as if God’s decision to deny my request for proof of His existence means He doesn’t exist. It’s a childish demand and an even more childish expectation dwarfed only by the childishness of the conclusion you are already holding before any such test would take place.
“I did not know that I needed to argue with a Christian in order to prove to the Christian that Christianity exist.”
Good for you, but that wasn’t the point of referring to Josephus and Tacitus. The point is that their references to the Christian movement, in the manner they did, lends credibility to the Gospel narratives. It demonstrates that from the very beginning of the movement, the Christians were making claims at a time very close to the events depicted in the claims themselves. The significance of this time frame supports the claim’s truthfulness, as it was too soon for myth and legend to develop. The movement was growing at a time when witnesses could have disputed the claims were the counter claims true. People simply don’t risk their lives for something they know, not “believe”, to be untrue. None of your “modern scholars” can account for facts such as this one.
“Are you suggesting that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is history?”
Why would I? Nothing I’ve said thus far even hints at such a thing. The point isn’t that all that is put forth as historical is automatically true. Even today we see false narratives, such as federal policies of genocide of the American Indian people. The point was in regards to the notion that the Biblical record can’t be trusted because other peoples recorded events in a style different from today, or that because most ancient peoples recorded history differently, then ALL ancient peoples, including the Hebrews, did as well.
“Those ancient Jews and Christians collected mythology, legends and tall tales when they wrote the gospels.”
This itself is myth, legend and tall tale-telling invented by people like yourself. You dismiss the Gospels as historic record because you don’t want it to be true. None of your “modern scholars” have proven anything beyond doubt and they routinely fail to do so when given the opportunity by Christian apologists.
Hello Marshal,
You ask, “Are you a liar now? You have posted comments to the effect that God doesn’t exist. That God does exist is a basic truth claim of Christianity.”
Please understand: I don’t dismiss any claims a person might make regarding his/her own faith. However, I do not myself feel any obligation to believe these claims regardless of their source and how much they insist that I am obligated to accept their faith. This is a universal principle and it applies equally to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and anyone else.
You are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe.
You say, “What’s more, the worthlessness of any other religion doesn’t provide evidence in any way that a reasonable and logical person could use to dismiss Christianity. The other religions are totally irrelevant to the truth claims of Christianity. To “handle all religions the same” is intellectually lazy. ”
I don’t regard any religion as worthless, especially all those religions which Christians assume are worthless. Islam is a perfectly true religion for the Muslim just as Christianity is perfectly true for the Christian and Hinduism perfectly true for the Hindu. If a Christian suggests that Christianity is somehow better than Islam or Hinduism I will attribute all such claims to subjective loyalty rather than any sort of objective comparison between competing religions.
You say, “Oh, I totally got it, dude. My response stands more firmly with your clarification: pseudo-sophisticated tripe. ”
I would get upset by your opinions regarding multiculturalism but then I remind myself what people routinely say about Christianity and realize that all opinions appear silly to outsiders.
You say, “You could not have put in the time you suggest you have and conclude they all look the same. Even to come away with no change to the level of belief, no serious study of the world’s religions, even a cursory study, could leave an honest person with that position. ”
That’s just silly. Many honest people have examined Christianity In comparison with the world’s other religions and have concluded that Christianity is pure bunk. For example, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.
You say, “So was that bullshit, or are you full of shit now? Now it seems you prefer to change the subject when confronted with the stated reason for attacking the Canaanites. ”
Needless to say, Israel not only failed to annihilate the Canaanites they adopted all of the gods, idols and religious customs of their Canaanite neighbors. The Biblical command to commit genocide against the Canaanites was nothing more than mythology on the part of bitter Jews who happened to invent these stories while they were suffering their own annihilation at the hands of the Babylonians.
You say, “Secondly, you use the term “genocide”. The correct term is “capital punishment” for the behavior of the Canaanites. ”
Um … no. Jesus suffered capital punishment, the Canaanites suffered genocide.
You say, “While historical evidence exists to indicate extreme aggression against specific groups of indigenous peoples, as well as other abuses, there is none that indicates a policy of total extermination or genocide of the native populations by the federal government of the United States.”
Not according to those who suffered the genocide:
http://tribes.tribe.net/realdealhistory/thread/4b042cff-28ac-40b1-83af-7358a0c8cf89
You say, “If you wish to counter the claims of OT authors regarding ancient Hebrew history, you will need to provide actual proofs and evidence to counter it. ”
Scholars have already done so. I don’t need to re-invent the wheel simply because you have chosen to remain ignorant.
You say, “Elijah simply proved what was already apparent, that God will act and Baal will not. Plus, Elijah was God’s prophet. I am not. What’s more, Christ’s appearance made unnecessary any further wondering. He performed miracles in public, in front of thousands. His death was witnessed by many who did not believe (as well as by believers) He was the Son of God, and then over 500 people saw Him after His resurrection. ”
No, Elijah was not a prophet. No, Elijah did not perform any miracles. No, Jesus performed no miracles. Jesus was no resurrected. There were not 500 people who witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
These are all Biblical fictions, mythology and legends. None of these things happened.
You say, “Good for you, but that wasn’t the point of referring to Josephus and Tacitus. The point is that their references to the Christian movement, in the manner they did, lends credibility to the Gospel narratives. ”
No, Josephus and Tacitus do not provide any support whatsoever for the gospel accounts. They do not lend any credibility to the gospel narratives. Intellectual pagans were picking holes in the gospels from the 2nd century onward.
You say, “People simply don’t risk their lives for something they know, not “believe”, to be untrue. None of your “modern scholars” can account for facts such as this one. ”
Joseph Smith died for the sake of Mormonism although I presume that he knew that the Book of Mormon is a fraud.
You say, “The point was in regards to the notion that the Biblical record can’t be trusted because other peoples recorded events in a style different from today, or that because most ancient peoples recorded history differently, then ALL ancient peoples, including the Hebrews, did as well. ”
Yes, you are correct. Modern historians are well aware of the flaws of the ancient historians. Anyone familiar with modern scholarship knows that the scholars will criticize the ancient historians for their many errors, omissions, inventions and legends. The gospels, however, do not qualify as history.
You say, “You dismiss the Gospels as historic record because you don’t want it to be true. None of your “modern scholars” have proven anything beyond doubt and they routinely fail to do so when given the opportunity by Christian apologists. ”
When did a modern scholar ever fail when confronting Christian apologists? You are making things up! Otherwise you might want to provide some sources on behalf of this claim.
“Please understand: I don’t dismiss any claims a person might make regarding his/her own faith.”
Do you have problems reading simple English? Check first the comment of yours to which I responded. Go back as far as you need and start over if need be. Then read your last and tell me your head isn’t up your ass. I never said anything about what I believe is true. I referred to the truth claims of Christianity itself versus the truth claims of other religions. It’s not about what adherents to any religion believes. Each religion makes its own truth claims. You dismiss them all, don’t you?
“I don’t regard any religion as worthless…. objective comparison between competing religions.”
So again, you lie. You have clearly demonstrated that you regard religion as worthless. And the issue here, once again, has nothing to do with how a muslim regards islam. The point is in regards to truth claims. You deny them all, saying they are all the same to you. I have countered saying that it is intellectually lazy to say such a thing and each religion must be evaluated on its own merits, ignoring all other religions while doing so. Thus, if you start with the Druids, what can you present to prove or disprove the truth claims of the Druid faith? If you cannot prove that what the Druid faith states, then you can presume that the truth claims of the Druid faith are not true after all. But having done so means absolutely nothing as regards the truth claims of, say, the Wiccan religion. Now, you must go through the process all over again. Then the next one. The the one after that. I maintain that the Judeo-Christian tradition has a wealth of supporting evidence not available in support of any other, be it islam or Zeus.
“I would get upset by your opinions regarding multiculturalism…”
Whether you would or not is completely irrelevant. It is tripe. Even the name of it is ironically self-contradicting. You dislike the idea of borders and ethnic loyalties and such. But the name suggests a recognition that those ethnic differences exist. What’s more, it is every bit the fairy tale you pretend Christianity is. You’d never convince factions such as muslims and communist nations to buy into your notion unless you acquiesce to their ideas and ideologies.
“Many honest people have examined Christianity In comparison with the world’s other religions and have concluded that Christianity is pure bunk. For example, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.”
First of all, you continue providing evidence that you are not an honest person. Aside from the lie noted above, you have been corrected regarding the religious attitudes of the found fathers. You also again make the mistake of comparing it against other religions. Whether or not Christianity is “pure bunk” can only be determined by a study of the truth claims of Christianity itself without regard to other religions, as I have already explained above. You’ve yet to provide anything that can be discussed as a serious argument supporting this notion of Christianity being “pure bunk”.
“Needless to say, Israel not only failed to annihilate the Canaanites…”
Needless to say, you keep repeating this nonsense. But Scripture does indeed describe the Jews adopting beliefs and customs against the wishes of God. This is not news. What you make of it is worthless and myth of its own to which you put your belief. Now when you can prove that the command of God to destroy the Canaanites is a myth the Jews created, you might gain a semblance of credibility. Good luck with that.
Your link regarding Indians does not provide any evidence that there ever existed a set policy by the US gov’t to exterminate all Indians. Try again.
“Scholars have already done so. I don’t need to re-invent the wheel simply because you have chosen to remain ignorant.”
I wasn’t asking scholars. I asked you. But if you believe you have some list of scholars with slam-dunk proofs, providing at least one shouldn’t be all that difficult.
“These are all Biblical fictions, mythology and legends. None of these things happened. “
The Bible is a record of these events. Outside sources confirm much of what the Bible describes. Archeology supports much of what the Bible describes. Nothing exists that disproves anything in the Bible.
Gotta go. More later. Please wait until I’ve completed my response before you make more unsupported assertions.
Hello Marshal,
You say, ” I referred to the truth claims of Christianity itself versus the truth claims of other religions. It’s not about what adherents to any religion believes. Each religion makes its own truth claims. You dismiss them all, don’t you? ”
You are quite mistaken when you imagine that Christianity makes truth claims. Christianity is a religion and a religion exist only in the minds of that religion’s followers. For that reason it is not possible for Christianity to say or do anything. Christians say or do thing.
Christians make truth claims regarding Christianity and they also say a lot of negative, slanderous things about everyone else’s religions. Christians also have a nasty habit of saying a lot of negative, slanderous things about their fellow Christians’ religion when those Christians happen to be members of a different denomination or they have different doctrines or the Christians have a different political or economic policy.
You say, “You dismiss them all, don’t you?”
Yes, I do. I dismiss all truth claims. Christianity’s truth claims are dismissed specifically because they are false. The Bible’s truth claims are dismissed because the Bible is errant, fallible and filled with contradictions. Jesus Christ is dismissed as savior of the world simply because Jesus Christ does not exist. Heaven and Hell are dismissed as fantasies borrowed by Jews and Christians from their pagan neighbors.
You say, ” I have countered saying that it is intellectually lazy to say such a thing and each religion must be evaluated on its own merits, ignoring all other religions while doing so. Thus, if you start with the Druids, what can you present to prove or disprove the truth claims of the Druid faith? ”
The Druid truth claims appear as valid as any Christian truth claims. These two religions stand or fall together. Nothing stands along. Christianity, in particular, cannot stand alone because Christian borrows so heavily from paganism, Judaism and Greek philosophy.
You say, ” I maintain that the Judeo-Christian tradition has a wealth of supporting evidence not available in support of any other, be it islam or Zeus. ”
Then you are mistaken. How so? For the reasons which I stated above.
You say, “You dislike the idea of borders and ethnic loyalties and such. But the name suggests a recognition that those ethnic differences exist. What’s more, it is every bit the fairy tale you pretend Christianity is. You’d never convince factions such as muslims and communist nations to buy into your notion unless you acquiesce to their ideas and ideologies. ”
The whole point behind multiculturalism is that no one has to acquiesce. Humans are accepted as-is and without any demand that they change. Humankind is regarded as an important animal, no more or less important than the rattlesnakes and hamsters. All differences between humans — whether real or imaginary — are rendered irrelevant by absolute acceptance of everyone.
The Muslims and the communists are worthy of as much love and mercy as the Christians and the capitalists. All humans are created equal and no human is more valuable than a sparrow.
You say, “Aside from the lie noted above, you have been corrected regarding the religious attitudes of the found fathers. ”
The Founding Fathers would not be accepted and fellowshipped by people such as yourself, just as Jesus, Peter, James (the brother of Jesus) and Paul would not be accepted and fellowshipped by people such as you.
Christians hate too many people too easily. I haven’t met a Christian yet who wouldn’t crucify Jesus more quickly than the Romans.
You say, “Now when you can prove that the command of God to destroy the Canaanites is a myth the Jews created, you might gain a semblance of credibility. ”
There is no archaeological evidence supportive of the legends contained in the book of Joshua. The Canaanites still existed in the land, and all of the native religions of the land survived, and the gods of Canaan were all represented even at the temple in Jerusalem:
Then he said to me, “Son of man, look toward the north.” So I looked, and in the entrance north of the gate of the altar I saw this idol of jealousy.
6 And he said to me, “Son of man, do you see what they are doing—the utterly detestable things the Israelites are doing here, things that will drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see things that are even more detestable.”
7 Then he brought me to the entrance to the court. I looked, and I saw a hole in the wall. 8 He said to me, “Son of man, now dig into the wall.” So I dug into the wall and saw a doorway there.
9 And he said to me, “Go in and see the wicked and detestable things they are doing here.” 10 So I went in and looked, and I saw portrayed all over the walls all kinds of crawling things and unclean animals and all the idols of Israel. 11 In front of them stood seventy elders of Israel, and Jaazaniah son of Shaphan was standing among them. Each had a censer in his hand, and a fragrant cloud of incense was rising.
12 He said to me, “Son of man, have you seen what the elders of Israel are doing in the darkness, each at the shrine of his own idol? They say, ‘The Lord does not see us; the Lord has forsaken the land.’” 13 Again, he said, “You will see them doing things that are even more detestable.”
14 Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord, and I saw women sitting there, mourning the god Tammuz. 15 He said to me, “Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this.”
16 He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the Lord, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east.
17 He said to me, “Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the people of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually arouse my anger? Look at them putting the branch to their nose! 18 Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+8&version=NIV
This is not the sort of behavior that would characterize a nation which had successfully committed genocide against a land’s native inhabitants and religions. For example, you won’t find any worship of the Native American gods at the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.
Yahweh failed to conquer the land, Yahweh failed to cleanse the land of its native gods and religions, and Yahweh failed to prevent Israel from worshipping idols and engaging in all of the religious practices of the land.
So this issue is settled.
You say, ” I asked you. But if you believe you have some list of scholars with slam-dunk proofs, providing at least one shouldn’t be all that difficult. ”
I already have.
You say, “Nothing exists that disproves anything in the Bible. ”
Well, I’d say that the entire sciences of astronomy, geology, cosmology, paleontology and archaeology thoroughly refute the Biblical book of Genesis.
Well, like others of your ilk, you just couldn’t resist flapping your virtual gums before I could finish my response to your last set of nonsensical faux-intellectualisms. For now I am extremely busy and you will have to wait before I can once again shred your less than credible comments.
Hello Marshal, It is reasonable to expect me to respond to your posts rather than my having to wait expectantly for promised responses which may or may not appear. I’m not a man of faith, as you know, so will respond to what I see. Anyhow, I found some material which might be of relevance to our discussion of the genocide of the Canaanites. I discovered this at a Christian bookstore and was fortunate to find it online as well. I would like to know if you agree or disagree with this particular Christian’s views: [link redacted] A famous Christian and an apologists. Such people are truly amoral and immoral and they worship a horrendous monster of a god. No wonder why Christians have committed so many atrocities over the last 2000 years!
David, what is the view presented in the link? I’ll be deleting your links unless you begin to articulate a position. Posting links and sending people on scavenger hunts is not acceptable.
Hello John Barron,
Just like a Christian: Hiding evidence contrary to your viewpoint, especially when the evidence presented is your viewpoint!
I am not the sort of person who expects Christians to behave in an honest manner, John Barron. If you have some specific objection to my links you should respond to my post and explain exactly why William Lane Craig is right or wrong.
Do you agree with William Lane Craig?
Do you disagree with William Lane Craig?
Is William Lane Craig a Christian in your opinion?
Of course, it is a sin to ask a Christian to read anything! Christians are proud of their ignorance and devoted to Not-Knowing.
As I explained for probably the third time now, I expect commenters to make their points. You dont seem to be able to do that. Instead of offering an argument, you post a link and expect people to sift through the link to figure out your point. Thi is not how discussions work. No one else seems to have this problem.
So what is Craigs view and why do you find it objectionable?
Hello John Barron,
You say, “As I explained for probably the third time now, I expect commenters to make their points. ”
Don’t be silly. I’ve read your posts and you yourself never actually express your point. I am compelled to provide links specifically because none of the Christians on this blog are articulate enough to actually express their own views.
William Lane Craig is an articulate Christian and he expressed his views which (incidentally) seem to match Marshal’s. It doesn’t take a whole lot of effort for Marshal or anyone else to read William Lane Craig’s blog post.
If Christians aren’t honest enough to invest that minimal amount of effort in knowing their own views …
I don’t post links expecting people to sift through the writings of William Lane Craig to discover *my* views (since his views aren’t my own) but so that Christians might gain at least a rudimentary knowledge of what they are talking about.
You say, “