A pacifist mass-murderer

Once again self deluded Christians insist on perpetuating all sorts of delusional characterizations of their favorite fictional character: Jesus. Benjamin Corey's "Was Jesus a Pacifist" claims a rather predictable and foolish answer to his rhetorical title. Nope not even close. Given the multiple passages in which the Christ figure acts in a decidedly violent manner this is a rather weak supposition. When you take into account one of the passages I have frequently referenced, Luke 19:27, it becomes outright absurd. Jesus clearly demands his followers commit mass murder. That would seem to be the antithesis of pacifism. Sorry Christians but the Prince of Peace, as described in various scriptural passages, is not only not a very pleasant individual he's pretty fucking scary. Even if you kiss his ass he has no probably turning on you. Just read how he treats his supposed disciples in a variety of passages throughout the Gospels.

It means something, alright

I found Thomas Roberts RNS piece, "Psychedelic drugs can deepen religious experiences", to be as revealing as it is entertaining. Go ahead and try re-reading the title without smirking just a little. Religion really is fucked up crap. The very notion that screwing with your perception to make it more meaningful is pretty telling. As Robert's notes:
"Researchers at Johns Hopkins reported that 33 percent of the volunteers in their 2006 psilocybin study said their experiences were one of the five most important spiritual experiences in their lives. And 38 percent said they were the single most spiritual significant experience."
This seems to support the position that spirituality is a fabrication of the mind that has little to no real merit.

Roberts piece further comments that:
"But entheogens can provide experiences that help people understand what had previously been only abstract religious ideas. Concepts such as awe, sacredness, eternity and grace can become profound with meaning with entheogens."
It doesn't seem to occur to him or the researchers that intentionally warping your perceptions doesn't make the abstract anymore substantial. What exactly do they mean by "understand"? Can these individuals clearly or adequately explain or quantify their experiences for others? If they can't why should anyone give a shit what these individuals think they've experience through the use of a chemical crutch?

"Authentic _______(fill in Religion)"

Anytime you come across words like "authentic", "true", or "real" in conjunction with any religion you can assume that what follows will be complete bull shit. A recent post by Roger E. Olson, "Why Authentic Christians Must Oppose the Death Penalty", is no exception. In fact, it's a pretty blatant example. Jesus is not a good figure to go back to when trying to come up with a poster boy for the abolition of the death penalty. There are numerous passages where the Jesus figure shows himself to be temperamental and at times a homicidal asshole. One of my favorite passages in this regard is Luke 19:27

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to how this could mean anything other than a direct command from Jesus to his followers to round up and massacre all non-followers. Call me crazy, but commanding mass murder seems rather antithetical to abolishing the death penalty.

The truth of the matter is that "real" Christians can pretty much behave any fucking way they want since their religion is so convoluted and contradictory that it can be interpreted in just about anyway the imagination wants. That goes for every religion I've ever come across.

Ehrman...WTF?!

Ehrman has been steadily destroying his own credibility for the past handful of years. His latest book which is due out anytime seems to be yet another nail in coffin of his once substantial track record of legitimate research. A sample of Jesus Before the Gospels can be found here. Right from the start he writes about assumptions and speculations as if they are factual. This is both sad and pathetic to any one familiar with his earlier work. Many of the "eyewitness" accounts claimed by various apologists to be sound evidence Ehrman had previously revealed to be no such thing. Yet, now on the very first page of his newest book he states: "I am deeply interested in how Jesus was being 'remembered' and 'misremembered' by those who were telling such stories, both those who actually knew him and those who heard stories from others...." Who are these individuals who "actually knew him"? No first hand accounts have ever surfaced let alone any credible ones. From what I read of the sample he never comes back to these supposed eyewitnesses. Ehrman has slowly and tragically morphed into an apologist. He no longer seems capable of separated opinions and personal beliefs from historical evidence. This is incredibly depressing and disheartening.

"...shows with religion subplots"

I get why Ambrosino might want to claim a connection to Mercy Street in his "The Faithful Viewer: 3 new shows with religion subplots" but the other two don't seem to make much sense. I've seen the same trailers for You, Me and the Apocalypse and Lucifer that Ambrosino has. They both seem to be very tongue-in-cheek. I get the impression that they make fun of religion far more than they are meant to model it. I have to assume he finds the need to make some type of theological connection to for similar reasons that many theists try to claim correlations between things they like and faith. They need to constantly deceive themselves that religion has an innate meaning and connection to reality. Too bad for the theists that religion has no innately beneficial meaning or connection to anything in reality.

One God?

I realize I have pointed this out before but any number of comments and incidents routinely pop-up that further demonstrate that a subset of theists really are a bunch of winey, hypocritical, self-deluded dumb-asses. The "controversy" surrounding Wheaton College's actions against one of its own professors is just another such incident. I have found the ongoing arguments and debates over Larycia Hawkins Facebook post about Jews and Christians both worshipping one God very entertaining. It's mind-boggling that the morons who have criticized her never seem to notice just how badly this exposes their feeble "beliefs." If they really believed in what they claim there is absolutely nothing controversial about the statement made by Hawkins. There can't be. They might be able to claim one group or the other is worshipping God in the wrong way*. However, if there is only one God then there are no other gods to worship. Everyone who professes belief in one God by default would have to be worshipping the same God. Silly theists.

A lot of ink has been wasted on this nonsense over the past two months but there are a handful that were at least slightly interesting. They are worth a quick glance.

December 16, 2015
The “Same” God? Volf Speaks
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/12/16/the-same-god-12/

December 16, 2015
At Wheaton: No God but Our God
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2015/12/at-wheaton-no-god-but-our-god/

December 17, 2015
Do Jews “worship the same God,” Wheaton?
http://marksilk.religionnews.com/2015/12/17/do-jews-worship-the-same-god-wheaton/

January 7, 2016
The Real Reason Wheaton College is Terminating Larycia Hawkins: Loving the Common “Enemy”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/the-real-reason-wheaton-college-is-terminating-larycia-hawkins-loving-the-common-enemy/


*This is actually an equally stupid claim but at least it wouldn't be an outright contradiction.

Not heartwarming, at all

I frequently come across fluff pieces that many seem to think are heartwarming and inspirational. I don't doubt that is at least part of the author(s)' motivation for writing them but I actually find them rather disturbing. In a number of these scary human interest stories the element that transforms them into supposedly inspirational tales is religion. A recent entry on Huffington Post, "How 6 LGBT Catholics Kept Their Faith -- Despite Being Shunned By The Church", is a prime example.

If you replaced "LGBT" with housewives and the "church" with wife-beaters how heartwarming would the story still be? The underlying principal is the same. A group of people are standing by those that harass, denigrate, and abuse them. It's despicable not inspiring.

2 Titles, 1 Delusion

E.J. Dionne's September 20th column for the Washington Post has two equally idiotic titles. The one under which it is publicly available on the Post's website, "Pope Francis’s actions speak louder than his words", is completely opposite. Francis has spoken far more about reforming the church than he has acted on. In fact, the very few "actions" he has taken are pathetically minor and feeble. The title the same column was given after being published in the EBSCO databases, "Francis's radical challenge", is also full of shit. The fourth paragraph is a pretty good summary of the whole piece.

"It’s hard to see how progressives don’t come out ahead, simply because the pope has radically reordered the priorities of the church. He is not fighting culture wars. He is fighting against them. This, in part, is what accounts for his broad popularity among former Catholics, Americans of other faiths and even secularists and atheists."

Actually, it's pretty easy to see how anyone with the ability to think critically can handily refute every sentence of this paragraph. As I have previously pointed out in numerous posts, Francis has in no way altered church doctrines. He has done nothing to significantly reform church practices or policies, either. The only noticeable difference between Francis and his predecessors is in style. He's better at PR. How is he not involved in fighting "culture wars" if he heads the organization that is constantly opposing secular egalitarian policies supported by a majority of citizens in multiple countries? He is complicit if not leading the charge to impose narrow religious views on everyone; Catholic or not, religious or not. His popularity among non-Catholics is questionable. Outside Christians it is even more debatable.

Essentially, Dionne is taking the approach that the Catholic Church's hierarchy tends to favor. Ascribe your own baseless personal opinion onto everyone as if it is factual. It isn't. Simply repeating the same bullshit over and over does not make it anymore a part of reality. It just demonstrates how willfully ignorant and delusional theists can be.

No, those arguments shouldn't be made

Though I appreciate Penwell's semi-sarcastic mocking tone in "9 Arguments From the Bible Fundamentalists Should Have to Make" and I understand it is meant to be more rhetorical than literal, the arguments he talks about have no real merit. No argument of substance can actually be made "from the Bible" since it tends to alternate between being vague, inconsistent, contradictory, and incoherent. It really doesn't matter if an individual or group leans more towards the liberal or conservative end religious interpretation since they both have ample material to cherry pick and repackage to suit their interests. No religious "argument" can ever be fully right or wrong based on scripture. Arguing over scripture is an act of self deception and willful ignorance. Basically, there are no legitimate arguments that can be made expressly from the Bible.

It'll still be "whitewashed"

Though it is nice to hear that there will be a film that portrays African-Americans in a positive way this does not mean the film will automatically have any significant value as a film. It certainly doesn't mean the film won't "whitewash" other aspects of its theme(s), characters, or plot. In point of fact without ever having seen The War Room (I have seen the trailer) I already know that it will be whitewashing its main theme. According to Jonathan Merritt's review:
"The fifth feature film produced by successful Christian moviemakers Alex and Stephen Kendrick tells a story about the power of prayer."
Since the overwhelming majority of well designed scientific studies have all reached the conclusion that prayer does not work, the idea that there is such a thing as "the power of prayer" is complete bullshit. The few studies that found any merit are flawed and still don't show it as having any more significance than a placebo. Basically, it is all about emotional appeal and willful ignorance. It is dishonest propagandistic tripe. It is also interesting to note that the short trailer that is available at Internet Movie Database is chock full of militant language and imagery. That's a rather disturbing take on morals/values. If you have family and/or marital problems go to "war". So much for the notion that Christianity is innately loving and peaceful.

Full of himself and full of shit

I'll start by stating up front I know nothing about William Giraldi beyond what he has written about himself in his July/August (2015) New Republic piece "Confessions of a Catholic Novelist." With that said I have to say my impression of him is rather low. He seems to be very self-obsessed and very ignorant of a topic you would assume he at least knows a little bit about.

He starts off from the very first line being hyperbolic and arrogant.
"It’s not altogether easy being a Catholic, and it’s immeasurably harder being a novelist, so you might imagine the myriad conundrums of being both." I can't say I was all that interested in imagining what he wants since the very first thing to pop into my head was a fairly basic question: in comparison to what? What makes being a Catholic any more difficult than abiding by other belief systems? What makes being a writer an especially difficult profession? Giraldi never successfully answers either of these. What he does succeed in doing is exposing his poor understanding of literary criticism and study.

Virtually every example he gives fails completely. Almost every author he writes about either went out of their way to make more of their Catholicism than any one else every did or they are authors who have been so thoroughly studied that no aspect of their life and times has not been examined. Their religion being just one more piece of that review. If this was the only flaw in his piece it wouldn't be worth bothering with but he goes even further in various places. He creates a false impression and then tries passing it off as factual.

Another line that irked me quite a bit was his patently false statement:
"More to the point, you won’t find a novel by Malamud or Roth or Bellow subtitled “The Adventures of a Bad Jew,” and even if you did, you wouldn’t have to prep yourself to be preached at (revisit Roth’s story “The Conversion of the Jews” to see for yourself)."
Bullshit. You can find literary pieces with that type of title. For instance after roughly a minute to two minutes perusing Google I found a review of a contemporary play entitled "Bad Jews." As for content, Catholics are not the only ones to produce either self-deprecatory works or preachy screeds. Just knowing an author's religious preferences doesn't immediately lead me to assume anything about their writing. That it clearly does bias Giraldi is no reason for him to project that onto anyone else. Yet, he does without a second thought.

There isn't anything in Giraldi's piece that can't be easily refuted and attributed to a lack of intellectual honesty. There's nothing automatically wrong with having strong opinions or even slipping into a woe-is-me self important stance but if that's all you've got why bother?

I choose to live in a world where.....

I choose to live in a world where unicorns play in open fields of green. Wouldn't that be nice? Problem is that reality doesn't give a shit what we want. It simply is what it is which is what makes it reality rather than fantasy. The absurd notion that wishful thinking somehow has a direct correlation with what is real seems to be the primary underlying justification for a recent post on the Patheos blog Mercy Not Sacrifice.

Even though I agree with some of Morgan Guyton's criticisms of John Shuck, the overall theme and tone of "I choose to live in a world where resurrection happens" is ridiculous. I'm not convinced that Morgan spent any time contemplating what was written in this piece before posting. The whole thing is so wishy-washy and reliant on emotional appeal that his reasoning is even lamer than the sort of idiocy you'd expect from a fictional character like Homer Simpson. His idea of a "mystical" experience is about as convincing as a stoner's insistence that they can fly through the moon.

God is tragedy

Stan Duncan's "What God's Role in Tragedy Really Is" is yet another example of how pathetic many theists beliefs can be. It seems that either Duncan doesn't really believe in what he says he does or he is exceptional good at self-delusion. His lame excuses about for God's lack of benevolence is are as full of shit as they are old and thoroughly debunked.

The following paragraph I found particularly irksome:
"God doesn't kill people. Storms, tsunamis, earthquakes, and human beings kill people. God didn't cause the nightmares of Banda Aceh and Southeast Asia any more than God caused Hurricanes Sandy or Katrina or the 6,000 deaths (so far) by Ebola in East Africa. It is true that God is very much in the storms and wars, but God is there in the healing not the killing. God is in the mending not the destroying."

The problem with this approach is that it blatantly contradicts the notion that this God is supposedly the source of all things. So, yes, if Duncan and like-minded theists' God does exist that Being does kill. Even if you try weaseling out of responsibility by trying to back-pedal on God's omnipotence, if this Supreme Being created humanity then death is also it's responsibility. Death is innate to all known living things which means it must have been designed into life. God is still a killer and the author of countless tragedies.

Whether Duncan is self-deluded, willfully ignorant, or just an intellectually stunted fool does not change the conclusion that if God (the abstract version) exists then God must be the source of all things whether they are deemed to be good or bad. Make up excuses for God's negative side is just ridiculous and a further indication of how weak religion and religious thinking really is.

Champion Cherry-pickers

Atheists and even some more liberal theists frequently get accused of cherry-picking the Bible for the sole purpose of being contrarian jerks (often described in far worse terms). But that is complete bullshit for a variety of reasons. All theists cherry pick their favored sacred text(s). They have to, since they are all rather contradictory nonsensical crap. Not long ago Peter Enns gave an excellent example of how liberal Christians cherry pick and interpret the Bible to make it seem far more palatable then it really is. Rather than doing it to bash the Bible he does it in an attempt to justify his affection for it.

"10 Old Testament passages that shape how I think about God" demonstrates just how shallow his thinking is right from the start. Theist also love to claim that non-religious and religious critics of scripture take things out of context. Enns shows otherwise. None of his are given much context and the few that are are grossly inaccurate. Essentially he interprets the passage itself and then, when he bothers at all, makes up an excuse for anything around it that doesn't quite mesh. The very first selection is so skewed it's rather amusing.

"1. …for the Lord does not see as people see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).
God is not impressed with what we call successOT Hebrew but with what is deep within us, perhaps even deeper than we ourselves can see."

Here's some context. Virtually all of 1 Samuel is about Saul. God uses and then rather brutally discards Saul. Why does God dispose of Saul? Because the previously despicable asshole grows a conscience. Saul refuses to obey God when commanded to assassinate another king and then proceed to slaughter said king's entire people and livestock. That's right, another incident where God goes all out blood-thirsty psychopath. Saul wants none of it so God gets rid of him. My interpretation, which has just as much if not more basis, is that the kind of "heart" God favors is sadistic and sycophantic. Not really what Enns was trying to establish.

Nearly every single passage is similarly spun to seem the way Enns prefers to think of them. Most can not only be interpeted differently, they have to be if you make any effort to pay attention to the actual wording and look at the passages the precede and/or follow them. I'll give just one more example since going through all 10 would be tedious and pointless.

"4. The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace (Numbers 6:24-26).
More than once, at times of joy and sadness, when I didn’t know what to pray, this came out of my mouth. It’s good to have God’s face shine on us now and then."

Actually, God (of the scriptures) is both very demanding and very unforgiving. What Enns completely ignores are all the conditions that lead up to this brief passage. That "bless you and keep you" part would be nice if it were not so conditional. All the passages leading to this make it clear that you can only somewhat count on being blessed (never guaranteed or promised) if you meet all Gods rules and make all the prefered sacrifices. In other words, you pay a heavy price just to get a little acknowledgment from a being who doesn't actually need let alone deserve such devotion. Metaphorically, it is like a neglected and abused child making all sorts of excuses and going out of their way to pamper and flatter their egomaniacal volatile dead-beat dad. It isn't even an example of conditional love. The relationship outline in Numbers is more like that of a master and slave.

Though I won't bother going through all 10 of Peter Enns' favored passages there is no reason others can't take a closer look. It doesn't really take that much effort. Read the passages he quotes and then read at least a handful of the passages that surround it. So long as you actually pay attention to the wording it becomes blatantly obvious that Enns, like so many other theist, is the one doing the cherry picking and making up all kinds of nonsense.

Confusing bias for substance

The folks over at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement definitely have problems with reality. I'm all for nonviolence but I take issue with delusions, willful ignorance, double standards, and plain old deceit. Yet another of their Patheos blog posts is chock full of all of the above. The title,"How Christians Reject Jesus: On Trying to Outsmart God", implies a number of things that Adam Erickson not only never establishes but also has no objective way to establish.

When he writes "reject" what he really means is that there are Christians who do not accept his preferred version of the Jesus figure, which is true. It is also true that his views of Jesus are highly subjective, debatable, and unproven. Virtually every paragraph of the piece shows that he is writing solely from his own biased views without any substantive thought. In the very first paragraph he insists, "We take seriously the words of Jesus that we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us." No, they do not. The selectively choose which bits of scripture favor their own preferences. There are plenty of passages where Jesus acts in a hostile and violent manner.

Throughout the post Erickson makes similar comments. Among them, "Excuse me for stating the obvious, but Christians are not Biblians. We are Christians. As Christians, we should be putting Jesus first...And Jesus calls us to nonviolence." Problem is that it is not obvious. It in fact is false. If you strip away scripture Jesus literally disappears. As I have on numerous occassions pionted out, Christians to some extant have to take scripture literally if they want to preserve belief in their messiah. I have also on numerous occssions challenged any Christian to come up with a plausible way to reconcile Luke 19:27, ""But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.", with the notion of a peace-loving Jesus. Last I knew dividing people up with a an Us-vs.-Them mentality and then oredering mass murder is the opposite of "nonviolent"

The writing never gets any better. However, it does become a bit more entertaining towards the middle. His observations about wisdom gave me a pretty good chuckle.
"Notice the distinction being made between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. The wisdom of God is the way of nonviolent love in the face of violence that often leads to the cross...Human wisdom, on the other hand, is the wisdom of retributive violence."
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't possibly write about all of them. I'll stick with just a few of the more blatant flaws with Erickson's line of thinking.

It seems to me that even the most devoted theists would have to realize that the only way a flawed human being could perceive "God's wisdom" is through the filter of "human wisdom." So how can you possibly make any "distinction"? And how can you know you aren't completely fucking it up? Then there's that gem about God being non-violent. What?! Even if you discount the whole of the Bible how do you account for human violence. Isn't God suppose to be source of everything? Isn't everything suppose to play out by God's grand design? I also have to marvel at the implication that all human wisdom supposedly leads to "retributive violence." Did Erickson just inadvertently admit that he and everyone else at Teaching Nonviolent Atonement are a bunch of dumb-asses?

Believing in the proto-hippy Jesus is better than the tight-ass obey me or go to hell version but that is still no excuse for blathering on in such a blatantly error laden ignorant way.

Yup, Everyone gets it wrong (including Amy)

Amy-Jill Levine's recent CNN Belief blog post,"4 teachings from Jesus that everybody gets wrong", was rather entertaining. It is usually somewhat amusing to read theists go another round of linguistic and logical gymnastics but this one was exceptional in that she manages to imply standards that would in effect erase the Bible (both Old and New Testament) entirely. Her arguments were as subjective, ignorant, deluded, and self serving as they were just plain stupid.

Setting aside for the moment that the whole piece is simply a review of her opinions on specific sets of scripture backed by nothing beyond her own personal preference, the four sections of the post essentially self-destruct almost immediately. In the first part, "The 'Parable of the Prodigal Son'", one of her first objections and supposed proofs that "everyone gets wrong" is incredibly foolish and quite telling. Levine writes, "It is not, however, what first-century Jews would have heard. Jesus’ Jewish audience already knew that their “Father in heaven” was loving, forgiving, and compassionate."

It sounds rather innocuous until you think about what it implies. She seems to be saying that only original/unique messages are worthy of being written down and becoming scripture. Seriously?! Not only does she not establish that all Jews would have been familiar with the messages current theists favor, which is possible, but she never seems to notice that there were numerous cults, sects, and religions around both before and during the first century. Not all of those would fall under the label of Judaism or Christianity. How can she possibly determine the origin of any given concept or teaching given that every faith we are aware of has been built on the faiths that came before them and on their contemporaries. Many of the teachings did overlap and were by no means unique to any one faith.

The scriptures themselves are fairly repetitive on a number of points. If you follow this premise to its logical conclusion the Bible should not exist. Each "Testament" is internally largely redundant. The New Testament is in some ways even worse since it rehashes a number of stories, lessons, and concepts from its predecessor before restating them over and over again. According to Levine's low standards, the New Testament should be viewed as "wrong."  That would be somewhat convenient since it negates the foundation of Christianity (she's Jewish) but it also basically destroys her arguments related to Jesus' teachings. She herself has to be "wrong" since her supposed insights are also not original. Even if you could still make the assumption Jesus existed without scripture, which you can't, his teachings are not unique. So why argue about others getting his messages wrong when there are no worthwhile messages or no messages at all to interpret?

Levine not only reinforces this flaw in her writing, she makes a number of similar ones. She clearly thinks she is helping people better understand the true nature of Jesus Christ. I believe she does actually mean well but that doesn't change the fact that it is just as clear that she really doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. She ends her piece by stating, "I am not a Christian, but I hear profound messages in these parables. If I as an outsider can be so moved by Jesus’ stories, surely people who worship him as Lord and Savior can appreciate them even more."

I have to wonder what her definition of "profound" is. I got the distinct impression that she wrote the piece for herself more than anyone else. She seems to need to convince herself of her own interpretations. Perhaps deep down she realizes that it really is completely subjective and devoid of any substance.

Exceptioanlly weak Apologetics or Mental Diarrhea?

The overwhelming majority of apologists seem to share the same penchant for willful ignorance, self-delusion, and logical fallacies. Yet another example of this intellectual bankruptcy is clearly demonstrated by Brandon Jones in his recent piece at The Global Dispatch, "Evidence of Jesus Christ’s life, resurrection and how atheists are foolish." Jones lobs numerous definitive statements without the slightest reference or support. It is hard to summarize the massive doses of bigotry, bias, and plain stupidity contained in this rather short piece but I'll give it a shot.

"Jesus is on ancient Roman records to have been crucified in 28 AD.  Even Orthodox Jews, who still hate Him, acknowledge His existence and death, but have trouble with his birth and resurrection....The tomb of Jesus, which can still be seen today in the Garden Tomb area (not the Catholic traditional site), still has the metal spikes which were sheared off when the angel rolled the stone away....The tomb of Jesus, which can still be seen today in the Garden Tomb area (not the Catholic traditional site), still has the metal spikes which were sheared off when the angel rolled the stone away....Why was the body of Jesus never found…, at least by unbelievers?  How is it that God managed to have the Ark of the Covenant hidden for 600 years, right under the place where Yeshua was crucified, so that His blood would flow down the earthquake crack of the hill of rock, and drip 24 feet down upon the West end of the Ark?"

All of that came from the first page of his two page rant. The first thing I noticed was that unlike many other apologists he makes no attempt at citing anything. Usually, they try to make some bogus claim that this historian or that stated something about Christ in one of their works. In each instance it is either a completely fabricated "source" or the source actually refers to what Christians said about their beliefs, which the historian was simply conveying. The historian makes no value judgement on the beliefs themselves. It's pretty pathetic that this asshole is as lazy as he is deluded. There are no Roman records related to Jesus Christ. In point of fact, Roman records discredit most aspects of the Jesus narratives. The supposed court case against Christ, for example, never would have proceeded the way it is described in the Gospels. There are certainly no accounts of such a noticeable event as an earthquake of the magnitude and consequence that he recites.

Then, of course there are all the other ridiculous things he manages to cram into such a short space. The Jews knew/know Christs existence and hate him. Really?! Jones knows this, how? Even if another group of theists accepted something as true what makes that factual? There is a lot of blind bigotry that Jones conflates with historical fact. The Garden Tomb, as he implies, is one of a handful of sites theists have speculated is the site of Jesus resurrection. There is no archeological evidence for this assertion. There isn't even any remotely objective reason to favor his preferred site over the various other proposed one. Also as Jones implies, many Christians refute this as a legitimate holy site. A fact about the Garden Tomb that can be easily confirmed is that it is a highly profitable tourist trap. Just follow the link to it's official website to check it out.

And, what the fuck is with his reference to the Ark? The supposed Ark of the Covenant, if it were real, would have pre-dated Christ and has no direct connection to any aspect of the Jesus narratives. Referencing multiple mythical events and figure does not provided reinforcement to any of them being historical. Its almost as if he contracted some type of mental diarrhea that he was then compelled to put down in writing. And remember the excerpts above are from just a handful of paragraphs on the first page. It doesn't get any better. You really have to read it to fathom the level of stupidity it contains. There is far more to ridicule than just what little I've pointed out.

Pondering Faux History and Whiny Assholes

Right from the start David Gibson's "Analysis" is full of ridiculous shit. As a title, "America’s Christian conservatives ponder a ‘Babylonian exile’ (ANALYSIS)" sets the tone quite well. Comparing the US's religious right to the Biblical "Babylonian exile" of the Jews is utter non-sense. No one is forcing these self-deluded hypocritical assholes to do anything. They also still wield influence and resources far beyond what you might expect from their numbers.

It isn't just the stupidly of the title that irritates me. The implications of the very first sentence should annoy anyone who knows the actual history rather than the elementary-school rendition of it.
"From the moment they set foot on North American soil, the Puritans who came to the continent viewed their “errand into the wilderness” through a biblical lens, seeing themselves as modern-day Israelites building a New Jerusalem in the New World."
The "Puritans" fled England for the Netherlands in order to gain religious freedom. They got it. The left the Netherlands for the "New World" for expressly economic reasons. They came to find better access to resources and develop their personal wealth. It may seem nit-picky but it is common myth that the willfully ignorant religious right insists on using to make all sorts of other baseless claims.

Even though Gibson does not completely buy into all the bullshit the individuals he wrote to and spoke with about this "exile" he does very little to set the record straight. He even seems somewhat sympathetic to what all their griping really boils down to: their ability to bully other without question or limitations. I just don't get it. I do not understand why comparatively (emphasis on comparative) reasonable theists keep giving these overprivileged jerks yet another soap box. I also find it rather telling that Gibson and company don't see the innate contradiction. The religious right whines about not being taken seriously enough yet every mainstream outlet bends over backwards to give them as much of megaphone as anyone can possibly have.

Condoning and codling these dip shits doesn't help anyone.

As Credulous as ever

As reported in a July 2nd Guardian piece, "Vatican gives official backing to exorcists", the Pope once again demonstrates that he is just as conservative, superstitious, and credulous as his predecessors. He is neither modern nor a reformer. He abides by all the same ridiculous doctrines and policies that the last handful of Popes have blindly followed.

Sometimes Advice Columnists Fabricate

I occasionally read the Religious News Service based Christian advice columnist Martin Elfert. He has always come across as a friendly well intentioned, if rather ignorant, guy. A recent column made me question his sincerity for the first time. The title of his Father Knows Best best post, "Can I regain my faith after becoming an atheist?", seemed a little odd but not completely dubious. It is not unheard for individuals to mistakenly identify themselves as atheist when the are in fact believers who don't have a specific religious affiliation (the bogus Spiritual vs Religious). However, the content itself implied that this instance went beyond such common misunderstandings.

The opening call for advice reads:

"Hey Rev!

I have been practicing science for a very long time and over the years have become an incorrigible atheist. I simply cannot let go of my deep-seated need for evidence, and to employ the best logic and reasoning skills I can muster, regardless of the circumstance. Certainly, I understand that I do not, or cannot, know or understand everything but that never keeps me from trying. Do you think I could ever regain faith and, if so, how?"

There were a number of red flags that went up as I read this initial part. I'm not sure why an atheist would refer to themselves as incorrigible. It implies bad behavior rather than doubts about your own beliefs. Most atheists I've come across are very familiar with the old bullshit view that atheists can't be ethical or moral just because they are atheists. This one term seems to be a gentler way to inject that bit of prejudice. It also seems odd to me that someone so concerned with evidence and critical thinking would worry about faith at all. Why would someone "practicing science" seek the advice of a theologian rather than another scholar with evidence based knowledge of religion, like a subset of psychology, anthropology, or sociology?

I find this person's claim to be an atheist very suspicious and way to convenient. Elfert's advice is also not that great. He never even bothers to ask about why the "atheist" is so concerned or how he came to be an atheist. His advice is just as likely to cause further confusion as resolve any doubts. Of course, this assumes that doubts are a bad thing from the start. That's highly debatable. Then the premise of his advice about regaining faith,"practice", can be interpreted by "the best logic and reasoning skills" as being a matter of self deceit and delusion. Is that really a solution?