Even setting aside the level of bigotry, arrogance, maliciousness of Arch Bishop Liberati, his statements regarding both Muslims and atheist are horrendous. The basic premise presented in Christian Today's "In 10 Years, Italy 'Will All Be Muslims Because of Atheism, a Weak Church, and Stupidity,' Archbishop Warns" is incredibly stupid. The extent to which it defies logic and reason is impressive even coming from a very conservative Christian. How a complete lack of religious belief can lead even a small fraction of the Italians to a specific set of religious beliefs is a mystery that no one in this shitty little piece ever bothers to examine.
Liberati, of course, never once concedes that Italians might being leaving the Catholic Church for reasons directly related to said church's doctrines, policies, and practices. Maybe, some Italians are leaving because of the terrible example right-wing assholes like Liberati are, and have been, setting. It just might be that on top of realizing how political and self centered the church is they also have come to realize that demonizing and denigrating other Italians who are not Catholic is unethical and immoral.
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hypocrisy. Show all posts
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Did Francis just denounce the Catholic Church?
I find it rather interesting that Religious News Service ran thes two pieces simultaneously: "Pope Francis denounces growing 'demonization of enemies and outsiders'" and "Because of the U.S. bishops’ voters guide, I may leave the church." The latter being just another of many instances where the Catholic Church does smear and lie about any individuals or groups it doesn't like. Though, it has been years since I routinely attended church I have been to plenty of masses and religious based gatherings, Catholic or otherwise, over the years. And, yes as an atheist I have attended a variety religious rites, rituals, ceremonies.... I have often heard phrases like "faithless", "unfaithful", "without faith", and so forth. It was clear that the priests meant atheists and in some instances non-Christian or even non-Catholic. In every instance, what followed those words and phrases was derogatory and degrading. They went out of their way to use their pulpit to demonize.
So, until Francis actually backs up his rhetoric with something of substance I have to assume he is either very deceitful or incredibly self-deluded. If he isn't just using another PR ploy he needs to wake the fuck up and deal with the fact that his Church is involved in the demonization that he claims to oppose.
So, until Francis actually backs up his rhetoric with something of substance I have to assume he is either very deceitful or incredibly self-deluded. If he isn't just using another PR ploy he needs to wake the fuck up and deal with the fact that his Church is involved in the demonization that he claims to oppose.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Hypocrite be thy name
And the hits just keep coming from Pope Francis. A June 20th Religious News Service post titled "Pope Francis to Catholics: 'Who are you to judge others?'" is a classic case of projection as any I've come across to date. Just three days before he was quoted passing judgement on a huge chunk of the world's population. Among other media outlets NBC news ran a piece on his public pronouncement about modern marriages. "Most modern marriages are invalid, Pope says in off-the-cuff remarks" makes it pretty clear that he was not just referring to Catholic marriages. He was making judgments about all marriages.
So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.
So, not only is this pompous self righteous prick being a hypocrite he is claiming knowledge about matters he has no real experience or understanding. What the fuck would this dumb ass actually know about intimate romantic relationships? And, he seems to think its okay to meddle in the lives of those who have not chosen to join his bullshit infused criminally complicit club. I genuinely do not understand how Cathiolics can continue to accept this asshole as an authority on anything. Non-Catholics affording him any respect is really confusing. He has yet to earn any of the good will and accolades that continue to be gifted to him.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Isn't that what the clergy do?
Pope Francis is back to his hypocritical dumb-ass antics that the media so adores. A recent Religious news service piece, "Pope Francis: A ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ faith is heretical" noted:
"Pope Francis has called on Catholics to adopt a 'healthy realism' in their approach to their faith, and he decried rigid idealists as heretics."
First, I don't think Francis quite understands what the term "realism" means. Is there a single Catholic doctrine that is realistic in any sense of the word? I can't think of one. And, rigid application of faith is pretty much one the major functions of all clergy.
"Pope Francis has called on Catholics to adopt a 'healthy realism' in their approach to their faith, and he decried rigid idealists as heretics."
First, I don't think Francis quite understands what the term "realism" means. Is there a single Catholic doctrine that is realistic in any sense of the word? I can't think of one. And, rigid application of faith is pretty much one the major functions of all clergy.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Subtitle says it all
Longenecker has once again demonstrated what a deceitful hypocritical dumb-ass he truly is. "The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism: Jesus rose from the dead. How's that for evidence that God exists?" is one of his worst pieces, yet. That's pretty bad. If you don't want to waste your time on this idiotic crap just think about the sub-title. It is a pretty good summary of his deficient thinking process.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
This arrogant deluded prick has the nerve to claim:
"Atheists like to say, 'Where is the evidence for the existence of God?,' and philosophical arguments aren’t really evidence as such. They work well enough, but they remain abstract head games. I’m hearing the atheists when they say they want evidence, and I’ve asked in response, 'What kind of evidence do you want?' Strangely, they seem stumped by my request."
Who are these atheists he is supposedly talking and listening to? Numerous atheists have routinely pointed out what they/we would accept as sound evidence. He then goes on to try to claim that his personal beliefs based on no legitimate evidence is automatically proof. No it isn't. There is no "evidence" for the existence of an historical Jesus let alone the absurd claims about such a figures divinity and miracles. The "resurrection" is proof of only one thing; how gullible people can be.
From start to finish this piece is laced with baseless subjective assertions that rely on myths, stereotypes, misconceptions, and logical fallacies. The level of asinine bullshit is staggering even for Longenecker.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Cheapening Patriotism
A patriot should never fail to respect and uphold the ideals of his/her country. That's what patriotism is supposed to be about. Very few right-wingers have ever understood that. Symbols are important as are the individual's person beliefs but they do not automatically translate into patriotism. In a rather superficial and wish-washy way Tobin Grant questions this approach in his post, "Real Americans are Christians?", on the most recent General Social Survey.
Personally, I think the "Two-thirds of evangelicals say that true Americans are Christian" are among the worst examples of Americans. Though, it is an opinion it can at least be backed up. These dumb-ass self-righteous prick defy one of the basic principles of our constitution; Separation of Church and State. As I've pointed out numerous times there are only two references to religion in general between the Constitution proper and the Bill of Right. Both are framed in the negative. Separation was clearly intended despite claims to the contrary. These ignorant fools certainly do not live up to our nation's first and best motto, "e pluribus unum" (out of many one). And, yet, it's this same subset that often claims atheists and non-Christians are the troublemakers.
Personally, I think the "Two-thirds of evangelicals say that true Americans are Christian" are among the worst examples of Americans. Though, it is an opinion it can at least be backed up. These dumb-ass self-righteous prick defy one of the basic principles of our constitution; Separation of Church and State. As I've pointed out numerous times there are only two references to religion in general between the Constitution proper and the Bill of Right. Both are framed in the negative. Separation was clearly intended despite claims to the contrary. These ignorant fools certainly do not live up to our nation's first and best motto, "e pluribus unum" (out of many one). And, yet, it's this same subset that often claims atheists and non-Christians are the troublemakers.
Sunday, March 13, 2016
"...way of knowing the Bible."
Anne Carpenter's blog post "A Theory on Catholics and the Bible" is pretty amusing. It is so loaded with hypocrisy, ignorance, and downright stupidity that I had to chuckle through it. Her idea of "knowing" the Bible is rather pathetic. In parts she partially admits that being able to cite specific passages isn't a sign of knowledge and yet in other parts that's precisely what she's saying. She also seems to think that being familiar with the most common and weakest apologetics is a form of wisdom. No, it isn't. It seems that Protestants are just as feeble as Catholics when it comes to understanding scripture. Cherry picking and interpreting passages so they fit what you want them to mean is not "knowing" them anymore than simply being able to parrot select passages is "knowing" the Bible.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Yup, he's a leech
No doubt you've seen all sorts of fluff pieces about Pope Francis' pending visit to the United States. Have you seen even one that mentions the fact that we tax payers are going to being footing a large chunk of bill? I have not. Instead you occasionally come across pieces like this one: "Secret Service director: No credible threats against Pope Francis." Of course, we will not be passing on that expense to the Catholic Church. Instead of letting one of the wealthiest organizations on the face of the planet pay for it's own propaganda campaigns we get to do it.
As much of an affront to our Constitution as this is (think Separation of Church and State) it is also rather revealing in terms of religious philosophy. What threats can civil authorities protect the "Vicar of god" from? The Pope is supposedly God's representative on Earth. Shouldn't God be protecting him? I want to be clear on the next point, I do not want to see the Pope hurt or killed. That said, why would it be such a big deal to anyone who happens to be religious if the Pope is assassinated? Wouldn't such an occurrence by it's very nature be the will of God? And, being such a holy figure wouldn't he be getting an express ticket to Heaven? Doesn't sound like such a horrible consequence if you really believe in that sort of thing.
Basically, we all get to pay for a representative of one specific church to further spread it's lies and bullshit. The media won't talk about that. They will, however, continue to give the overprivileged pompous bishops and cardinals a venue to pretend their religious liberties are being violated when they can't force their views and opinions on the rest of us even more than they currently get away with. Francis and the rest of the Catholic Hierarchy are hypocritical, dishonest, social and economic leeches.
As much of an affront to our Constitution as this is (think Separation of Church and State) it is also rather revealing in terms of religious philosophy. What threats can civil authorities protect the "Vicar of god" from? The Pope is supposedly God's representative on Earth. Shouldn't God be protecting him? I want to be clear on the next point, I do not want to see the Pope hurt or killed. That said, why would it be such a big deal to anyone who happens to be religious if the Pope is assassinated? Wouldn't such an occurrence by it's very nature be the will of God? And, being such a holy figure wouldn't he be getting an express ticket to Heaven? Doesn't sound like such a horrible consequence if you really believe in that sort of thing.
Basically, we all get to pay for a representative of one specific church to further spread it's lies and bullshit. The media won't talk about that. They will, however, continue to give the overprivileged pompous bishops and cardinals a venue to pretend their religious liberties are being violated when they can't force their views and opinions on the rest of us even more than they currently get away with. Francis and the rest of the Catholic Hierarchy are hypocritical, dishonest, social and economic leeches.
Monday, July 6, 2015
What if it were Southern Baptists, or Catholics, or....
Listening to the religious right go on about how marriage equality is a violation of their rights makes me want to throw up. They are so full of shit. Not is there no possibility of finally recognizing the rights of yet another marginalized minority not a threat it is in fact these fucking whiners who are the threat. Sadly, our pathetic media still coddles such deceitful hypocritical ignorant assholes.
Showing how disingenuous they are is also very easy to do. Simply replace homosexual with Southern Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, or any other conservative sect/denomination. Then see if they still agree with the notion of discriminating on religious grounds. I am not religious at all but if I were I assume I would still be on the liberal end of the spectrum. I can easily see making a case that supporting in any sense conservative theists as being a violation of my "spiritual" beliefs. By working or serving with conservatives I could easily claim that that makes me an accomplice of evil. Why should I jeopardize my soul by becoming a collaborator with the agents of evil? See how that works? Clearly I should not have to provide any products or services to any religious conservatives. Shouldn't I be able to make a case for my religious freedom? Shouldn't I then be allowed to refuse any and all conservative theists?
NO! And, anyone who thinks this is a valid excuse to harass, persecute, or discriminate is a fucking waste of flesh. Basic civil rights should never be negotiable.
A few of the milder pieces that still made me want to scream include:
"Will the Court protect religious objectors to same-sex marriage?" Religious News Service
"Republicans pivot from gay marriage to religious liberty fight" CNN
Showing how disingenuous they are is also very easy to do. Simply replace homosexual with Southern Baptist, Catholic, Orthodox Judaism, or any other conservative sect/denomination. Then see if they still agree with the notion of discriminating on religious grounds. I am not religious at all but if I were I assume I would still be on the liberal end of the spectrum. I can easily see making a case that supporting in any sense conservative theists as being a violation of my "spiritual" beliefs. By working or serving with conservatives I could easily claim that that makes me an accomplice of evil. Why should I jeopardize my soul by becoming a collaborator with the agents of evil? See how that works? Clearly I should not have to provide any products or services to any religious conservatives. Shouldn't I be able to make a case for my religious freedom? Shouldn't I then be allowed to refuse any and all conservative theists?
NO! And, anyone who thinks this is a valid excuse to harass, persecute, or discriminate is a fucking waste of flesh. Basic civil rights should never be negotiable.
A few of the milder pieces that still made me want to scream include:
"Will the Court protect religious objectors to same-sex marriage?" Religious News Service
"Republicans pivot from gay marriage to religious liberty fight" CNN
Saturday, June 27, 2015
Hypocrisy be thy name, Francis
I've never fallen for Pope Francis' PR veneer. He has done little to nothing to earn the praise he has routinely received since becoming Pope. Recently, even his superficial veneer has been wearing thin. Sadly, very few have actively criticized him for these massive doses of bullshit. One episode of hypocritical deceit that he recently unleashed should have every self-respecting historian calling foul. An AP story that the HuffPo reposted is just laced with an absurd level of hypocrisy.
"Pope Francis: 'Great Powers' Did Nothing When Jews Were Taken To Auschwitz"
This statement is a lot like someone finding the need to chastise his neighbor for playing with matches only moments after the whiner accidentally burnt down that same neighbors house with a flamethrower. Apparently a little paper known as the Reichskonkordat slipped the Pope's mind. The Vatican and the German government signed a treaty with each other in 1933. Even though Germany very quickly played fast and loose with the terms the Vatican stuck pretty close to it. In other words, in order to not get in trouble with the Nazis the Catholic Hierarchy did nothing to help the Jews or any other minority. If he actually did any fact checking he would have discover that the only reps of his beloved church to get off their asses to help were local parish clergy who frequently acted against the wishes of their superiors.
Francis is full of shit.
"Pope Francis: 'Great Powers' Did Nothing When Jews Were Taken To Auschwitz"
This statement is a lot like someone finding the need to chastise his neighbor for playing with matches only moments after the whiner accidentally burnt down that same neighbors house with a flamethrower. Apparently a little paper known as the Reichskonkordat slipped the Pope's mind. The Vatican and the German government signed a treaty with each other in 1933. Even though Germany very quickly played fast and loose with the terms the Vatican stuck pretty close to it. In other words, in order to not get in trouble with the Nazis the Catholic Hierarchy did nothing to help the Jews or any other minority. If he actually did any fact checking he would have discover that the only reps of his beloved church to get off their asses to help were local parish clergy who frequently acted against the wishes of their superiors.
Francis is full of shit.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
Your deceit isn't their hypocrisy
America is not the only country where a subset of theist find the need to lie and whine in defense of their beliefs. After fact checking a piece I found on the Christian Concern website it was blatantly obvious how incredibly unethical and vicious the assholes who work there really are. Virtually nothing in "Humanists' hypocrisy after sending atheist manuals to every Scottish secondary following Christian book ban" turned out to be true.The Humanist Society of Scotland did not seek to "ban" the so-called "guide book" entitled It's Your Move.
What did the Humanist Society of Scotland actually have an interest in accomplishing? They sought to remove from public school curriculums a clearly Christian centric book and bar those public schools from paying for the books out of school funds. Got that? They did not ask that children be prevented from receiving the books. They just found it inappropriate for public schools to pay for and actively push a sectarian book on children. Christian Concern and the Free Church of Scotland both routinely misrepresented the facts and sought to demonize a group of individuals who actually applied basic civil rights and human decency to an incredibly bigoted set of circumstances.
This gang of assholes also left out a number of details along the way. They didn't bother to mention how well connected the Free Church of Scotland already is with various public schools around the country. They certainly didn't mention that the book the Humanist Society of Scotland has offered for distribution would be a small token in an attempt to deal with centuries of bias towards theism or that they have donated all the books. It definitely slipped their minds that these books from the beginning are only being offered as an option. They are not being forced on kids like the Christian guide book had been. The publisher, Scripture Union, of the It's Your Move book even brags about directly connecting churches to schools through it's books and curriculum in it's introduction video.
Anyone who even skims through the "Resource Booklet" that accompanies the Christian guide book can't help but realize that this really is a set of Sunday School lessons being passed off as public school curriculum.
The very notion that the humanists are the ones being hypocritical is absurd to the point of being laughable. Christian Concern, The Free Church of Scotland, and other supporters of this guide book being force fed to other people's children are being deceitful tyrannical assholes. Their whining about responsible adults opposing them is hypocritical not to mention despicable.
What did the Humanist Society of Scotland actually have an interest in accomplishing? They sought to remove from public school curriculums a clearly Christian centric book and bar those public schools from paying for the books out of school funds. Got that? They did not ask that children be prevented from receiving the books. They just found it inappropriate for public schools to pay for and actively push a sectarian book on children. Christian Concern and the Free Church of Scotland both routinely misrepresented the facts and sought to demonize a group of individuals who actually applied basic civil rights and human decency to an incredibly bigoted set of circumstances.
This gang of assholes also left out a number of details along the way. They didn't bother to mention how well connected the Free Church of Scotland already is with various public schools around the country. They certainly didn't mention that the book the Humanist Society of Scotland has offered for distribution would be a small token in an attempt to deal with centuries of bias towards theism or that they have donated all the books. It definitely slipped their minds that these books from the beginning are only being offered as an option. They are not being forced on kids like the Christian guide book had been. The publisher, Scripture Union, of the It's Your Move book even brags about directly connecting churches to schools through it's books and curriculum in it's introduction video.
Anyone who even skims through the "Resource Booklet" that accompanies the Christian guide book can't help but realize that this really is a set of Sunday School lessons being passed off as public school curriculum.
The very notion that the humanists are the ones being hypocritical is absurd to the point of being laughable. Christian Concern, The Free Church of Scotland, and other supporters of this guide book being force fed to other people's children are being deceitful tyrannical assholes. Their whining about responsible adults opposing them is hypocritical not to mention despicable.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Psalmist Lecrae
I won't pretend to know much about Lecrae's music but I don't really need to. Claudia May's Patheos piece "Lecrae: A Modern-Day Psalmist Voices the Messiness of Humanity Through Hip-Hop" is as much about him as an individual as it is about his music. I have seen interviews with Lecrae and based on his own presentation of himself I can say I am not impressed. I am pretty sure that by "psalmist" May does not mean self-righteous deceitful hypocritical asshole. If she did I'd have to completely agree with her since he is a self-deluded pompous ass. I have previously pointed out why I have such a low opinion of Lecrae.
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
My prior critique can be found here:
"Lecrae: neither humble nor honest" (October 19, 2014)
Friday, January 30, 2015
All too common disconnect
The headline, "Many religious people view science favorably, but reject certain scientific theories", seems a little contradictory, even silly. Unfortunately, this is neither something new or uncommon. People frequently compartmentalize various aspects of their lives without ever noticing it let alone attempting to fix the problem. And, yes, it is a serious problem. Claiming to respect and accept science while simultaneously disrepsecting and rejecting does have rather negative consequences. This type of disconnect is one of the primary reason all sorets of supertitious nonsense is abkle to flourish in an age awash with useful practical information. It is one of the obstacles that so often prevents us from putting religion in its propere place; a garbage can.
Peresonally, I do not accept the claim that individual actually respect science if they also pay any deference to such things as Creationism. They don't. They in fact can't. Science is not about one theory or another but rather about the process by which such theories are developed and either maintained or replaced.
Peresonally, I do not accept the claim that individual actually respect science if they also pay any deference to such things as Creationism. They don't. They in fact can't. Science is not about one theory or another but rather about the process by which such theories are developed and either maintained or replaced.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
An odd sense of "facts"
Once again Catholic Online firmly demonstrates why no one should look to a Catholic run media outlet for anything resembling accurate information. Either they are incredibly willfully ignorant, mind bogglingly delusional, blatantly deceitful, plain stupid, or a combination of all of these. A recent piece, "Here are 10 Very Interesting Facts About the Catholic Church You Probably Didn't Know!", contains a handful of false claims as well as a number of rather dubious ones. Two of the ten immediately jumped out because they were so clearly wrong.
"2. The ONLY Christian church in existence for the first 1,000 years of Christian history was the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian churches which exist today can trace their linage back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most non-Catholic churches which exist today are less than a century or two old by comparison."
Wow! To claim pride in your faith and not have a fucking clue about it's history takes some serious balls. This is, of course, complete bullshit. The Roman Catholic church isn't even the oldest identifiable Christian group. The Copts (Egypt) do not trace their linage to Roman Catholicism. They emerged as a church by the end of the 1st century/beginning of the second century. Even the most basic math skills should help these dumb asses figure out they are wrong by at least 800 years. That's just one example of how truly bogus the above statement is. Any one interested in Christian history should at least have a vague familiarity with the various Synods that shaped the early Christian communities. The Council of Chalcedon, for instance, took place in 451. Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were not the only participants. There were also individuals from the various Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Assyrian/Syriac Church. Some of, though not all, the Eastern churches did break off of the Roman Catholic Church. The Assyrians developed independent.
So #2 is completely false.
"5. The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses."
What the fuck!? Who in their right mind would believe this statement? How can any one be that fucking stupid? The "Bible" as it is generally known contains the Old Testament which is not Christian in origin. Yes, the Catholic church has produced it's own versions of the what we call the Old Testament but they are far from "responsible for the composition." Unless the Vatican has a time machine stashed away somewhere there isn't even the slightest possibility of this statement being true. The Old Testament was produced by the Jews. In Judaism it is actually known as the Tanakh. Later in this section CO seems to denigrate Protestants for making alterations to the Bible but that's rather hypocritical since the Catholic Church did the same thing to the Tanakh (ex. the order of the books is different).
#5 also completely false and even hypocritical and bigoted.
Most of the other points do not contain such blatantly false statement but there isn't a single one that could be said to be completely factual either. Many rely on assumptions and very specific interpretations of terms. All are quite dubious and serve no purpose beyond trying to make the Catholic Church look good while implying that others look bad in some way.
Congratulations Catholic Online for denigrating your own history while making yourself look like petty whiny self-centered assholes.
"2. The ONLY Christian church in existence for the first 1,000 years of Christian history was the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian churches which exist today can trace their linage back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most non-Catholic churches which exist today are less than a century or two old by comparison."
Wow! To claim pride in your faith and not have a fucking clue about it's history takes some serious balls. This is, of course, complete bullshit. The Roman Catholic church isn't even the oldest identifiable Christian group. The Copts (Egypt) do not trace their linage to Roman Catholicism. They emerged as a church by the end of the 1st century/beginning of the second century. Even the most basic math skills should help these dumb asses figure out they are wrong by at least 800 years. That's just one example of how truly bogus the above statement is. Any one interested in Christian history should at least have a vague familiarity with the various Synods that shaped the early Christian communities. The Council of Chalcedon, for instance, took place in 451. Representatives of the Roman Catholic Church were not the only participants. There were also individuals from the various Eastern Orthodox churches as well as the Assyrian/Syriac Church. Some of, though not all, the Eastern churches did break off of the Roman Catholic Church. The Assyrians developed independent.
So #2 is completely false.
"5. The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses."
What the fuck!? Who in their right mind would believe this statement? How can any one be that fucking stupid? The "Bible" as it is generally known contains the Old Testament which is not Christian in origin. Yes, the Catholic church has produced it's own versions of the what we call the Old Testament but they are far from "responsible for the composition." Unless the Vatican has a time machine stashed away somewhere there isn't even the slightest possibility of this statement being true. The Old Testament was produced by the Jews. In Judaism it is actually known as the Tanakh. Later in this section CO seems to denigrate Protestants for making alterations to the Bible but that's rather hypocritical since the Catholic Church did the same thing to the Tanakh (ex. the order of the books is different).
#5 also completely false and even hypocritical and bigoted.
Most of the other points do not contain such blatantly false statement but there isn't a single one that could be said to be completely factual either. Many rely on assumptions and very specific interpretations of terms. All are quite dubious and serve no purpose beyond trying to make the Catholic Church look good while implying that others look bad in some way.
Congratulations Catholic Online for denigrating your own history while making yourself look like petty whiny self-centered assholes.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
A not so cute WWJD story
The story that Mick Mooney creates in his piece "WWJD: What Would Jesus Do? Do You Really Want to Know?" is intended to be a cute demonstration of what it means to follow Jesus and how some people misinterpret the real Jesus' central messages. The problem is it isn't cute at all. It is, in fact, as dishonest as it is arrogant and condescending. Mooney passes judgment on the mother in the story as if he actually has definitive knowledge of the Jesus figure. He doesn't. He can't. As I have pointed out so often the only available information about the Christ figure is contradictory and in places incoherent. To make matters worse, there isn't a single verifiable fact about Jesus. Mooney is ridiculing the notion that there can be other valid interpretations of the Jesus narratives without ever considering his own views are as baseless as any others. Apparently, he is among those who don't "really want to know." Then again, there probably isn't actually anything "to know" about Jesus.
An early appearannce
That fun annual phenomena that is best labeled Christmas cultural arrogance has made an early appearance. One advice columnist has already answered a reader's concerns about the upcoming Christian silly season. I largely agree with Amy Alkon's response in her "When atheist meets pious: A Christmas story." However, I think she let's the boyfriend in the scenario off way too lightly.
Basically, a dilemma is created by the boyfriend of this relationship when he tries to guilt his girfriend into attending Christmas mass with his very religious parents. He himself is not religious but tries making it seem that it would be disrespectful not to attend mass with his parents. Bullshit. Amy points out that it is not disrespectful and does a decent job explaining why that's the case. She should have noted that it is the boyfriend who is belittling other people's views, namely those of his girlfriend. He's being the disrespectful one. She, the girlfriend, has not indicated that she has in anyway sought to dissuade or interfere with the parents beliefs. He is doing to her what he falsely perceives she is doing to his parents.
Not being religious himself has not prevented a common misconception from clouding his judgment. The notion that everyone should approach Christmas from a Christian perspective is pervasive. Christians rarely bother to consider how weak and pathetic their claims on winter celebrations are. Even those of us non-believers who are generally comfortable celebrating Christmas don't necessarily want to constantly deal with the theological baggage that comes with it. Why should we? "Christmas" is not unique and doesn't have to be.
Basically, a dilemma is created by the boyfriend of this relationship when he tries to guilt his girfriend into attending Christmas mass with his very religious parents. He himself is not religious but tries making it seem that it would be disrespectful not to attend mass with his parents. Bullshit. Amy points out that it is not disrespectful and does a decent job explaining why that's the case. She should have noted that it is the boyfriend who is belittling other people's views, namely those of his girlfriend. He's being the disrespectful one. She, the girlfriend, has not indicated that she has in anyway sought to dissuade or interfere with the parents beliefs. He is doing to her what he falsely perceives she is doing to his parents.
Not being religious himself has not prevented a common misconception from clouding his judgment. The notion that everyone should approach Christmas from a Christian perspective is pervasive. Christians rarely bother to consider how weak and pathetic their claims on winter celebrations are. Even those of us non-believers who are generally comfortable celebrating Christmas don't necessarily want to constantly deal with the theological baggage that comes with it. Why should we? "Christmas" is not unique and doesn't have to be.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Lecrae: neither humble nor honest
The Blaze's "The Simple Question This Famed Christian Rapper Has for Atheists Like Richard Dawkins" is a rather laughable attempt to pass off a blatantly propagandist puff piece as an actual news story. Both the author of the written part and the interviewer in the embedded video all but stick their tongues up Lecrae Moore's self-righteous ass. And, he is quite self-righteous.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
The pretense that he is sincere, humble, and honest is ludicrous. He constantly contradicts his own supposed message/points. He doesn't actually want to ask questions or interact with atheists at all. He wants to insist on his own views while denigrating and belittling others. In fact, he does look down on atheists and does view the world in an us-vs-them mentality despite claiming the opposite. Throughout the video he speaks in a manner that is dismissive and confrontational. His claim to having been an atheist is just as disingenuous as the rest of his act. Lacking interest in religion and having a lack of morals is not part of the basic definition of an atheist.
Any one with a functioning brain should be able to see through this pathetic charade.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, October 3, 2014
"Lukewarmness"?
Apparently, one of the editors of The National Review Online seems to think comparing atheism to a disease is a good way to express the dangers of "lukewarmness". I assume Kathryn Lopez means to use the term "apathy" but lacks the intellectual ability and honesty to manage it. Her brief post on Patheos, "Avoid the Plague of Practical Atheism", is lazy and stupid. She basically throws a couple of quotes with just a few of her own sentences. Isn't a lack of effort sometimes seen as evidence of apathy? The quotations themselves aren't all that impressive either. The first has Pope Benedict XVI commenting on how superficial peoples views of God can be. That's pretty entertaining given that like virtually all Popes his behaviors have not matched his rhetoric.
Basically, this is just another instance of conservative asshole attempting to dress up what amounts to a "fuck you" to atheists.
Basically, this is just another instance of conservative asshole attempting to dress up what amounts to a "fuck you" to atheists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)