I can't count the number of times of seen a variation of the meme below:

Even setting aside that the basic premise is an affront to one of the founding principles of our nation, Separation of Church and State, this is an incredibly self serving and idiotic view. All it really does is confirm that many Christians are willfully ignorant and/or self deluded. Christ, and therefore Christianity, is not a good source of comparison. At least not for for any self-respecting decent human being. If you have doubts about this characterization you really need to read/reread the Gospels and pay attention to what's actually there.

For example:

In Matthew 10:22-28 Jesus is a complete asshole to the non-Jews around him which he follows up latter in the same chapter 10:34-35 with an outright endorsement of divisiveness and intolerance.

Then there are some cute passages in Mark where he does in fact make a statement that I fail to see any other interpretation other than a big-ol Fuck-the Poor (Mark 14:3-7) which he also follows up with yet another endorsement of hate (Mark 14:26).

This, of course, pales in comparison to his Luke 19:27 command to his followers to round up all non-followers and commit mass murder.

Basically, criticizing Republicans on the gounds of not being "true" Christians is utter bullshit. Depending on your preferred interpretation you could argue that they are being good Christians by being utter bastards. Then again, if you need a horrendous work of fiction like the Bible to guide your behavior I have to assume you are a completely unethical moron.

Arragonce vs. Delusion vs. Stupidity

And, here we have a three way cage match of Arrogance, Self-Delusion, and Stupidity. I just can't make up my mind which comes out on top in "Everyone Needs Jesus...Even You." It is a truly pathetic piece of writing from an equally shitty website, Reign Drops. Just the fact that these assholes never seem to notice that virtually every single "argument"* they use only sort of works if they completely ignore everything and anything that contains even a hint of reality. There is no possibility of them accepting that other people actually are capable of thinking for themselves. They are the type of morons that you could demonstrate in person undeniable proof of "x" and if it doesn't fit their beliefs they will refuse to accept or even acknowledge "x."

So, be wary of sites and pieces like this one. Just reading such horrendous tripe can temporarily drop your IQ, or raise your blood pressure a few points.

*Just to clarify, the piece in this instance doesn't actual contain a single argument. It's more of a one direction rant.

"...not my Jesus."

I seriously doubt Christians will ever "understand" the most basic trait of Jesus. Jesus is a myth. This is somewhat ironic since it is that trait that has allowed them to play games with the Christ figure all this time. Since there never was a real Jesus every sect and flavor of the Christian faith can easily make whatever claim they want. They shape the Christ into whatever best suits there needs. In some ways this is the greatest asset Christainity has when comes to perpetuating itself.

Posts like Travis Eaves' "That is Not My Jesus" just reinforce what I have long since concluded about most Christians' inability to think critically about their beliefs especially those regarding the Christ figure. The subtitle does a pretty good job exposing his willful ignorance; "The more I get to know Jesus, the less I recognize him in His church today." Like so many before him, Eaves cherry picks passages that fit what he wants to believe and ignores or glosses over the rest. It isn't even remotely possible to "know" Jesus even if you make the huge assumption that he ever existed. Our only "record" of this figure(s) comes from scriptures which do not agree on anything and frequently contradict each other or spiral into incoherent gibberish. There has also never been one "church" and certainly not one that can be directly linked to a non-existent founder.

Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.

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.

"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.

"...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.

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.

3 out of 4

Andy Gill does a decent job with three of his "Four Thing You Should Know Before Reading the Bible." Out of the following four can you spot which isn't like the others;

"1. The Bible, it’s an ever changing and never finished set of manuscripts....
2. In fact, according to many textual critics, there are more variances than there are words in the New Testament....
3. The Bible, it’s not a history book; it’s a collection of various texts over an unknown amount of time....
4. There’s a difference between tradition and divine revelation.?..."

Number four just doesn't work. Gill never seems to notice that religious "tradition" and "divine revelation" can't really be separated. Both are equally subjective and unfounded. Both are refuted by basic logic and critical thinking. Both are dependent on each other. Gill also never seems to realize that the first three undermine the whole premise of divine revelation. Logically, divine revelation should be as unchanging as it is infallible. Scriptures, and not just Judeo-Christian ones, are neither. It may seem somewhat ironic that scripture is not divine in any way but that has more to do with cultural bias than anything else. All scriptures are human fabrications. It would be nice if some day the majority of humanity finally accepts such scriptures for the anachronistic childish nonsense they've always been.

A first century Jew

Taryn Flynn gets one thing right in "Jesus Wasn’t White And Here’s Why That Matters." The Jesus figure is generally believed to have been a first century Middle-Eastern Jew. Such a first century Jew would not have looked like a modern Western European white guy. Virtually everything else in the piece is, of course, complete non-sense since it all relies on assumptions and willful ignorance. Not only is there no historical evidence for Jesus existence to begin with even if you could make a case for Jesus existence you then have the problem of deciding on which Jesus was the real one. The scriptures that contain information on the Jesus figure do not agree on any aspect of that figure. They actually seem to describe separate individuals. Or, more accurately, separate perceptions and preferences for a Messiah persona.

Though it is true that the Jesus figure would not have been a white guy it is equally true that the odds that he existed at all are very low. So it may not matter all that much. I understand why Flynn found the need to point out how this white version has been used for despicable purposes but it is not the only variation that has lead to negative consequences.

Unapolegetic Fact-checking

I have one other occasions point out that apologists, especially Christian ones, tend to be willfully ignorant, delusional, stupid, or a combination of the three. A recent post by Justin Steckbauer on the Christian Apologetics Alliance' website does an excellent job confirming this view. "The Facts on Christianity: A Quick Examination" is certainly "quick" but bears no resemblance the rest of its title. Steckbauer fails to provide any facts or even the slightest attempt at examining anything he states. The short piece is especially entertaining since he does a pretty good job destroying his own claims. Of the 5 points he tries to make 3 take the form of rhetorical statements ("Does God exist?", Is the Bible really God's word?", Did Jesus really exist historically?") with the last two being meant as persuasive questions ("But was Jesus Christ really God come to Earth?", "What will you do?").

He starts the first point by stating, correctly, that you do not need absolute proof to reach a reasonable conclusion. He immediately dips into idiocy by trying to use the cosmological argument. Predictably, what follows is a jumble of logical fallacies and double standards. Basically, its the old BS that the universe needs a cause but God doesn't. No attempt at justifying or explaining why God should be exempted. Steckbauer's approach to the Bible is just as feeble. He does make an interesting half-assed attempt at acknowledging what actual scholars have known for quite some time by stating, "But there are over 25,000 whole and partial ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and they all match nearly identically." I don't know what the estimate is currently up to be but the number of fragments that make up the Bible is in the tens of thousands. However, he is blatantly wrong about there being even a single whole manuscript. dating to ancient times. Not one! He further proves what an ill-informed fool by trying to claim, "The Bible when compared with recorded history is 99.7% accurate." Not even close. I would be genuinely shocked if it was .3% accurate since the very few references in the Bible that have any connection to established history tend to be grossly inaccurate. His approach to Jesus is just as false. He mentions but does not reference "historical accounts by witnesses." There are no such accounts. All the earliest information relating to Jesus come from scriptures. There are no historical accounts of Jesus. The earliest historians wrote about Christians not Christ. Most accounts are at best third or fourth hand. You would think if someone wanted to write about "facts" that they might at least spend a few minutes fact-checking.

Apologist really are only good for a laugh. Their "arguments" have not changed in centuries. They have been so thoroughly refuted that there isn't anything more to do beyond satire and ridicule.

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.

Editing the "Bible"

The Religion Q&A blog's August 16th post, "Why were some verses removed from the New Testament?", actually pretty good. However, it does omit quite a bit that relates to the question posed.
The post does a pathetic job of dispelling one of the major myths/misconceptions that seem to be at the heart of the qustion.

"CASSANDRA’S QUESTION:
I’m just shocked by the information I just received about the N.I.V. Bible, that many verses of the Scriptures have been removed. So I’m searching for a reliable version of the Bible to study from. Any suggestions?"

Cassandra seem to think that there is a single original "Bible." There isn't. According to the best available research there never has been a single complete original version of either the Old or New Testament. All versions of the Bible are interpreted and edited. What's worse for those self-deluded willfully ignorant dumb-asses who claim it is the "word of God" is that there isn't even a single original copy of any of the Books of the Bible (Old or New). There isn't one intact "original" copy of any of the Books. I thought it would be a good idea to repeat that. Not that it will sink into the the psyche of any who insist the Bible is authoritative. The Bible is simply a compilation of fragmentary ancient writing that the blindly devoted routinely repackage.

There is nothing remotely definitive or authoritative in any of the current versions of the Bible. There can't be since every Book of it can be debated as to which fragments are best to use for that specific part of the Bible. Not one Book has been agreed upon by contemporary theological and historical scholars. No one who knows anything about the Bible should be "shocked" by it's editing and selections. In reality, there are no "reliable" versions in the way Cassandra seems to want.

Becoming "biblical"

It is nice to see theists occasionally do some research and a bit of basic fact checking. On those grounds I do think Ellin Jimmerson does deserve some credit for her piece "When Did Biblical Marriage Get To Be A Thing?" She even makes a point of distinguishing between what people perceive to be in the Bible versus what's actually in the Bible. However, there is a rather important point that she overlooks. It is somewhat odd since it also relates to the disparity between the perception of what is in the Bible versus what is actually written. Anything can and does become "biblical" when those using the phrase find it convenient. The Bible loans itself quite nicely to virtually any belief individuals or groups choose to hold and endorse. Scriptures as a whole, whether Judeo-Christian or not, tend to alternate among being vague, incoherent, and contradictory. They can always be interpreted in a variety of different ways. It is generally pretty safe to assume that anything that carries the label "biblical" is full of shit.

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.

Not intended as satire

When I first read Jeffery Krall's "The 12 Difficulties of Christmas" I was pretty sure an atheist had managed to dupe the Christian Post into publishing a spoof. Nope. Krall is serious. The piece really is intended to be some type of amateurish apologetics. He really seems to think his ponderings are deeply meaningful. The level of self-deception easily loans itself to my initial impression.

His first four seem to be aimed at some of the more conservative Christians but is so shallow I don't see why even the most devout right-winger would bother with them. Krall also seems oblivious to how unnecessary such an approach is since many theists of this stripe have already fully deluded and insulated themselves from any serious questions let alone his trivial take on them. The initial set of his difficulties are:
"1- A virgin conceives…God does something that has never been done before.
2- God uses a peasant teenage girl to bring His only Son into the world.
3- God impregnates someone’s daughter.
4- God impregnates another man’s woman."

To start with, virgin births are not uncommon in mythology. The Jesus narratives do not in fact contain any unique features. Virtually every aspect of the Jesus tales are variations of common elements found in legends and folklore throughout the Middle East/Levant. Also, if he were looking for serious questions why not ask about how God can hold to a lower standard than we pathetic mortals. Krall implies that the question of infidelity and/or adultery can be brought up but never really goes into it. God did knock-up a teenager who was at the very least promised to another man. By other passages of the Bible (Old Testament) Mary should have been stoned to death for a variety of reasons. Depending on your flavor of Christianity this is also potentially an instance of incest. According to some Jesus is God incarnate which would mean that God impregnated his own mom. That's some pretty twisted metaphysical baggage. Labeling that as "Difficulties" seems to be rather superficial and even flippant.

Those disturbing aspects are just from the first third of his list. Most of the others are just as silly and nonsensical. I'll only bother with a few more. His 5th difficulty, "God does this in the most religious culture on the planet", is completely baseless. What makes this part of the world the most religious is not elaborated on. His criteria would have to be either incredibly feeble or non-existent. In ancient times religion was woven into the very fabric of society. Even today that level of theocracy is still being felt.

"6-They were required to submit to the government decree to get registered." is just as full of shit. This one is a reference to one of the elements of the Jesus narratives that can be definitively proven false. We have more than enough historical records to establish not just that the Romans did conduct censuses but how they carried them out. They did not conduct them in the manner the Gospels describe. The Romans didn't give a shit where you were born. They only cared about where you were living at the time of the census. They wanted to know what they could count on for resources and labor within specific geographic boundaries of their empire. Of course, once you accept that this part of the Jesus narratives is a complete fabrication many of Krall's points after this one are nullified.

The real difficulties related to Christmas have far more to do with accepting that it is just a mash up previous myths, legends, and customs. No atheist I know could have done a better job ridiculing "the reason for the season" than Krall's bumbling list of silly inept questions.

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.

How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title?

The title of a recent post by Jonathan Merritt seems to be attempting to answer the question, "how many assumptions can be squeezed into one title?" rather than the one posed in his September 11th "Have evangelicals diluted Jesus’ radical message?"

By the title you would have assume: 1. Jesus existed, 2. there is a single interpretation of who the Jesus figure was, 3. that it is possible to know which interpretation of the Jesus figure is accurate/correct, 4. that those who identify as "evangelicals" among Christians are incorrect or inaccurate in their views of Jesus, 5. that there is a clear "message" attached to the Jesus figure, 6. that message is uniquely Jesus, and 7. that message is "radical."

It is possible I may have missed a few assumptions. Even so, that's a lot crammed in one short question. And, yes, they are entirely assumptions. There is no sound evidence to support a single one of the assumptions enumerated. In point of fact, a few of them are refuted by Christians themselves. The overwhelming majority of religious scholars who happen to also be Christians concede that there were any number of itinerant preachers and reformers roaming around the middle east before, during, and after Christ's supposed life-time. Many of them conveyed very similar ideas and practices. John the Baptist, an equally historically suspicious character, is said by many Christians to be a precursor to Christ. According to scripture there were even groups of theists who mistook John for the Messiah.

Then, of course, there's a problem with characterizing Christ's message. I have heard many Christians reference Mark 12:17, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.", for a variety of purposes. This is just one of many that I would personally interpret as a very conformist stance. Last I checked conforming to conventional norms is the exact opposite of being a radical. But, once again, this is just one possible interpretation. There can be no definitive views on Christ or Christ's message since the only available information is highly dubious and completely subjective.

Basically, if you adhere to standards of historical research the answer to Merritt's question is no since Jesus did not actually exist and therefore did not have a "message" at all. If you take a theological approach, no discernible standards at all, there can be no answer.

Still Logically Untenable

Even though I am sympathetic to TJ Montoya and I tend to favor more liberal strains of theism over their conservative cousins, his overall message is just as willfully ignorant and self deluded as the narrow minded pin-heads who condemn him. Montoya does a pretty good job with his Youtube video but he really does not accomplish what he seems to think he has. Demonstrating that conservative interpretations of the Bible are generally hypocritical self serving forms of bigotry does not itself prove that homosexuality is compatible with either the Bible or Christianity. The simple truth is that Christianity does condemn homosexuals. It just happens to also condemn a wide variety of other behaviors and practices common among all those currently alive. The brief HuffPo write-up on Montoya's video is actually rather annoying since they just pile on another layer of unnecessary bullshit.

"In this video, 18-year-old TJ Montoya discusses the conclusions he has reached as a self-identifying gay Christian after being out of the closet for five years. This well-researched and nuanced discussion serves as a response to Christians who don't necessarily understand what the Bible really has to say about same-sex attraction." Again, Montoya does produced a nice short video. However, it is laced with a wide variety of logical fallacies. It certainly isn't that "well-researched and nuanced." It appears to be more profound mainly due to that fact that the average theist, including nearly the entire stable of HuffPo writers, knows next to nothing about the Bible or Christianity. Reading the Bible cover to cover and paying attention to what it says is merely a small step in the right direction. Montoya probably also read a little further. He probably did a little more research than the average curious person but I don't get the impression he went much beyond that. Simply noting the opinions of others isn't really research.

Sorry TJ but the Bible really does condemn you. Christ also in more than one place reiterates support for Mosaic Law, which also condemns homosexuals. But, if it's any consolation, you and all other homosexuals will have lots of company in Hell. Virtually the entire human species are, according to Biblical standards, sinful "abominations". It's probably a good thing that Hell is as imaginary as God and/or Jesus (depending on whether they are a single entity or not).

Listinng things don't make them true

Mark Sandlin's "10 MORE Things Churches Can’t Do While Following Jesus" is complete crap. There isn't a single on on his list that can't be debated. It is true that you can find scriptural passages that support his favored claims but you can also find passages that contradict his views. I have written about this numerous times. The "truth" is that there is not a single Jesus in the the New Testament. There are a variety of personas that get portrayed under the name Jesus. Pick the Jesus you like best and you can find support for that version. There are a handful from Sandlin's list that I find rather entertaining since there are blatant counter-examples.

"3) Turn the poor away....
4) Narrowly define who is and who isn’t a Christian....
5) Define yourself more by what you’re are against than what you support....
9) Love the sinner hate the sin."

A couple passages I've referenced before immediately spring to mind. Mark 14:3-7 is Jesus' cute self centered "fuck you" to the poor that I have commented on previously. If Jesus can decide on a whim to ignore the poor why can't another self-righteous asshole do the same? Then, of course, there's Luke 19:27 where humanity's savior orders his followers to round up all non-followers and slaughter them. That rather short passage seems to kick the shit out of Sandlin's 4,5,9 and most of the other "10 more things..." to boot.

It is really pretty simple. Followers of Jesus can do just about anything they want in Jesus name and justify it with scripture. This might account for why Christianity became and continues to be so wide spread.

Ryan Bell has a long way to go

Though I still applaud Ryan Bell's interest in learning more about atheists, he really does have a long way to go to rid himself of a wide array of myths and stereotypes. His June 10th post, "Atheists’ favorite Bible verses", makes that pretty clear. Among others, he seems to have fallen for the straw-man criticism that all atheists insist that religion is 100% evil and that nothing positive can be found in scripture. That is completely wrong and a gross mischaracterization. I am very critical of scripture. Even casually skimming through the archive of this blog should make that clear but if you actually read and pay attention it should also be clear that I have not said it isn't possible to draw positive conclusions from a limited number of passages. I happen to think there is far more heinous crap in scripture (the Bible especially) than there is positive. That still is not the same thing. I have also written rather positive pieces about the Tao Te Ching and a few theologically inspired literary works (like The Conference of the Birds).

As a side note, I still really wish he would change the name of his blog. "Year Without God" is so blatantly false that it does diminish his credibility a little. He is not an atheist. He is not going a year without god anymore than he is going a year without oxygen. He is a believer who has decided to spend a year learning more about atheism.

And, though I do not have any "favorites" there are Biblical passages I do like. For instance one of the passages frequently used in Christian wedding ceremonies, 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, is quite beautiful in its wording and meaning. I'd point out that nothing is pure anything. Scripture is not 100% evil. Perhaps 90%.