Why aren’t they all just considered ridiculous?

Part of the art of the con is to state something with absolute sincerity. Once you have learned to fake that sincerity you have a weapon of supreme power. You can say things like "We have the inerrant Word of God" and people, because you are 'sincere', will follow you like baby ducks.

It's best if you can teach children to believe, children with their own inherent need for survival will do anything and believe anything an adult says. And it has the real benefit of creating true, though baseless, beliefs and that can easily be translated into sincerity.

These sincere beliefs are such that even when confronted by the complete oddness of them, the believer holds on.

"So let me get this straight: This one supreme being created the universe and out of the whole universe, picked this one planet, out of billions, to send a man who was also a supreme being to be born into humanity but without having a human father and this fatherless person had to be later killed in order for the supreme being, the first one, to open up heaven for the rest of the people on this one in a billions planet to go to when they die.
So, the supreme being who really loves us, is the kind of entity to which blood and death really appeal, and anybody who dosen't love and follow this loving supreme being's every commandment will be sent into an eternal fire where they will burn forever while the kindly loving supreme being carries on with running the universe.

Joe(and the believer says "Yup")Nation

What's more weird is the "godman" didn't have the DNA of a daddy, since his mother was a virgin. So, I assume he carried the DNA of his mother and no one else. But if that was the case he would be a clone of Mary, which he was not.

Unless the angel had sex with Mary?

No, no, that wouldn't make her a virgin.

I'm getting a brain overload; I need a drink.

So what do you folk do at Christmas if by chance some of your relatives wish to pray before dinner and they look at you in such a manner as to suggest you better get with the program?

Do you show them the same response you would a run-of-the-mill loon?

God would have a super potent essence, and that's why Jesus was able to be white! God has all the genes that whats, he could craft him as he wished.

Maybe that's why people believed in virgin birth!

I can imagine the wispers now...

"He doesn't look like his dad at all."
"Yeah he's so pale"
"You don't think she-"
"-No"
"Yeah, you're right she wouldn't make this up."
"Exactly, he doesn't even look like Mary either."
"How can that be?"
"It'a god-baby. God-babies look like neither parent."
"Really?"
"Yeah, they do... I mean, this is the first but, yeah. God babies don't look like their parents.
"That makes sense."
"Geez, I hope they don't run out of kool-aide, this line is ridiculous."
"They won't. When we parked, I looked behind the tent. They have a bunch."
"I'm just saying, we paid a lot of money, and I was promised refreshments."
"Calm down"
"Oh jesus, I forgot my wallet!"
"It's probably in the car!"
'I KNOW IT'S IN THE CAR!"

"Tom, I'm just trying to help! I'll keep out place in line go get it."
"I can't the door says no re-admittance."
"Well were you going to get something in the gift shop?"
"If I saw something I liked, yeah. Plus I told Ted since he couldn't get off work I'd get him a mug. You know Ted, he collects mugs."
"Well I have some cash in my purse."
"..."
"Is that okay?"
"Yeah... it's just-"
"-Just what?"
"I feel weird when you buy things for me. I feel like everyone is looking at me."
"You could just point at it and then I could buy it. It's not like I'm going to make you beg for money in public."
"humpfh"
"WHAT? When have I ever done anything like that?"
"Remember when we went to muontain because that Mores guy-"
"-His name was Moses-"
"Whatever. The time we went to see Moses because he posted on his blog that he was going to get the 10 amendments"
"..."
"What?"
"nothing"
"No what. You gave a look"
"Co-mand-ments not amendments."
"..."
"What? You asked!"
"You are always correcting me!"
"... you were saying?"
"anyways... Like I was saying, we were at the mountain, and you had you wouldn't let me take any of the pictures, and when I asked, you said 'do you even know how to use the camera?' You said it so loud, and people were laughing!"
"I told you I was sorry!"
"I know, but I'm just saying that's all."
"So you want the cash?"
"If that's ok with you."
"I offered didn't I?"
"yes."

"you could say thank you."
"You see... this is what I mean. You know what forget it."
"What?"
"I would never do this to you."
"You are so moody! So defensive!"
"You would too if you lived uner constant criticism."
"Oh don't be DRAMATIC!"
"I'M NOT BEING DRAMATIC!-"
"-stop shouting."
"... I'm talking at the exactly same volume that you are-"
"Quiet! We're next in line."
"oh..."
"Get the tickets."
"Let me see the camera."
"Here you go... make sure to use the falsh, were indoors."
"I know how to take a photo."
"Rar... moody."
"What! The sign says no photography!"
"It's fine, it's says we can buy a DVD in the gift shop."
"Typical."
"Yeah Typical."
"...sigh"
"I love you."
"I love you too."

Sometimes, you just start typing, and ever stop. sorry.

Funny stuff all!

I have no excuse for myself.

I forget to mention that the godman without anybody's DNA who died didn't. Well, he did. He did die a really horrible death. He was beaten and whipped, then forced to carry this huge piece of lumber halfway across town and up a hill with his torturers beating him the whole way and then (boy I hope they never expose children to this story) they put nails through his hands and his feet into the wood and raised it to vertical position so he just hung there in agony. He died about three hours later but first they stabbed him in the chest.

This is how the supreme supreme allows his "son" to be treated, guess how you are going to fair.

Anyway, all this blood and gore and violent torture is supposed to make us believe the supreme supreme loves us. I have great sympathy for the victims of torture, I am not so inclined towards anyone or anything, in this case the supreme being, who allows such things to occur.

And it's such a odd thing, isn't it.? Why would a supreme being need to have a gory blood sacrifice, what is he some kind of throwback to the really ancient gods of Ur? (Yes. but that is another matter.)

Wasn't it enough for a god to become a human. What a demotion!!

Why wouldn't The Christ have walked among us teaching us how to love and be peaceful and holy for a life lasting a hundred years?
We would have all benefited from such a teacher.

Instead, and this is the supreme supreme who comes up with this idea, you know, the same one who created the whole frigging universe, Jesus comes to earth and lives with his mom and er uh lives in his parent's house until he is thirty then goes out on his own and gets killed three years later. What?

Is it just the Madison Ave aspect,??? the gooey death translates into more believers because we as humans just can't resist a victim? That's pretty shallow.

If there is a god, somewhere there is a team of angels apologizing to him for not keeping a closer eye on Earth's monkeys.

Joe(You let them evolve into what? What the ?? Have you seen Earth's atmosphere lately!!??)Nation

From a blog by Byron Williams...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Thank god for Christopher Hitchens.

The extremely erudite writer for Vanity Fair and other publications has written a polemic against faith and in doing so, provides everyone, regardless of belief, another opportunity to re-examine themselves, which is always a useful exercise.

Obviously, I don't share Hitchens' atheistic convictions, but I find it more enriching to learn from those I may be philosophically opposed to than those I might be in lockstep. Frankly, I have more problems with Hitchens' support for the Iraq war than his need to prove faith is nothing more than a meaningless ritual.

In his book, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Hitchens argues that religion is the original sin. He manages to find fault with the theological beliefs of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mother Teresa, Gandhi, the Dali Lama and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yet, in order to make his argument work, Hitchens must construct an ecumenical straw man, which proves a less-than-worthy adversary for Hitchens' keen mind and witty prose.
For Hitchens, people of faith are tantamount to the Stepford Wives, who pathetically relinquished their ability to think critically in exchange for the vague promise of eternal life. He ignorantly assumes that the basis for religion is the fear of death -- beyond this he offers nothing definitive.

But Hitchens is not without fodder that's neatly provided over centuries by people of faith along with their sacred texts. Faith, and more specifically the church, has been found on occasion to be on the wrong side of human atrocity. Ironically, this ultimately proves to be a weakness in Hitchens' argument.

He takes the most ridiculous, and in many cases, antiquated aspects of faith and presents them as mainstream orthodoxy. Hitchens creates a false conundrum whereby if one disavows the most absurd aspects of the Levitical Laws they prove his point as the uselessness of faith.
I don't know a single person of faith who takes literally everything written in the book of Leviticus. Arguing at the margins, as Hitchens does, can be a successful debating tactic, but it can hardly be confused with adding to the quality of the discourse.

Perhaps what I find most troubling is Hitchens, whose work over the years I greatly admire, reveals himself as nothing more than the inverse of what he claims to abhor. His intolerance for people of faith rivals that of Christian fundamentalists like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Just as Falwell and Robertson offer a faith with no room for gays, feminists or liberals, Hitchens responds by offering a world with all of its scientific and technological advances with no room for people of faith.

For Hitchens, it is intellectually inconsistent for critical thinking to coexist with deeply held spiritual values.

But faith, as Hitchens erroneously argues, is not merely something to die by; it is also something to live by. Peace is an individual journey. It's extremely arrogant to suggest only those whose beliefs mirror my own will experience it.

Thus, one could argue that Hitchens is offering fundamentalism for atheists. Such absolute thinking seldom benefits the human adventure.

Beyond his own catharsis, who was Hitchens' intended target? If it's for fellow or prospective atheists, Hitchens only covers ground previously treaded. If anything, he may cause prospective atheists to wonder whether there is something to this faith thing after all.

Hitchens' real target audience, though I suspect he would vehemently disagree, is people of faith. Hitchens is daring those of faith to read his book. With all of the bravado of Col. Nathan Jessop in a Few Good Men, Hitchens is declaring: "You can't handle the truth!"

But only fundamentalists, regardless their ilk, believe they are the purveyors of "the" truth.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't we all just get along?

That's called "love" Joe. Didn't anyone tell you that the supreme supreme loved man sooooooooooooo much he sacrificed his only son (did he have daughters?) so we would be allowed to inhabit his city of gold?

I've always been curious about that expression "his only son", as if sons are far more important than daughters. Would the supreme supreme sacrificed a daughter? Sounds like a big no as the supreme supreme believes sons have a superior status to daughters.

And God loved man so much he sacrificed his only daughter.

I guess that's not very convincing.

I guess Byron Williams has never hear of the expressions,
"Fear God" or "He's a God fearing man."

I suppose he's ignorant of the writings of the early Christians about the consequences one faces if they don't believe. I don't think he's ever hear the conservative Christians today describe the hellfire and damnation one will receive if they don't believe in the proper fashion.

Me thinks it's Byron Williams who is the ignorant one. Much of Christianity was founded upon and is ruled by fear.

Are you going to tell me the majority of Christians believe that if you don't believe in Christ you will go to heaven? Have you not read the Book of Revelations? Did you know it is the unbelievers and idol worshipers who will be thrown in the Lake of Fire?


Faith produces people like Falwell, Robertson and Osama bin Laden. They were not produced by secular beliefs. They came from the Bible and Koran. When the Bible and Koran preaches hate why should we not expect it to produce believers who preach hate.

BTW, one can believe in science, evolution and be religious. Ever hear of a Deist?


Yes, I do have a hard time with a human with no male DNA, a godman not unlike that of the pagan religions.


Atheism is a belief (a belief in no God) and they, like religious believers, can be obnoxious. But unlike religion, I have never heard of anyone wanting to kill for atheism. But I have heard of many, through the times and today, who will kill and destroy for their God and in the name of their God.

Does such absolute thinking with regard to religion benefit mankind? I believe the most progressive time in Europe was during the Enlightenment when the yoke of the Catholic Church was removed and Europeans were allowed to express themselves without fear of being burned or tortured.


And they are a very large minority in America.


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/haught_25_2.htm

25% of Americans believe Jesus will appear in 2007. That's about 75 million people.

http://religion.netscape.com/story/2007/01/04/25-percent-of-polled-americans-believe-jesus-will-return-in-07/

Where do you think these purveyors of hate get their beliefs from?

The word of God.

If you have a God that approves of the massacre of a tribe of people, except for the little virgin girls who are to be given to soldiers as a reward, what do you expect the believers to believe?

I might point out that Buddhists don't actually believe in a divine, omnipotent deity, as christians, jews and muslims do.

Snood's article has some good points, I find the rest of this waaay over the top. I'm not religious, and never have been, but I don't think that everyone who is religious is a loon. I see plenty of reasons why perfectly sane and nice people would be religious.

Unfortunately, no we cannot. There are millions of religious nut cases in this nation who would impose a theocratic regime on us if they could get away with it. Even if 90% of all religious people are not dangerous nut cases, that still leaves far too many who are dangerous.

So, no we cannot get along, so long as there is a threat to our freedom from the wild-eyed bible thumpers.

OK, but that's wild-eyed bible thumpers, not religious people in general.

Most of this venom is spewed at people who are just plain religious. Who believe in a god of some sort. (Though Wilso makes a good point about Buddhists.)

And the Hindu's? Don't know much about them but don't they believe in a variety of Gods?

One main god, who takes different forms (sort of like how the Christian god took different forms).

I made that distinction, so what's your beef? I was simply responding to Snood's question of whether or not we can't all just get along by pointing out that we can't, thanks to religious fanaticism.



What venom would that be?